[Terretta]

This is not a disjunctive syllogism.

If Apple could not prove that Samsung copied them, it does not follow that Samsung didn't copy them, just as if California couldn't prove that OJ did it, it doesn't follow that he didn't do it.

This ruling, that Apple has to affirm something equally unproven, is bizarre.

[ajross]

You have your requirements analysis all mixed up here.

Legal logic isn't the same as mathematical logic. The goal isn't to "prove" a fact here, it's to "settle" the fact so that people can go on with their lives. The courts pick boolean logic as their basis. So yes, legally, it is proven that Samsung did not copy Apple, no matter how many fancy-pants math terms you throw at them.

[jmduke]

I think you're both right?

Legally, 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent'.

That being said, the sales injunctions that Samsung occured were a clear case of damages as result of a case for which Samsung was not found guilty; thus, its fair for Samsung to receive compensation.

[jack-r-abbit]

> Legally, 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent'.

hmmm... if "innocent until proven guilty" holds true, then you remain innocent until you have been found guilty. If at the end of trial you have been found "not guilty" then you have not been found guilty, therefore are innocent.

[FuzzyDunlop]

That may be a valid assumption, but it's also a dangerous one. A court cannot make the same one (and pronounce people innocent) as it would, I would expect, make it extremely hard to get the same person back in court given new evidence (they're innocent, the court said it).

So it's a bit like hypothesis testing, where you don't expect your hypothesis to be proven correct, you just expect it not to be disproved. Thus, further testing can continue.

In summary, someone who isn't found guilty isn't always innocent.

[jack-r-abbit]

> A court cannot make the same one (and pronounce people innocent) as it would, I would expect, make it extremely hard to get the same person back in court given new evidence

The rules of Double Jeopardy already make it pretty damn hard to get a person back into court after being found "not guilty"... even with new evidence. (in the US anyway)

Plus, you don't need to be found innocent. You are innocent... right up until the point that you are found guilty.

[eridius]

You are not innocent. That would be a strange assertion before anything have been proven. You are presumed innocent.

[neya]

>In summary, someone who isn't found guilty isn't always innocent.

Right now, you aren't guilty...so that means...ummm...

[Bro_Merch]

It's not 'not guilty' it's 'not /found/ guilty'. Maybe I /am/ guilty.

(Just making a point. I am getting a kick out of reading this thread. I own >15 apple devices and every one of them has duct tape over the apple logo because I think their legal b.s. is just that. B.S. In 2000 I was cool for being the Apple guy. Now I'm ashamed of it. I just honestly still believe they make superior products. Show me a non Apple laptop that I can pick up and will feel as solid and sleek as my 2011 MacBook Pro all the way down to the even weight distribution, that I can install Linux Mint on and have it Just Work an ill buy it tonight.)

[FuzzyDunlop]

I might be guilty of something else that is relevant but not previously known?

[ralfn]

You should not be able to sue somebody over and over again.

Yes, someone who isnt guilthy isnt always innocent. But in this case the judge considered it poven that the designs were not (legally) stolen.

[PakG1]

Legally, 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent'.

This made me think of Schrödinger's Cat.

[majormajor]

I have heard that some areas have three-state legal systems, at least for certain types of cases, but that's not the case here. The ruling was "they do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design." Not "Apple has not proven that Samsung infringed."

You don't have to agree with the ruling, but the legal ruling was a "false," not a "null." A "not guilty" verdict may arise due to a lack of evidence or a badly tried case, but legally it means the same thing as a "not guilty" that came about because the accusation was obviously untrue.

[Terretta]

> The ruling was "they do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design."

Essentially, that Samsung didn't copy them well. As I understand it, the judge also refused to stop Apple from saying Samsung did copy them, saying Apple was entitled to its opinion.

Since the actual ruling is that Apple should note that Samsung's tablet doesn't legally infringe on Apple's registered designs, to your point, Apple's UK home page should just quote the judge:

Home Page Headline: "They are not as cool" -- UK Judge

Home Page Body: "The UK Courts require us to point out that Samsung's tablet does not have the same understated simplicity of our designs."

[pyre]

  > the judge also refused to stop Apple from saying
  > Samsung did copy them, saying Apple was entitled to
  > its opinion

While I would lean on the side of agreeing here, I find this part odd due to how strict U.K. libel laws are...

[jack-r-abbit]

But, appeals aside, the court's ruling makes it so. You go to court hoping the system sides with you. If it does then you take your win and you move on. If it doesn't side with you, you can't just say, "Oh well... your ruling doesn't count." You gotta take it for what it is. If in the process of making your claim you have damaged the name of your opponent then it seems fair to me that you should have to do something about that. It kind of falls into the same thinking that the loser in a case can be made to pay for the winner's legal fees and what not.

[ralfn]

The UK has slander laws. Apple claimed that Samsung copied their design. Not just in a private trial, but in public.

You cant actually do that in the Uk, unless you can prove it. They could not, according to the judge, hence its slander.

The default assumption is innocent until proven guilty. If i call you a murderer, but i can not prove it, Uk laws would force me to make statement that you are not a murderer.

Again, you dont have to prove that you are not. I had to prove you were, before i opened my mouth.

These laws sound really cool though, and they are good for these kind of situations. But in general those laws often end up just limiting free speech of people with less legal funds.

[Terretta]

> You cant actually do that in the Uk, unless you can prove it. They could not, according to the judge, hence its slander.

On the contrary, I understand Samsung requested that Apple be barred from making public statements claiming that the Galaxy Tab had infringed upon the iPad design, but the judge specifically ruled that Apple is within its rights to make such claims in line with the company's belief that the ruling is incorrect.

[FreakLegion]

If you change "If Apple could not prove that Samsung copied them" to "If Samsung could prove that they did not copy Apple," all is right again (in terms of logic, anyway).