Sensible decision there really, and hopefully it'll keep Apple from being silly again. Although they could write something similar:
"In agreement with the court ruling Apple acknowledges Samsung hasn't copied the design of the iPad. As the judge stated Samsung products lack the simplicity of the iPad."
Might get them in bother mind, but if a judge is willing to say your product is much cooler in a court of law, on the record no less, you may as well take what you can.
> As the judge stated Samsung products lack the simplicity of the iPad.
I think their marketing guys are going to have a feast on this. They could start playing around the lines: Samsung tablets are not as cool or simple as ours. Sorry for taking this too far intend of working on cool stuff for you — our lawyers are design challenged.
Given that Apple has a history of doing similar things in adverts I can see them at least trying it, whether the Samsung legal team lets them is a different story.
Kind of like how they lost to Microsoft, then had ads (10+ years later) saying "Redmond, get your photocopiers ready." That was pretty distasteful considering the bailout by Microsoft in 1997. Oh well, competition is competition.
I would have no problem with that line if it weren't in Apple's blood to copy copy copy, at least to the same degree if not more than Microsoft. The hypocrisy is really what annoys me.
What are you talking about? I'm referring to the investment Microsoft made in 1997 to rescue Apple from bankruptcy, not to mention their contributions to add value to their system. Definitely a bailout.
That investment was (in part, along with a cash settlement) the resultion of a dispute over Microsoft using Quicktime code in their Video for Windows product.
Pretty sure Microsoft would have no problem holding their own in court - they had a good track record at that point. Seems like they just leveraged their and Apple's positions to bundle it into the deal.
If it were a "settlement", it would have happened in the court room. Apple surrendered the case just to stay alive.
> "In agreement with the court ruling Apple acknowledges Samsung hasn't copied the design of the iPad
The court ruled no such thing. "[The case] 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..."
From Apple's perspective it's a loss but if you're going to lose, having a judge publicly critique your competitors product is a pretty great way to do it.
Someone said it'll be interesting to see what Samsung's lawyers let Apple get away with but I'm not sure how they can object to Apple quoting what the judge actually said in his judgement.
"In agreement with the court ruling Apple acknowledges Samsung hasn't copied the design of the iPad. As the judge stated Samsung products lack the simplicity of the iPad."
Might get them in bother mind, but if a judge is willing to say your product is much cooler in a court of law, on the record no less, you may as well take what you can.