Last workweek Apple lost an appeal against a UK High Court of Justice ruling , and was told to post a public apology to Samsung . In Arial . Nowit ’s pop up online .
https://gizmodo.com/apple-forced-to-run-public-apology-in-14pt-arial-5952790
The apology is n’t a friendly “ sorry I screwed up ” , but a rather prospicient , tiresome passage of legalese . No surprise , really , but it is beneficial to see that Appleis complyingwith the order that the transit be send in Arial . When the excuse hits the newspapers — presumptively today or tomorrow — it should appear in school text “ no smaller than 14 pts ” in sizing .
The original legal case in question threw out Apple ’s complaint about Samsung , when Judge Colin Biriss explained that Galaxy pad “ do not have the same unpretentious and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design … They are not as coolheaded . ” As a issue , Biriss judged that consumers were unconvincing to confuse the two tablets , meaning that Samsung ’s merchandise did n’t infringe on Apple ’s registered excogitation .
The apology is Apple ’s motion toward admitting that ’s the case . you’re able to take the apologyonline on the Apple UK site , but it ’s pasted in full here :
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales govern that Samsung Electronic ( UK ) Limited ’s Galaxy Tablet Computer , namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1 , Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not conflict Apple ’s registered design No . 0000181607 - 0001 . A copy of the full judgment of the gamy court is usable on the undermentioned link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html .
In the opinion , the judge made several important dot equate the designs of the Apple and Samsung mathematical product :
“ The uttermost simplicity of the Apple pattern is striking . Overall it has undecorated flat control surface with a dental plate of glass on the front all the path out to a very thin flange and a blank back . There is a crisp sharpness around the flange and a combining of curves , both at the corner and the sides . The innovation look like an physical object the informed exploiter would want to pick up and hold . It is an understate , still and simple Cartesian product . It is a cool design . ”
“ The informed drug user ’s overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following . From the front they belong to the kinsperson which include the Apple design ; but the Samsung products are very sparse , almost insubstantial members of that mob with strange details on the back . They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple excogitation . They are not as nerveless . ”
That Judgment has core throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 19 April 2025 . 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 engage in unfair contest by copying the iPad figure . A U.S. jury also find Samsung guilty of impinge on Apple ’s design and service program patent , awarding over one billion U.S. dollar in equipment casualty 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 create its Galaxy tablet , Samsung wilfully copied Apple ’s far more popular iPad .
Now , was that so hard , Apple ? [ AppleviaiMore ]
ApologyAppleFontpatentsSamsung
Daily Newsletter
Get the best tech , science , and refinement word in your inbox daily .
newsworthiness from the future , return to your present .
You May Also Like
