Apple Removes UK Website Statement Regarding Galaxy Tab Design, Publishes Newspaper Acknowledgement

MacRumors · Nov 2, 2012, 09:52 AM

Yesterday, we reported that Apple had been ordered a UK court to alter its published statement on its website acknowledging that the Samsung Galaxy Tab does not infringe upon the protected design of the iPad. The statement was required by an earlier court order, but Apple's version of the included additional content, playfully quoting statements from the judge's ruling saying that the Samsung Galaxy Tab was "not as cool" as the iPad and noting that it had won cases against Samsung in other jurisdictions.

The judges were clearly unhappy with Apple's version of the notice and ordered the company to alter it within 48 hours, while Apple argued that it would take up to two weeks to revise and post the notice. As noted by TechCrunch, Apple has already removed its version of the notice from its UK website, but has yet to publish a revised version satisfying the court's demands.

The Next Web also reports that the first of Apple's newspaper advertisements similarly required by the court has appeared in The Guardian today.

Quote:

In this morning's Guardian, Apple has taken out a small advertisement, including the same statement that it ran on its website, but minus the additional commentary that originally got the company into trouble. It also appears to have been printed in 14-pt Arial font, as required in the original ruling.

Photo by Tim Acheson

Article Link: Apple Removes UK Website Statement Regarding Galaxy Tab Design, Publishes Newspaper Acknowledgement

markieg · Nov 2, 2012, 09:54 AM

silly apple

TheRainKing · Nov 2, 2012, 09:55 AM

Judge has no sense of humor.

CoryTV · Nov 2, 2012, 09:56 AM

How long will it take the first fanboy to come up with some absurd pretend technical reason why Apple can't change the text in an hour? Poor apple, they think they can bend the reality of anyone who has ever published any text on the web, or edited a post. Or used a word processor. This is insane.

JDee · Nov 2, 2012, 09:56 AM

Anyone that looks at that newspaper page won't even read it because its just a load of text & looks like the standard bunch of terms and conditions that you find at the bottom of an ad that no one reads.

fishmoose · Nov 2, 2012, 09:57 AM

I tell you, you know the U.K courts are screwed when they require you to use Arial. Talk about having zero taste.

Intarweb · Nov 2, 2012, 09:58 AM

Two weeks is so laughable.

MonkeySee.... · Nov 2, 2012, 09:58 AM

This will be overlooked when skimming the paper. Too right to as it was a joke.

Jsameds · Nov 2, 2012, 09:58 AM

Looks about as interesting as a Samsung advert

Nipz · Nov 2, 2012, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDee

Anyone that looks at that newspaper page won't even read it because its just a load of text & looks like the standard bunch of terms and conditions that you find at the bottom of an ad that no one reads.

exactly why they have done it lol

craznar · Nov 2, 2012, 09:59 AM

I'm no big fan of Apple on this one - but didn't public humiliation as a penalty go out the door some century or so ago.

If Apple did wrong - they pay up, if they didn't do wrong - they don't.

samcraig · Nov 2, 2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeySee....

This will be overlooked when skimming the paper. Too right to as it was a joke.

Regardless - I'm pretty sure Apple absolutely hated to have to this at all

Jodles · Nov 2, 2012, 10:01 AM

Surprising by Apple to miss a space between "and" and "Wales", and to change kerning to fit that url in on one line

bbeagle · Nov 2, 2012, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryTV

How long will it take the first fanboy to come up with some absurd pretend technical reason why Apple can't change the text in an hour?

Because they don't have to 'hurry up and do it'.

Apple is clearly upset with the verdict and is dragging their feet. Of course they could do it in just a few minutes, but because they don't HAVE TO, they won't do it. This is their little LEGAL way of annoying the judge.

For example: You get a parking ticket for $15 which you don't deserve. You fight it in court. The judge won't have it. You have 30 days to pay the $15, so to get a little sense of victory, you wait until the 30th day and pay the fine in pennies.

Petty? Yes. Legal? Yes.

Prallethrin · Nov 2, 2012, 10:02 AM

There done.

The whole thing was much ado about nothing to be honest.

Apple was just order to dissemination the verdict - I don't think it's fair to demand that they do so, but that's for another post.

Exactly how it got twisted into an "apology" I have no idea. Apple could still publicly assert that they disagree with the verdict if they so please.

Good job tech press. You got the eyeballs you want and that's all that matters right?

ChazUK · Nov 2, 2012, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishmoose

I tell you, you know the U.K courts are screwed when they require you to use Arial. Talk about having zero taste.

At least it wasn't......

COMIC SANS

Prallethrin · Nov 2, 2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryTV

How long will it take the first fanboy to come up with some absurd pretend technical reason why Apple can't change the text in an hour?

Because PR would like to have time to craft it. Nothing wrong with demanding that.

bbeagle · Nov 2, 2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craznar

I'm no big fan of Apple on this one - but didn't public humiliation as a penalty go out the door some century or so ago.

If Apple did wrong - they pay up, if they didn't do wrong - they don't.

Completely agree.

What would stop a judge from telling Apple - in every 30 second commercial you air, the last 5 seconds must be an 'I'm sorry, Samsung' graphic with the Samsung logo 50% of the screen?

No matter what side you're on, what they're making Apple do is completely ludicrous. I can understand paying Samsung money - and Samsung can then do whatever they want with the money. Samsung themselves could air these ads, why force Apple to? So 1800s.

Apple should sue the judge now for 'forcing Apple to damage their reputation' or some such nonsense.

Ulf1103 · Nov 2, 2012, 10:05 AM

Such a shame...

Personally, I think that Apple has the right to publish the reason why Samsung didn't infringed Apples patent.

fishmoose · Nov 2, 2012, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChazUK

At least it wasn't......

COMIC SANS

If I we're Tim Cook and they forced me to use Comic Sans I'd withdraw my products from the U.K. All common sense must then have been lost.

bbeagle · Nov 2, 2012, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChazUK

At least it wasn't......

COMIC SANS

Why can't it be an OLD ENGLISH font - that's really hard to read. This is the UK afterall.

FlatlinerG · Nov 2, 2012, 10:07 AM

So at what point can Apple sue the judge who keeps making Apple do these things? All of this extra press is now hurting Apple's image, the same reason Apple has to post this ridiculous documentation..

Prallethrin · Nov 2, 2012, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbeagle

Apple should sue the judge now for 'forcing Apple to damage their reputation' or some such nonsense.

This the part that irks me. It seem lost on the judge that the public could misinterpret this as admission of "wrongdoing" on part of Apple. I'm surprised Apple's lawyers didn't bring this up.

Well, it too late now unless they appeal again. But given that Apple didn't appeal immediately probably means they aren't interested in doing so.

unplugme71 · Nov 2, 2012, 10:10 AM

If I was Apple, I would close the UK web and retail stores. The amount of jobs lost would piss off a lot of people and the government.

melendezest · Nov 2, 2012, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryTV

How long will it take the first fanboy to come up with some absurd pretend technical reason why Apple can't change the text in an hour? Poor apple, they think they can bend the reality of anyone who has ever published any text on the web, or edited a post. Or used a word processor. This is insane.

"Fanboy"? Really?

I don't think the issue is the posting of text (that is obviously simple), but where and how to place it on Apple's site while minimizing the impact of it. Having worked for large organizations, I can say that communication between legal, marketing, and IT departments can be time-consuming (and a pain in the rear).

However, I agree that the time frame they requested is ridiculous, and despite what I mentioned above I think it is meant to be more strategic than anything else.

Nov 2, 2012, 09:55 AM	#3
TheRainKing macrumors 6502 Join Date: Jun 2012	Judge has no sense of humor. __________________ iMac 21.5" 2011 iPhone 4S 16GB
	2

Nov 2, 2012, 09:56 AM	#4
CoryTV macrumors member Join Date: Dec 2006	How long will it take the first fanboy to come up with some absurd pretend technical reason why Apple can't change the text in an hour? Poor apple, they think they can bend the reality of anyone who has ever published any text on the web, or edited a post. Or used a word processor. This is insane.
	27

Nov 2, 2012, 09:58 AM	#8
MonkeySee.... macrumors 68040 Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: UK	This will be overlooked when skimming the paper. Too right to as it was a joke. __________________ iMac - iPhone - iPad - Apple TV - AirPort Extreme Phil Dunphy: Always keep the rhythm in your feet and a little party in your shoulders.
	0

Nov 2, 2012, 10:07 AM	#22
FlatlinerG macrumors 6502 Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Ontario, Canada	So at what point can Apple sue the judge who keeps making Apple do these things? All of this extra press is now hurting Apple's image, the same reason Apple has to post this ridiculous documentation.. __________________ Late 2011 MBP 13", Early 2009 20" iMac 2TB Time Capsule, 2nd Gen AppleTV 16GB Black iPhone 5, 32GB Black iPad 2 ...and many more.
	1

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

Nov 2, 2012, 09:54 AM	#2
markieg macrumors member Join Date: Jun 2010	silly apple
	10

Nov 2, 2012, 09:56 AM	#5
JDee macrumors 6502 Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Ireland	Anyone that looks at that newspaper page won't even read it because its just a load of text & looks like the standard bunch of terms and conditions that you find at the bottom of an ad that no one reads.
	8

Nov 2, 2012, 09:57 AM	#6
fishmoose macrumors 68000 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Sweden	I tell you, you know the U.K courts are screwed when they require you to use Arial. Talk about having zero taste.
	8

Nov 2, 2012, 09:58 AM	#7
Intarweb macrumors 6502a Join Date: May 2007	Two weeks is so laughable.
	3

Nov 2, 2012, 09:58 AM	#9
Jsameds macrumors regular Join Date: Apr 2008	Looks about as interesting as a Samsung advert
	9

Nov 2, 2012, 09:59 AM	#11
craznar macrumors regular Join Date: Jun 2009	I'm no big fan of Apple on this one - but didn't public humiliation as a penalty go out the door some century or so ago. If Apple did wrong - they pay up, if they didn't do wrong - they don't.
	5

Nov 2, 2012, 10:01 AM	#13
Jodles macrumors regular Join Date: Dec 2008	Surprising by Apple to miss a space between "and" and "Wales", and to change kerning to fit that url in on one line
	0

Nov 2, 2012, 10:02 AM	#15
Prallethrin macrumors regular Join Date: Jun 2011	There done. The whole thing was much ado about nothing to be honest. Apple was just order to dissemination the verdict - I don't think it's fair to demand that they do so, but that's for another post. Exactly how it got twisted into an "apology" I have no idea. Apple could still publicly assert that they disagree with the verdict if they so please. Good job tech press. You got the eyeballs you want and that's all that matters right?
	1

Nov 2, 2012, 10:05 AM	#19
Ulf1103 macrumors 6502 Join Date: Jan 2011	Such a shame... Personally, I think that Apple has the right to publish the reason why Samsung didn't infringed Apples patent.
	0

Nov 2, 2012, 10:10 AM	#24
unplugme71 macrumors 6502 Join Date: May 2011	If I was Apple, I would close the UK web and retail stores. The amount of jobs lost would piss off a lot of people and the government.
	0