Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th Aug 2011 09:22 UTC
Legal Earlier this week, we were introduced to a new concept in intellectual property law: the European 'Community Design'. The Community Design is a sort of trademark on design, and sits halfway between a trademark and a patent. I decided to investigate what, exactly, the laws and regulations around Community Designs are, and what I found was shocking. Think the USPTO is bad? Wait until you learn about the Community Design.
Thread beginning with comment 484853
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Oh god learn to read. They did not deceive anyone, ffs.

As is common practice if you expect a preliminary injunction in Germany, you file a document with some procedural objections in every Bundesland ('state'). Considering Germany is the prime place to get EU-wide injunctions, it makes sense to do so if you are in a global legal battle. It's a common-sense precaution.

This IN NO WAY contradicts Samsung's statement that they were not notified - because when Apple filed the injunction, Samsung was indeed NOT NOTIFIED. They did not lie - they told the truth, without even spinning it. The fact that they filed the document does not mean they knew about the injunction, much in the same way that posting a "Do not park here" sign does not automatically mean you know someone is going to park there on Sunday, 23 June, 2012.

Come on people, learn to fcuking read.

Edited 2011-08-13 12:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

They may not have outright lied but their statement clearly implied they had no knowledge of this proceeding at all and that's just not true.

It's not like the German court in question invented this process or that it was arcane or whatever (you yourself state this particular court handles many such cases).

Apple followed the law, Samsung followed the law, and the German court sided with Apple. You may not agree with this decision or the law in general but the law is the law.

It's lame PR move by Samsung and it's not going to endear them to the court in question by any means so it's a pretty bad move on their part.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They may not have outright lied but their statement clearly implied they had no knowledge of this proceeding at all and that's just not true.


They had no knowledge of the injunction being filed. There is no evidence that they did. Just because they took a preventive measure which is entirely logical considering the anti-competitive tactics Apple has been going for does NOT mean they knew about the injunction. Anticipating a legal action might come != knowing about that specific legal action - just like how insuring your car does not mean you know about that specific accident you're going to have in 3 years' time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

They may not have outright lied but their statement clearly implied they had no knowledge of this proceeding at all and that's just not true.


Now imagine if your insurance company took that same stance in a case of not paying out your claim. Because you had bought the insurance means you had knowledge of an event that would result in a claim. You would probably be all in rage...
In fact, many insurance claims have been disputed based on those grounds. Taking out an insurance policy right before some event.

Reply Parent Score: 2