Tal como anticipamos, Apple ha sido reprimido por el juez que ordenó a la americana en disculparse con Samsung en Inglaterra por acusarlos de que se copiaron de ellos.
Un juez británico ha reprendido a Apple por la “falsa” e “incorrecto” el aviso publicado en su sitio web del Reino Unido que reconoce un fallo que la Tablet de Samsung, el Galaxy Tab no violentó una patente de diseño para el iPad.
La carta dice como sigue:
Samsung / Apple UK judgment
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic(UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do notinfringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the Highcourt is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
“The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design.”
“The informed user’s overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool.”
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad.
Asumimos que en efecto el último párrafo pudo haberle traído problemas, adicional del mismo lenguaje de la carta.
Apple fue ordenado originalmente para emitir una simple notificación a través de las redes donde conectan el iPad y la carta mencionada sobre que reconocen que Samsung no había copiado los productos de Apple después de que un tribunal británico falló a favor de Samsung el 18 de octubre.
En cambio, Apple introduce cuatro párrafos que hacen que parezca que Samsung hizo “cool [er]” copia de Apple, iPad, y sugieren que la decisión del tribunal del Reino Unido estaba fuera de línea con los de otros tribunales.
Por su parte Apple indica que rechazó la acusación alegando que tomaría por lo menos dos semanas para obtener una nueva versión trabajada, una declaración que presuntamente causó incredulidad por parte de algunos funcionarios judiciales.
La malicia de alguno dicen que Apple declara esto a propósito para ganar tiempo para la temporada navideña ya que para nada hay caras contentas en cuanto a la situación británica se refiere.
