I’ve always enjoyed hearing about judges who use unusual remedies to make a point. One well-publicized case involved sentencing some kids who vandalized veterans’ graves to watch the movie Saving Private Ryan.
Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) is facing one such sentence in the UK: a judge is requiring that Apple publish a notice on its Website stating Samsung Corp. did not infringe on Apple’s iPad patent, Bloomberg reports:
As well as Apple’s website, the company must pay for notices in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, Guardian Mobile magazine, and T3, according to a draft copy of the order provided by Samsung’s lawyers.
One of the reasons cited for this measure is Apple’s widespread use of patent law as a means to block sales of Samsung’s Galaxy tablet around the globe. But it’s a backhanded victory for Samsung: the justice said the Galaxy couldn’t be confused with the iPad because it is not as “cool.”
In another twist, the judge denied Samsung’s request that Apple be blocked from making public statements about the Galaxy. Apple is entitled to its opinion, he said.
This is Apple’s second comeuppance in as many weeks: Last week, Apple withdrew from the EPEAT environmental ratings organization, only to return several days later. (See: Apple's EPEAT Fiasco.) Apple was roundly criticized by customers and environmentalists alike, and Bob Mansfield, Apple’s senior vice president of hardware engineering, signed a letter of explanation that for Apple rated as an apology.
The whole Apple-Samsung legal saga lapsed into silliness several lawsuits ago. Experts’ examination of the Galaxy’s and iPad’s designs show significant differences, yet infringement accusations require a defense and, apparently, several countersuits. Although the UK judge probably didn’t intend to set a precedent, it's possible the “uncool defense” will soon start cropping up in the legal lexicon.
In the meantime, did the "I will not..." punishment work for you in grade school? Or would you do the same thing again?
My daughter reports that certain teachers require apology letters. But she doesn't mind writing them, (rather like Anne in Anne of Green Gables) finding in them an outlet for creativity.
I like the judge's decision on this. Instead of just ending the case by stating that Samsung did nothing wrong, there is actually an outcome against the accusing company. More outcomes should be like this, with companies taking responsibility for their actions, instead of always trying to battle other companies in court to get the upper hand in the marketplace.
This is something which motivates apple I guess. Its a factor which should be looked very closely and a factor which should be improved for sucessability
It'd be nice but I don't really expect it to make much of a difference. There is so much money tied up in even taking these cases in front of a judge (pre-judegement). So those that have built careers on it won't be perturbed much.
How about make Apple allow any person that bought an iPad (while the rule was in place) to be allowed to return it without a fee, if they switch to Samsung?
Roques, I think it's a policy addressed by the service provider. Since the service is attached with the devices, service peoples have to take care about such issues.
Maybe this will send a humbling lesson to all the patent trolls flooding the courtrooms!
@pocharle, I am not sure if this verdict will have much of an impact. Different courts interpret the cases in different way. Infact Apple has won the case against samsung in many different courts so may be they have the option to approach higher court.
Excellent mention. There's this point as well. Laws in this nation are bound by so many different measures that one judge can easily interpret another judge's ruling as 'incorrect'. So with enough of that and a lengthy appeals process, the same case can end up being dragged through the dockets repeatedly.
@_hm: who (or what) is the judge prejudiced against? Even though Samsung "won," he clearly likes Apple's product. There is an odd kind of balance there...
When a particular brand or technology becomes so popular, such issues can be happen. Most of the other things are get unnoticed. Now the game war is between Apple and Samsung, so what's the benefit a customer can get it out from that.
One of the reasons cited for this measure is Apple's widespread use of patent law as a means to block sales of Samsung's Galaxy tablet around the globe.
@Barbara, thanks for the post. I think Apple has all the right to block sales of Samsung Galaxy if it thinks that Apple patent is being violated. So the question should be whether Samsung has violated any Apple-patent's rather than whether apple was right in blocking the sales of samsung tablet.
"But it's a backhanded victory for Samsung: the justice said the Galaxy couldn't be confused with the iPad because it is not as "cool.""
When I knew about the judge saying that there was not such patent infringement because Samsung tablet's design was not as creative and cool as Apple's, I thought that it was a great marketing statement for Apple: even the law had noticed that Apple's tablet is better. Therefore, there is no patent issue.
So, from the marketing point of view, it was a victory for Apple, not for Samsung.
Sentencing kids to watch Saving Private Ryan for vantalizing veterans' graves sounds like an educative sentence. It makes sense. The kids may think about something, if not now, later on in their lives. What was the other option, send them to prison to develop more negative personalities and end up with mental issues, and physical abuse, maybe?
Sentencing Apple as if it were a kid:
On the other hand, requiring Apple to publish a notice on its Website stating Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's iPad patent sounds ridiculous. It doesn't make sense. To me, this sounds more like the judges are already tired of these continuing, never-ending patent issues.
@Susan, I agree, the judgement served in this case is absolutely pointless. Could it be that the courts are signalling to these companies to get their acts together over unnecessary patent law suits? (It's almost like squabbling little children).
Yes, it could be. It could also be that the courts are getting lazy. Maybe they are seeing an easy way out by sentencing companies or people to just post statements on their Websites or status updates for X number of days on social media networks to get rid of them fast. Public exposure, and ridiculizing publicly seems to be the new way of dealing with everything.
You're absolutely correct Susan. The courts are overwhelmed. I think the only solution to accelerate the process of delivering judgements as it appears, I'm afraid is whichever seemed fit- sentencing Apple to letter writing is low (shameful).
I haven't been successful in thinking of a good reason why a judge would have thought that letter writing was going to be useful other than trying to make the manufacturers think it twice before suing a competitor.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This