For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Friday, 9 November 2012

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.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

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

Andy J said...

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/

Anonymous said...

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.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':