MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: wut on July 19, 2012, 15:03
-
Where else can a judge make such a ruling ;D ?
"The notice should outline the July 9 London court decision that Samsung’s Galaxy tablets don’t infringe Apple’s registered designs, Judge Colin Birss said yesterday. It should be posted on Apple’s U.K. home page for six months and published in several newspapers and magazines to correct any impression the South Korea-based company was copying Apple’s product, Birss said."
-
Imagine we, contributors, would win in court and agencies would be obligated to run ads saying the old royalty percentages were not unsustainable and also post it on their sites ;D . It would sure be a cherry on top of getting the old royalty percentages back :)
-
Being a lawyer (albeit not an English one), I find this decision quite problematic. This goes way beyond the accepted practice of forcing someone to publicly "take back" what they previously stated. The way I see it, this is an instance of forcing someone to publicly state an opinion that isn't theirs, which where I'm from is - with narrow exceptions in the area of commercial speech, like product information ruels - considered an infringement on the freedom of speech.
Once the state can force private citizens to express certain opinions, it becomes hard to tell what people really want to say. And that is integral to a democratic society.
-
Doesn't this make up for it?
Samsung’s tablets are “not as cool” as Apple’s, a senior British judge ruled today
http://gigaom.com/europe/apples-tablets-are-cooler-than-samsungs-uk-judge-rules/ (http://gigaom.com/europe/apples-tablets-are-cooler-than-samsungs-uk-judge-rules/)
-
What Apple was doing with all the law suits was more than just a little over the top. I think it's right they learn a lesson the hard way (and amusing for many) and get a bit humiliated along the way (that'll make them think twice before putting out more or less bogus law suits).
-
What Apple was doing with all the law suits was more than just a little over the top. I think it's right they learn a lesson the hard way (and amusing for many) and get a bit humiliated along the way (that'll make them think twice before putting out more or less bogus law suits).
But the thing is that what you say or imply in court is something entirely different from what you state in other public forums. And for good reason - otherwise any court battle could go into a "second round" where the winner now sues the looser for calling him names just by attacking/defending in court. This kind of thing still happens, but the suits are usually laughed out of court.
On an entirely different level, I am not so sure Apple really is the patent troll they are made out to be. Most of these suits do have some merit, as they are about outrageous design similarities and the like. It's not like these are the kind of "we have a patent on combining a camera with a mobile phone" bs.