7 ms·
First this is patent, not copyright law. And the issue is that Apple has effectively committed libel against Samsung in the UK with its repeated claims that th
by Niten 14y ago
First this is patent, not copyright law.
And the issue is that Apple has effectively committed libel against Samsung in the UK with its repeated claims that the Samsung tablet is a copy of the iPad. This claim has turned out to be legally false, and now Apple is obliged to correct any turn of public opinion against Samsung that it instigated by making this false claim in the first place.
- ionwake 14y agoplus apple were DICKS about it
- shinratdr 14y agoOh my god, companies being petty in the legal department!? Say it ain't so!
- jagira 14y agoTotally worth a billion dollars. :-)
- Camillo 14y agoSo it's the same libel laws that we were regarding as batshit insane just a few months ago, when they were being used to silence scientists and journalists. But since they're now being used against a company some people don't like, the tune has changed to "you don't mess with the UK courts", "they had it coming", "my judge can beat up your judge", and similar outbursts of vicarious machismo. I find the tribalism in the tech community reprehensible.
- rhizome 14y agoYou're right, a critique of the UK libel laws is not subject to simplicity since it cuts both ways. Not everything boils down to black & white thinking.
- darkarmani 14y agoThis is not a case of abusive use of libel laws. This is actually a case of libel where they were proven in a court of law to be lying. The reason people are upset about the oppressive libel laws is that they suppress true factual speech. Libel is supposed to be about falsehoods.
- nirvana 14y agoIt's not libel because it's true. This just shows how much of a joke the UK legal system is. And you guys getting excited about where the notice appears on the page shows just what petty and petulant jokes you are.
- phpnode 14y agoIt's not libel because it's true. the contrary, the court has explicitly found that Samsung did not infringe, so it is indeed libel. This just shows how much of a joke the UK legal system is. That "joke" provides the foundation for the American legal system as well as that of all commonwealth countries, are those legal systems jokes too? If the court had ruled in Apple's favour would you still be posting here calling the UK legal system a joke? (this is a rhetorical question) And you guys getting excited about where the notice appears on the page shows just what petty and petulant jokes you are. Hello pot, meet kettle
- jakejake 14y agoThanks for the reply, the libel issue makes sense. I've never seen that particular type of penalty before, is that something that happens often? I've personally never noticed it before, but then again I probably have not paid attention to that kind of thing either.