輓歌嗎?人地個法官叫渠釐清侵權疑雲以釋除消費者的疑慮，渠就話美國佬判三叔侵權要賠十億畀渠，又話歐盟成員老大哥德國佬唔同英國咁判(注意﹕英國嗰個係坐喺Community Court 是apply 成個EU)，想點先?我覺得渠藐視法庭，應該吊銷嗰個幫渠寫嘢個律師仔個牌~
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2012/samsung-apple-judgment-09072012
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 冇要求有真係SAY SORRY:-
Let's cite judgments listed in the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) database.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html#para191
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1223.html
- However, Samsung sought two further orders. The first was an injunction restraining Apple from representing that the Samsung Tablets infringed the registered design. The second was an injunction requiring Apple to arrange for the publication of a notice on the homepage of its UK website, in three national newspapers, the Financial Times, the Daily Mail and The Guardian, and in two trade magazines, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine.
- The notice is in the following terms:
- The judge declined to make the first of these two orders, but he acceded to the application in respect of the second and it is contained in paragraph (3) of his order. He directed that the notice should appear on the home page of Apple's UK website in a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt together with a hyperlink to the judgment and that the notice and the hyperlink should remain displayed for a period of six months. Further, the notice in the newspaper and trade magazines should be published in a font size no smaller than Arial 14pt and appear on a page earlier than page 6.
"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England & Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 00181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link: [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat)"
- ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
Of course our decision fully understood actually lifts the fog that the cloud of litigation concerning the alleged infringement of the Apple registered design by the Samsung Galaxy 10.1, 8.9 and 7.7 tablets must have created. And doubtless the decision will be widely publicised. But media reports now, given the uncertainty created by the conflicting reports of the past, are not enough. Another lot of media reports, reporting more or less accurately that Samsung have not only finally won but been vindicated on appeal may not be enough to disperse all the fog. It is now necessary to make assurance doubly so. Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that it acknowledges that the court has decided that these Samsung products do not infringe its registered design. The acknowledgement must come from the horse's mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
But I have come to the firm conclusion that such an order is necessary now. The decision of the Oberlandesgericht received much publicity. What was the ordinary consumer, or the marketing department of a potential Samsung customer to make of it? On the one hand the media said Samsung had won, on the other the media were saying that Apple had a German Europe-wide injunction. Real commercial uncertainty was thereby created. A consumer might well think "I had better not buy a Samsung - maybe it's illegal and if I buy one it may not be supported". A customer (and I include its legal department) might well wonder whether, if it bought Samsung's 7.7 it might be in trouble before the German courts. Safest thing to do either way is not to buy.
- But of course Apple had been doing and was continuing to do something inconsistent with the declaration of Judge Birss. It had obtained and was keeping in force the order of the Oberlandesgericht. That said the 7.7 could not be sold throughout Europe. Judge Birss's order said it could.
- As the matter developed before us through questioning, Apple first offered to apply to the German court to have the effect of its order limited so as expressly not to apply to the UK. It became evident that was not good enough. Judge Birss's order (which at that point was assumed to be correct, we had not yet decided the appeal) applied throughout the EU because he was sitting as a Community Court. So eventually, but only in Lord Grabiner's reply speech, Apple accepted that the German injunction should be discharged altogether and undertook to this court forthwith to apply to the German court for it to be discharged.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/26/apple-publishes-samsung-did-not-copy-statement-through-gritted/
UK judge rules Apple must advertise Samsung did not copy the iPad
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/18/uk_judge_rules_apple_must_advertise_samsung_did_not_copy_the_ipad
沒有留言:
張貼留言