Apple Removes Code Hiding Samsung Court Order on UK Website

MacRumors · Nov 8, 2012, 09:58 AM

As noted by CNET, Apple has tweaked its international sites to remove code that automatically pushed footer text including a court-order acknowledgment that Samsung had not infringed the protected iPad design in the UK below the scroll unless the user's browser window was extremely tall.

While Apple has used such vertically responsive design before to automatically adjust page layouts based on browser window size, its use on the company's international front pages (but not the main apple.com page) was seen as an effort to hide the notice on its UK page.

The international pages are now using the same layout as the main apple.com site, alternating between the iPad mini and the fourth-generation iPad as featured products and keeping a static layout. Previously, images within the iPad mini feature linking to the keynote and product videos automatically moved to underneath the feature section as the browser window was made taller, pushing the footer text where the Samsung acknowledgement was out of view unless the page was scrolled.

Article Link: Apple Removes Code Hiding Samsung Court Order on UK Website

Oletros · Nov 8, 2012, 10:01 AM

Hardly surprising

JayLenochiniMac · Nov 8, 2012, 10:01 AM

They're obviously doing all this to piss them off.

Ubuntu · Nov 8, 2012, 03:13 PM

This just makes Apple look pathetic. Seriously, it's like a kid throwing a tantrum.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan John

All these comments stating they see that Apple did nothing wrong in hiding the text as if it is just a bit of fun etc, rather than correcting a damaging statement about a competitors product.

Pretty sure we wouldn't see the same responses if Samsung are forced to pay the $1 billion and decide to hide it in small quantities all around America.

Of course we wouldn't see the same responses, this is a forum about Apple products.

spyguy10709 · Nov 8, 2012, 10:02 AM

Just undoing Scott Forstall trickery

MetalRCG · Nov 8, 2012, 10:03 AM

Geez, just do it right and get it over with. The sooner they comply, the faster this will all go in the past and be forgotten.

Radio · Nov 8, 2012, 10:04 AM

apple stop playing games and man up!

slrandall · Nov 8, 2012, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Taken

I understand the need to be protective of your design but if a Judge delivers a verdict you should be adult about it and just place the damn notice clearly instead of of acting like a smart arse teenager.

Practice what you preach and grow up Apple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetalRCG

Geez, just do it right and get it over with. The sooner they comply, the faster this will all go in the past and be forgotten.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radio

apple stop playing games and man up!

Did you guys even read the article?

needfx · 03:09 PM

avoidance at it's finest

MetalRCG · Nov 8, 2012, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slrandall

Did you guys even read the article?

D'oh! Just a little fustrated that it's taken them this long to get it right.

All Taken · Nov 8, 2012, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slrandall

Did you guys even read the article?

Sure did, Apple have tried to neutralise the verdict in a previous notice by using jest full word play, then they tried hiding the notice by altering page layout.

All signs of Apple refusing to abide by what the ruling required. It was a simple demand of the court that should have been executed without this farce.

Did you even read the article(s)?

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

There was nothing wrong with what apple did. They just put a quote that the judge said over the court order... I fail to see anything wrong with that. Freedom of speech, for the win.

No

kalsta · Nov 8, 2012, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

Just undoing Scott Forstall trickery

Poor Scott. Steve gets the credit for everything that went right at Apple, while Scott gets blamed for everything that went wrong.

All Taken · 10:33 AM

I understand the need to be protective of your design but if a Judge delivers a verdict you should be adult about it and just place the damn notice clearly instead of acting like a smart arse teenager.

Practice what you preach and grow up Apple.

The Judge isn't treating Apple like a child by giving this order which so many Macrumors readers naturally leap to assume, it is simply that the Judge felt Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's iPad design and that as a result of the court case Apple tarnished Samsung's reputation given the media attention.

When brand reputation is a MASSIVE part of your business model then it needs to be protected. If it were the other way around then I'm sure the Judge would have demanded the same of Samsung given the reliance of both companies on brand reputation.

I won't comment on the merit of the decision as I, simply put, am not a Judge.

spyguy10709 · Nov 8, 2012, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Taken

I understand the need to be protective of your design but if a Judge delivers a verdict you should be adult about it and just place the damn notice clearly instead of of acting like a smart arse teenager.

Practice what you preach and grow up Apple.

There was nothing wrong with what apple did. They just put a quote that the judge said over the court order... I fail to see anything wrong with that. Freedom of speech, for the win.

Oletros · Nov 8, 2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

There was nothing wrong with what apple did. They just put a quote that the judge said over the court order... I fail to see anything wrong with that. Freedom of speech, for the win.

They broke the court order, the court explicitly told them what to put on the note.

And it has nothing to do with free speech, they can say what they want wherever they want EXCEPT in the court order

2IS · Nov 8, 2012, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

There was nothing wrong with what apple did. They just put a quote that the judge said over the court order... I fail to see anything wrong with that. Freedom of speech, for the win.

I agree... You certainly do fail to see what's wrong with that.

KnightWRX · Nov 8, 2012, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2IS

I agree... You certainly do fail to see what's wrong with that.

What was wrong was the part where it said "other courts have found Samsung to infringe". That part was a blatant lie as far as the IP here is concerned. No courts have found such a thing, not even the US California court.

divinox · Nov 8, 2012, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

There was nothing wrong with what apple did. They just put a quote that the judge said over the court order... I fail to see anything wrong with that. Freedom of speech, for the win.

Anyone with half a brain understands that Apple was in the wrong here. Legally, i would assume the behavior is verging on contempt.

spyguy10709 · Nov 10, 2012, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by divinox

Anyone with half a brain understands that Apple was in the wrong here. Legally, i would assume the behavior is verging on contempt.

How so - please explain it to me - I actually don't understand. Apple put a quote on their website, and then the legal thing. Is Apple's whole website now property of the court? What the hell - they can't censor FOS like that.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

What was wrong was the part where it said "other courts have found Samsung to infringe". That part was a blatant lie as far as the IP here is concerned. No courts have found such a thing, not even the US California court.

No, other courts have seen Samsuck infringing - is Samsung paying apple nearly 2 billion dollars from the kindness of their hearts?

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by apolloa

when I read some (the majority) of comments on these story's on Mac Rumors, I genuinely feel annoyed that the Judge didn't flex his powers and use his right to ban the sale of Apple products in the UK, and then fine them.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be reading pathetic comments stating the judge and his ruling was childish by people who have NO clue about the case and the reason behind this ruling, if he did.

Why the **** would he ban the sale of Apple products? That makes absolutely 0 sense...

Seriously - Samsung was the infringing one (outside of the UK - of course, where samsung made very large political campaign contribution.) not Apple.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oletros

They broke the court order, the court explicitly told them what to put on the note.

And it has nothing to do with free speech, they can say what they want wherever they want EXCEPT in the court order

And they didn't - it was in a separate place from the court order - it was ABOVE it. Not on the same line, not even in the same colour font.

Dave.UK · Nov 11, 2012, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

How so - please explain it to me - I actually don't understand. Apple put a quote on their website, and then the legal thing. Is Apple's whole website now property of the court? What the hell - they can't censor FOS like that.

----------

No, other courts have seen Samsuck infringing - is Samsung paying apple nearly 2 billion dollars from the kindness of their hearts?

----------

Why the **** would he ban the sale of Apple products? That makes absolutely 0 sense...

Seriously - Samsung was the infringing one (outside of the UK - of course, where samsung made very large political campaign contribution.) not Apple.

----------

And they didn't - it was in a separate place from the court order - it was ABOVE it. Not on the same line, not even in the same colour font.

I was going to reply to your points, until I saw you used the term "samsuck". Unfortunately I like discussion with adults.

KdParker · Nov 8, 2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Taken

I understand the need to be protective of your design but if a Judge delivers a verdict you should be adult about it and just place the damn notice clearly instead of of acting like a smart arse teenager.

Practice what you preach and grow up Apple.

Aren't they following the verdict?
The judge is a lawyer also and should have clearly stated how the court order should be executed.

Oletros · Nov 8, 2012, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KdParker

Aren't they following the verdict?
The judge is a lawyer also and should have clearly stated how the court order should be executed.

And the judges clearly stated how the court order should be executed

KdParker · Nov 8, 2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oletros

And the judges clearly stated how the court order should be executed

evidently not clear enough.

M-O · Nov 8, 2012, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Taken

I understand the need to be protective of your design but if a Judge delivers a verdict you should be adult about it and just place the damn notice clearly instead of of acting like a smart arse teenager.

Practice what you preach and grow up Apple.

to be fair, it was a pretty stupid ruling. fine them and move on. it's a company, not a child.

All Taken · Nov 8, 2012, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M-O

to be fair, it was a pretty stupid ruling. fine them and move on. it's a company, not a child.

It's the perceived damage by the Judge to the Samsung Electronics brand. This is why Apple have been ordered to prominently display notice of the ruling.

It's not about them being treated like a child. It is simply that the Judge felt Apple had tarnished Samsung's reputation given the media attention.

I won't comment on the merit of the decision as I, simply put, am not a Judge.

Nov 8, 2012, 09:58 AM	#1
MacRumors macrumors bot Join Date: Apr 2001	Apple Removes Code Hiding Samsung Court Order on UK Website As noted by CNET, Apple has tweaked its international sites to remove code that automatically pushed footer text including a court-order acknowledgment that Samsung had not infringed the protected iPad design in the UK below the scroll unless the user's browser window was extremely tall. While Apple has used such vertically responsive design before to automatically adjust page layouts based on browser window size, its use on the company's international front pages (but not the main apple.com page) was seen as an effort to hide the notice on its UK page. The international pages are now using the same layout as the main apple.com site, alternating between the iPad mini and the fourth-generation iPad as featured products and keeping a static layout. Previously, images within the iPad mini feature linking to the keynote and product videos automatically moved to underneath the feature section as the browser window was made taller, pushing the footer text where the Samsung acknowledgement was out of view unless the page was scrolled. Article Link: Apple Removes Code Hiding Samsung Court Order on UK Website
	0

Nov 8, 2012, 10:01 AM	#3
JayLenochiniMac macrumors 68040 Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New Sanfrakota	They're obviously doing all this to piss them off. __________________ Home iMac 27" 2.9GHz Intel Core i5 Work iMac 24" 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme Mobile iPad 2 & iPhone 5
	1

Nov 8, 2012, 10:04 AM	#7
Radio macrumors 65816 Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Central California	apple stop playing games and man up! __________________ iPhone 5 32gb black; iPad (3rd Gen) 32 gb black -- iPhone 4 32 gb black-- iPod classic 64 gb
	13

Nov 8, 2012, 10:07 AM	#9
needfx macrumors 65816 Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: macrumors apparently	avoidance at it's finest Last edited by needfx; Nov 8, 2012 at 03:09 PM.
	0

Nov 8, 2012, 10:02 AM	#13
All Taken In Time-Out Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: UK	I understand the need to be protective of your design but if a Judge delivers a verdict you should be adult about it and just place the damn notice clearly instead of acting like a smart arse teenager. Practice what you preach and grow up Apple. The Judge isn't treating Apple like a child by giving this order which so many Macrumors readers naturally leap to assume, it is simply that the Judge felt Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's iPad design and that as a result of the court case Apple tarnished Samsung's reputation given the media attention. When brand reputation is a MASSIVE part of your business model then it needs to be protected. If it were the other way around then I'm sure the Judge would have demanded the same of Samsung given the reliance of both companies on brand reputation. I won't comment on the merit of the decision as I, simply put, am not a Judge. Last edited by All Taken; Nov 8, 2012 at 10:33 AM.
	27

Nov 8, 2012, 10:01 AM	#2
Oletros macrumors 601 Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Premià de Mar	Hardly surprising
	1

Nov 8, 2012, 10:02 AM	#5
spyguy10709 macrumors 6502a Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: One Infinite Loop, Cupertino CA	Just undoing Scott Forstall trickery
	0

Nov 8, 2012, 10:03 AM	#6
MetalRCG macrumors newbie Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Orlando, FL	Geez, just do it right and get it over with. The sooner they comply, the faster this will all go in the past and be forgotten.
	4

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode