Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / Apple v Samsung (UK) / Jeremy Phillips / publication of judicial decisions / Apple v Samsung: if you liked the post, you'll love the judgment

Apple v Samsung: if you liked the post, you'll love the judgment

- , ,
This early prototype of the iPad
design never really caught on ...
Last week's Katpost, "Beloff baked, Apple roasted, Britons unscrewed" (here), happily turned out to be one of the most popular ever. It featured an eye-witness report, lovingly drafted by EIP's Gary Moss, of the fireworks in the Court of Appeal for England and Wales when told that Apple had not complied with an order that it publicise the fact that Samsung's table computer did not infringe its iPad Community registered design anywhere in the European Union.

Today, again thanks to Gary, the IPKat is proud to bring its readers the full text of the judgment, which you can read here. The attached file is "subject to editorial corrections"; Samsung's original note was subject to a good deal more than that!

UPDATE: the judgment, presumably with all editorial corrections now made, has just been posted on BAILII as [2012] EWCA Civ 1430.
Apple v Samsung: if you liked the post, you'll love the judgment Apple v Samsung: if you liked the post, you'll love the judgment Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, November 09, 2012 Rating: 5

3 comments:

  1. AnonymousFriday, 9 November 2012 at 11:13:00 GMT

    I'm waiting for the next round, when Apple's latest version of the notice is also found noncompliant with the purpose of the judgement, being positioned such that all normal users of the page will not view it unless they take special steps to do so:

    http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2222279/apple-hides-rewritten-samsung-notice-on-its-website

    ReplyDelete
  2. Andy JFriday, 9 November 2012 at 14:12:00 GMT

    Anon @ 11.13.
    Apparently the javascript which caused the notice to be hidden has now been removed: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/08/apple_removes_apology_hiding_javascript/

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousFriday, 9 November 2012 at 15:00:00 GMT

    Quite.

    Now, their Ipad advert is just big enough for the court-ordered notice to be concealed off the bottom of even a largeish monitor (1050 vertical pixels, well above the majority of users, according to http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_resolution_higher.asp).

    Even now, the notice is (as the late Douglas Adams would have had it) "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".

    Still not going out of their way to draw any attention to it, in other words.

    The Judge mentioned "We thought otherwise. The Contested Notice had had over a million hits. It was necessary that the fact it was misleading be brought home. Only a notice on Apple's homepage could be sure to do that." I think Apple has shown that not even such a notice will bring home the fact that it was misleading to the lay publice.

    Law of the playground, rather than law of the land, it seems.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.