Apple Ordered to Alter Website Statement Acknowledging Samsung Galaxy Tab Did Not Infringe on iPad Design

GadgetDon said:

Yes, Apple was making fun of the ruling with the original statement. It was a stupid ruling that deserved mockery, tyrants should be given no respect.

And yes, I'll call it tyranny. What the original court demanded is that Apple affirmatively state the judgement as correct, to go beyond that and state not just no infringement but no copying. The mark of a democracy is the right to tell every government official "you're wrong" and say about every governmental action "This is wrong". This court decision required Apple to publicly and at their own expense state the decision was wrong. Particularly when there was no action to cure, no posts on the website about how terrible Samsung was to copy their designs or advertisements about how you shouldn't buy from those copycats Samsung.

And so, they did indeed publicly state the judgement, they also pointed out that there have been judgements going the other way. The tyrants are now insisting not only that Apple affirm their decision but deny other decisions.

Well, they have the power of the law. I wonder if they will object to Apple adding one line, "And yet it moves"

Click to expand...

You need to review some of your terminology. Maye a refresher course in government.

It's the right of citizens in a democracy (not corporations) to disagree with elected officials (not government officials) provided that a) they support their disagreements with relevant civil or criminal statutes, generally in the form of civil liberties, and b) continue to follow the law--including those officials' decisions--unless the law goes against the civil liberties etc of part a. This case doesn't fit any of those criteria.

This is hilarious, and the notion of "buying ad space to place the same statement" is just silly and makes me ask why? Do people there have stock in those publications?

So, it's against the court decision to quote the court

mac.ross said:

The amount of fanboyish crap in here is astounding.

The facts are that Apple was ordered to put a message on their website specifying the outcome of the ruling and to state that Samsung did NOT copy their designs as they implied.

The message they posted, although amusing, was childish and not what they were ordered to do, thus the court is ordering them to change it.

Simple.

Click to expand...

You should see the discussion on Engadget, it's proper slanging match between Apple and Samsung fans.

Samsung fans appear to be the more childish ones. Using terms like Crapple and iSheep.

frayne182 said:

lol what?

Samsung isn't looking bad at all.

Apple compares just as much as Samsung. Hell they had the Nexus 7 up at their last conference.

Click to expand...

Yeah I know .. I didn't say Apple is better or Samsung is better .. I said I don't like comparing advertisements that undermine the opponents. Samsung does that, Apple does it .. I don't like either.

racer1441 said:

So, it's against the court decision to quote the court

Click to expand...

Yes. They also didn't post the statement where they were told to post it (they simply put a hyperlink at the bottom of the main page which linked to a modified version of the statement).

racer1441 said:

So, it's against the court decision to quote the court

Click to expand...

Yes, it is

eversonj90 said:

Fantasy land? The government will do what it wants and when it wants if it believes it's in the "best interests".

Alienating a corporation as large as Apple would not be favourable to the country at all.

Click to expand...

Apple a big company in the UK? That is funny, that's why the have everything based in the REPUBLIC OF IRELAND?

Nothing to do with the UK.

Oletros said:

Judge facilitated ALL the text, Apple didn't comply and wrote more that they were allowed.

Click to expand...

So call in the killing squad. A US company put extra content on a website hosted within the US on US servers. UK jurisdiction over that = none.

The entire (current) situation still remains stupid and a waste of money. They got their apology albeit seen as half-arsed, they still got it.

I revert to my Apple should just tell the UKCA to shove it.

"I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," Judge Robin Jacob said today.

Apparently he doesn't know much about Apple

G4DP said:

Apple a big company in the UK? That is funny, that's why the have everything based in the REPUBLIC OF IRELAND?

Nothing to do with the UK.

Click to expand...

Let's just ignore the estimated £6bn made through UK sales?
The people they employ here?
The arrangements with UK mobile networks?
The services they supply?
The businesses they kit out?
The consumers that use their technology?

Oh ... their entire involvement in the UK economy?

Go apple

they are only stating the facts bet the judge feels like and ass now. LOL

How much tax did they pay on that £6bn in sales then?

Oh wait, it was £10m. Simon Cowell pays more tax than Apple.

maflynn said:

Two weeks - really. I don't think anyone buys that excuse

Click to expand...

Apple thinks they can get away with this, and the only thing that will happen is that it will be forced to have the advertisement longer besides the public embarrassment of its tactics.

Shame on Apple.

tatonka said:

Yeah I know .. I didn't say Apple is better or Samsung is better .. I said I don't like comparing advertisements that undermine the opponents. Samsung does that, Apple does it .. I don't like either.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

They are childish ads for sure.

eversonj90 said:

I revert to my Apple should just tell the UKCA to shove it.

Click to expand...

eversonj90 said:

Let's just ignore the estimated £6bn made through UK sales?

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand how these two positions go together well (not trolling btw). How would Apple tell a UK court to "shove it" when they expect such a big sale turn out in the same country.

T.

erzhik said:

To anyone defending Apple:
Stop it, stop it right now please. Apple was clearly making fun of the ruling and Samsung with their original statement. Apple is not a 10 year old child, they are a billion dollar company and should act like one instead of acting like a butthurt brat. Apple got what was coming to them. This wasn't some child's play, this was a court ruling and they should've followed that (no, their initial apology is not following that order, how about you read up that statement and court's order). If I was the judge in that case, I would've fined them for that as well. Apple has more than 1 lawyer, I am damn sure if all those lawyers put their collective minds together, they can write a normal, legal apology without taking up 2 weeks. Christ, college students write thesis papers in less than that.

Click to expand...

Yes. They were making fun of it. Rightfully so. It was ridiculous in the first place. They disagree with the UK court's ruling. They should use whatever means available to them to defend their position.

Just because a judge says you're guilty/innocent does not mean that you really are; it applies only within the confines of the legal system. There have been plenty of people that have been wrongfully convicted, and exonerated later. Conversely, I'm convinced there have also been people that have been exonerated that should have been found guilty. To assume that any justice system is infallible is just unrealistic. If you knew you were innocent, would you just shut up and do the time?

So in this Apple vs Samsung ridiculousness, all of us consumers are going to take sides based on what we believe to be the truth. If you believe Samsung is in the right, hey, OK. If you think Apple got the UK court shaft, well, whoop-tee-doo.

Personally, I don't care one way or another. However, I agree with Apple here and I do believe Samsung is a blatant copycat, based on what I've seen; but it means nothing to me as long as good products keep coming out.

However, I would love for Apple, despite being a "respectable multi-billion dollar, super-huge, classy-whatever corporation" to give a blue jeans and black turtleneck, Malcom X by any means necessary, punk-rock, Revolutionary War-style middle-finger to the UK courts on this one. Simply for the entertainment value of it all, same as the reason why I come to these forums.

Sigh at all the blind fans on here.

The Guardian has a much better report and this excerpt explains what was wrong with the origional statement, which, funnily enough is the BS Apple added to it:

Darren Smyth of EIP Partners said: "The objection was that Apple had added to the statement that the court of appeal had ordered, so did not comply with the original order, and furthermore that the additions were not accurate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement

Yes Apple is above the law blah blah blah, it's so rich it can ignore all laws blah blah.....

No, it will be held in contempt if it does it again and it has been ordered to make the change in 48hrs, if Apple does indeed take the pee again and is held in contempt then I believe that can mean a massive fine and prison for it's directors and executives. So perhaps they should grow up and cut the sheer arrogance against everyone and the courts eh?
It was due to what Apple did during the trial that brought this punishment in the first place, again because of their arrogance.
This arrogance IS going to destroy the company.

Oletros said:

Now it is clear that you don't know a sh.. about what you're talking or how your own country law works.

Continue with your blindness

Click to expand...

Erm, do elaborate on your post. I'd love to know which law gives the UK power over a US website hosted on US soil. It's Apple's site and they can do what the hell they like - they don't need to comply if they don't want to, sure there'll be consequences but laughable in the grand scheme of things.

Before you answer consider that the Apple UK website is actually hosted at apple.com/uk/ and not apple.co.uk (apple.co.uk is simply a redirect and does fall under UK (nominet) control but it's contentless - at most could only be seized (having no effect on the Apple UK site at all)).

Apple was 100% wrong and they knew it. They took a chance - and lost.

What people are forgetting is that the requirement to put the notification up in the first place was only tangentially due to the court case. Apple was required to post the specific notification because AFTER the court case - which the Galaxy Tab was found NOT to infringe - Apple made several statements that undermined the UK courts.

They were ordered to publish a specific statement. Dictated by the courts. They failed to do that. I can't believe anyone would actually agree or think Apple could post whatever they wanted as long as they at least included what the court wanted. That wasn't the point of the court. The court wanted Apple to follow directions. They didn't. Period. There's no argument.

And now that they've been ordered again (which we all know doesn't take 2 weeks - they are just stalling) people still want to say it's unfair? Well boo hoo. Apple as a corporation knew what they were doing. So does anyone with half a brain. It's one thing to be amused by what they posted - another to think it was within the spirit of the ruling.

And I wonder what will happen now that Apple says 2 weeks. Because I would bet the court will say - you have 24-48 hours.

It's not like they have to create a new page - it's already done. They just need to delete the text that didn't comply.

Apple is once again mocking the court. And I doubt they will stand for it.

Nungster said:

Bollocks! They did what the court ordered.

Click to expand...

Apparently the court disagrees, explicitly referring to Apple's original notice as "non-compliant".

Nungster said:

Ever deal with an eight year old? A teenager? A computer? Sometimes when you say to do something, you get exactly what you asked it to do.

Click to expand...

Do you believe Apple is no wiser than an eight year old? Please, give them some credit.

eversonj90 said:

Erm, do elaborate on your post. I'd love to know which law gives the UK power over a US website hosted on US soil. It's Apple's site and they can do what the hell they like - they don't need to comply if they don't want to, sure there'll be consequences but laughable in the grand scheme of things.

Before you answer consider that the Apple UK website is actually hosted at apple.com/uk/ and not apple.co.uk (apple.co.uk is simply a redirect and does fall under UK (nominet) control but it's contentless - at most could only be seized (having no effect on the Apple UK site at all)).

Click to expand...

It is used by Apple for trading in the UK as well as it being a British top level domain.

Just like the apparently has jurisdiction on websites which in no way are related to the US other than it is used by US citizens.

unplugme71 said:

The more news I hear about this, the more I don't like Samsung.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed this detail in the story, but the order didn't come from Samsung, it came from the court.

tatonka said:

Not sure I understand how these two positions go together well (not trolling btw). How would Apple tell a UK court to "shove it" when they expect such a big sale turn out in the same country.

T.

Click to expand...

Apple posted the apology - made a point of making factual statements and quotes (albeit to the credit of another poster they posted more than they should have - unconfirmed).

The second quote was in reference to the person that said Apple wasn't a big company in the UK. £6bn kind of disagrees.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

melendezest said:

Yes. They were making fun of it. Rightfully so. It was ridiculous in the first place. They disagree with the UK court's ruling. They should use whatever means available to them to defend their position.

Just because a judge says you're guilty/innocent does not mean that you really are; it applies only within the confines of the legal system. There have been plenty of people that have been wrongfully convicted, and exonerated later. Conversely, I'm convinced there have also been people that have been exonerated that should have been found guilty. To assume that any justice system is infallible is just unrealistic. If you knew you were innocent, would you just shut up and do the time?

Click to expand...

They weren't asked to admit they were guilty, just post a paragraph of information (and link) that said the High Court ruled that certain Samsung products didn't infringe on particular patents.

melendezest said:

So in this Apple vs Samsung ridiculousness, all of us consumers are going to take sides based on what we believe to be the truth. If you believe Samsung is in the right, hey, OK. If you think Apple got the UK court shaft, well, whoop-tee-doo.

Personally, I don't care one way or another. However, I agree with Apple here and I do believe Samsung is a blatant copycat, based on what I've seen; but it means nothing to me as long as good products keep coming out.

However, I would love for Apple, despite being a "respectable multi-billion dollar, super-huge, classy-whatever corporation" to give a blue jeans and black turtleneck, Malcom X by any means necessary, punk-rock, Revolutionary War-style middle-finger to the UK courts on this one. Simply for the entertainment value of it all, same as the reason why I come to these forums.

Click to expand...

Then the High Court would come down on Apple like a ton of bricks. It would not end well for them.