2012年11月6日 星期二

Apple更正了對Samsung"未"侵權事件的聲明稿

http://apple.com/uk/
之前更正前的聲明就如法官認知沒有一點道歉,甚至還在揶揄法院的見解!
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/10/apple_30.html

這大概只是有趣的事件最後作個交待的"專利花絮",但可知儘管是Apple這麼高姿態的公司,仍是要尊重法院的決定,否則來個禁令就得不償失!

還是引用英國高等法院的決定,Samsung並未侵權,但也未對此設計專利的有效性進行討論:
接著Apple上訴,今年8月上訴法院(Court of Appeal of England and Wales)同樣作出接近的決定,Samsung並未侵權,且Apple需要公開"道歉",不過法官的用語相當文雅就是了!

摘錄一點內容,事實上,就學英文的角度,這篇判決真的蠻有趣的!
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
這個設計專利侵權的訴訟最後的決定並非直接針對是否Apple的設計專利範圍是否涵蓋Samsung的產品設計,而是考慮到大眾是否會對這些事件產生混淆,如下摘錄的上訴法院的決定內容,其中第3點提到這件訴訟同時也在其他國家的法院進行,使之變成一種公開宣傳的議題,也就排除了這件訴訟所關係或沒關係的混淆,這件設計專利已經無關是否有仿冒的問題,只是根據法律的判斷,Samsung的產品很接近(too close to)Apple的登記設計案,無關於是否有專利侵權的議題。
就技術而言,法官算是自言自語,這件訴訟僅是關於Apple的設計專利與Samsung的產品,法官本身也有一台iPad,就他的觀察,iPad薄多了,有顯著容易辨識的邊緣曲線,但也承認他並未詳細進行比對,當然,這訴訟與iPad是否被此登記設計案所保護並無關聯。
  1. Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about. It 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 according to the tests laid down in the law. Whether or not Apple could have sued in England and Wales for copying is utterly irrelevant to this case. If they could, they did not. Likewise there is no issue about infringement of any patent for an invention.

  2. So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products. The registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad. It is quite a lot different. For instance the iPad is a lot thinner, and has noticeably different curves on its sides. There may be other differences - even though I own one, I have not made a detailed comparison. Whether the iPad would fall within the scope of protection of the registered design is completely irrelevant. We are not deciding that one way or the other. This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed. 
Ron

沒有留言: