Apple has lost its appeal against a UK ruling that Samsung did not replicate its iPad , and will have to take this publicly in a series of adverts .
Bizarrely , part of Judge Birss ’ reasoning was that the iPad is “ nerveless ” but Samsung tablet , while “ very , very similar ” when viewed from the front , “ are not as cool ” . He added that they do not incarnate Apple ’s common sense of “ utmost simple mindedness ” .
The acknowledgement of the ruling , Birss said , had to be posted on Apple ’s British website for six month and come out in theDaily Mail , theFinancial Timesand theGuardian , among other UK interior newspaper publisher .
Apple appealed against the ruling – and the connected humiliation of acknowledging it publically – but now present defeat , and appear to have no choice but to set its ad agency on the problem .
Perhaps a sarcastic allusion to Judge Birss ’s controversial reasoning may feature in the adverts . When wepolled Macworld readersin July , the most popular tagline for adverts admitting that Samsung did n’t copy the iPad was“We’ve been instructed to tell you that Samsung ’s tab are n’t as cool as ours ” .
Slightly more reserved suggestion , such as “ The Samsung Galaxy Tab : definitely 100 % not an iPad rip - off ” and “ Samsung Galaxy Tab : opine different ” were far less pop with 6.9 per cent and 3.7 per cent respectively .
Apple vs Samsung: Why Apple lost
Interestingly , one of the evaluator involve in the appeal process chose tomake it clearthat the case does not in fact revolve around a simple question of copying .
Sir Robin Jacob said : “ Because this case , and parallel cases in other countries , has generated much publicity , it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about .
“ It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple ’s iPad . Infringement of a registered aim does not involve any motion of whether there was copying : the number is simply whether the accuse design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the constabulary . ”
Apple vs Samsung: Back and forth
It ’s a important setback in Apple ’s patent war against Samsung , which has ebb back and forth with notable victories for both party and a number of stalemates . Apple was victorious in the liberal conflict of all – thecourtroom showdownin its base country of California , which saw Samsung slapped with a billion - dollar fine – but Samsung has chalked up points in Europe , Australasia and Asia .
Apple has yet to notice on the defeat ; unsurprisingly , Samsung has been more forthcoming .
“ We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corner , and that the origins of Apple ’s register design features can be found in legion deterrent example of prior artistic creation , ” a spokesperson stated .
“ Should Apple continue to make inordinate legal claims in other countries based on such generic designs , innovation in the industriousness could be harm and consumer alternative unduly limited . ”
See also :
Malus pumila v Samsung : complete summary of letters patent trial
Everything you need to love about Apple vs Samsung
