Healthcare Matters

Apple keeps throwing its mud up against the wall, but this time it didn’t stick. As noted by Reuters, the U.K.’s Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision, which found that Samsung did not infringe on Apple’s design patents with its Galaxy Tab tablet – partly because the Tab was “not as cool” as the iPad.

Here’s what happened: In July, Judge Colin Birss of the High Court ordered Apple to post a note on its website and publish an ad in magazines and newspapers to say that Samsung did not copy Apple. Essentially, the judge ordered Apple to apologize –publically. Not surprisingly, Apple appealed the decision, so its public apology was delayed. But it now appears that the ads will run, unless Apple takes the case to the U.K. Supreme Court. Showing the sort of cooperation that generally buys you nothing, Apple and the Court are now arguing over the type and size of the font to be used for the text in its apologies.

“We welcome the court’s judgment, which reaffirmed our position that our Galaxy Tab products do not infringe Apple’s registered design right,” a Samsung spokesman said in a statement. “We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that the origins of Apple’s registered design features can be found in numerous examples of prior art. Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims in other countries based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited.”

That pretty much sums up my problem with Apple –and don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan. But when you can’t even get a U.S. jury (a California jury no less) to find in your favor around such generalized design infringement claims (rectangular shape and rounded corners?), one might think that cooler heads would have prevailed regarding Apple’s decision to continue to make these same claims overseas. If it isn’t playing well in Peoria, then it sure as hell isn’t going to play well in Paddington.

Source: ComputerWorld

—Tom Finn