4 ms·

So a few things: 1) The order from the court was for the UK site only. This makes sense - it was a UK ruling from a UK court which has no jurisdiction in any o

So a few things: 1) The order from the court was for the UK site only. This makes sense - it was a UK ruling from a UK court which has no jurisdiction in any other countries. There are separate cases in places like Germany. It make no sense for the UK courts to force Apple to make statements in other countries covering rulings made under laws that don't apply there and which may (and in some cases do) contradict rulings made under the laws of those countries. 2) There was no demand for an apology and I'm not sure why you think that there is. The court is very specific about what has to be said which is that Apple make it clear that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy the iPad. They also include wording which must be in there and details on the font size and that there must be a link to the actual ruling. 3) Judgements is a perfectly valid spelling here in the UK, they're used interchangeably. Check justice.gov.uk if you don't believe me - you get significant numbers of hits for both. EDIT: I bow to the greater knowledge of others here - both spellings are common but it seems that judgment is the one used for legal rulings. Actual ruling here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html (Note that the appeals court changed 6 months to 1 month but upheld the link from the homepage).

rmc 14y ago
from a UK court Pedantically, it appears to be from a English & Welsh court, not UK.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  I live in Scotland, I really shouldn't have got that wrong.
- aes256 14y ago
  Technically any court with jurisdiction over England and Wales is also "a UK court", in the same sense as you would refer to a German court as a "European court". It's simply describing the general location within which a court resides, not precisely demarcating its jurisdiction.
  - rmc 14y ago
    Yes you are right that you could interpret it as being a mere location, however there are courts that cover all of the UK , e.g. the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kin... ). Likewise, a german court would have no juristicion over the rest of the EU (say). If it was a german court decision it would be misleading to say "it was a EU ruling from a EU court which has no jurisdiction in any other countries/supranational bodies.", since that implies the court could have power over the whole of the EU. Likewise "UK court" might imply juristiction over all of UK.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
chrisacky 14y ago
On your point 3) If I can remember correctly from my law lectures, "judgments" are reserved exclusively for the legal usage (courts, tribunals etc). There is only one correct spelling of "judgment" in the legal sense, everywhere else gives a judgement as to their opinion on a matter, the difference being, that if someone passes a judgment then you know it has come from a legally binding court of law. I would regularly get a red pen marker through my essays if I used the wrong version (so you quickly get things like this drilled into you). If it's written with the "e" version on justice.gov.uk then they are either using it wrong, or they are using the non legal version (ie "In my judgement this painting looks like a fake", compared to, "In the courts judgment, the painting was a held to be a forgery"). It might seem pedantic, but I guess that's the way law is. For instance, court and Court (when used legally) also mean and can refer to two different things. On point 2) Do you think that Apple made it clear that the court ruled in favour of Samsung? One line was given to this, whereas 20+ was given to why Apple feel that this judgment was a mistake? I've updated my original comment anyway. (I agree that they didn't have to include the link for other countries as per your first point).
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Re the spelling of judgment / judgement I apologise and bow to your greater knowledge. I certainly think it's debatable whether it makes it clear but I suspect the issue is that the court was very precise in what it said had to be included, how it had to be presented and so on, so as long as Apple ticked all those boxes they can say they've complied. My point on that was really that the requirement was for a simple informational message. The court made no mention that there should be an apology which would be a very different thing.
SEMW 14y ago
> The court is very specific about what has to be said which is that Apple make it clear that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy the iPad On the contrary. The court was very specific that this case actually has nothing to do with whether Samsung did or did not copy the iPad, and went to some lengths to explain why not. "It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law. Whether or not Apple could have sued in England and Wales for copying is utterly irrelevant to this case. If they could, they did not." (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html at [3]). Registered design law is not copyright law. You can infringe a registered design without having ever copied, seen, or even know of the design you're infringing on. Conversely, you can copy a design but alter it enough that it "produce[s] on the informed user a different overall impression" from the original and not infringe.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Apologies, but the point stands that the court didn't demand an apology, it demanded that Apple post and explanation of the ruling including a number of specific points.

rmc 14y ago

from a UK court Pedantically, it appears to be from a English & Welsh court, not UK.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
I live in Scotland, I really shouldn't have got that wrong.
aes256 14y ago
Technically any court with jurisdiction over England and Wales is also "a UK court", in the same sense as you would refer to a German court as a "European court". It's simply describing the general location within which a court resides, not precisely demarcating its jurisdiction.
- rmc 14y ago
  Yes you are right that you could interpret it as being a mere location, however there are courts that cover all of the UK , e.g. the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kin... ). Likewise, a german court would have no juristicion over the rest of the EU (say). If it was a german court decision it would be misleading to say "it was a EU ruling from a EU court which has no jurisdiction in any other countries/supranational bodies.", since that implies the court could have power over the whole of the EU. Likewise "UK court" might imply juristiction over all of UK.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

chrisacky 14y ago

On your point 3) If I can remember correctly from my law lectures, "judgments" are reserved exclusively for the legal usage (courts, tribunals etc). There is only one correct spelling of "judgment" in the legal sense, everywhere else gives a judgement as to their opinion on a matter, the difference being, that if someone passes a judgment then you know it has come from a legally binding court of law. I would regularly get a red pen marker through my essays if I used the wrong version (so you quickly get things like this drilled into you). If it's written with the "e" version on justice.gov.uk then they are either using it wrong, or they are using the non legal version (ie "In my judgement this painting looks like a fake", compared to, "In the courts judgment, the painting was a held to be a forgery"). It might seem pedantic, but I guess that's the way law is. For instance, court and Court (when used legally) also mean and can refer to two different things. On point 2) Do you think that Apple made it clear that the court ruled in favour of Samsung? One line was given to this, whereas 20+ was given to why Apple feel that this judgment was a mistake? I've updated my original comment anyway. (I agree that they didn't have to include the link for other countries as per your first point).

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
Re the spelling of judgment / judgement I apologise and bow to your greater knowledge. I certainly think it's debatable whether it makes it clear but I suspect the issue is that the court was very precise in what it said had to be included, how it had to be presented and so on, so as long as Apple ticked all those boxes they can say they've complied. My point on that was really that the requirement was for a simple informational message. The court made no mention that there should be an apology which would be a very different thing.

SEMW 14y ago

> The court is very specific about what has to be said which is that Apple make it clear that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy the iPad On the contrary. The court was very specific that this case actually has nothing to do with whether Samsung did or did not copy the iPad, and went to some lengths to explain why not. "It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law. Whether or not Apple could have sued in England and Wales for copying is utterly irrelevant to this case. If they could, they did not." (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html at [3]). Registered design law is not copyright law. You can infringe a registered design without having ever copied, seen, or even know of the design you're infringing on. Conversely, you can copy a design but alter it enough that it "produce[s] on the informed user a different overall impression" from the original and not infringe.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
Apologies, but the point stands that the court didn't demand an apology, it demanded that Apple post and explanation of the ruling including a number of specific points.