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

[rmwebs]

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.

Better than Comic Sans

(edit: Looks like someone beat me to it!)

[decimortis]

I can't wait until my Apple's Community registered design No.000000181607-0001 arrives. It will be my first one.

D.

[axcurtis]

This court-ordered ad is just chickens**t by Apple haters who would like to drag down something good that is happening in the world. Reminds me of the old PC-Mac arguments.

[ollyb]

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.

Just because it might only take you an hour to edit a post on your Awesome Blog using wp-admin (leaving you so impressed with yourself that you worked out how to do it under an hour that you tweet about it to your 5 followers) does not mean that a massive company such as Apple can do it in the same amount of time.

Are you expecting Tim Cook to log into the CMS and write something? This will have to go through several people/departments, including legal (obviously) before being approved by someone at the top. If someone in that chain is in a meeting, bang, your hour's up.

Two weeks is ridiculous though. Two days is completely fair if Apple gives it the attention they should.

[knemonic]

Like anyone is going to read that.

[spazzcat]

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.

It's not technical, but if Apple is anything like other large companies I worked for, I can believe the two weeks. Has more to do with the paperwork required and yes you can rush things, but people will still drag their feet.

[RDStrong]

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.

They made a public statement that undermined the court's decision so the punishment fits the crime (another public statement).

[fredf]

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.

That's exactly the point.

[rjohnstone]

Originally Posted by bbeagle

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

That was the whole point of the judgement.
After Apple had already lost the deign case in the UK, they continued to call Samsung a copier.
In the court's eyes, this caused harm to Samsung's reputation.
So in return for Apple's continued slandering of Samsung's name, the court determined that no monetary judgement would undo the harm.
So they came up with this remedy instead.

Personally I don't think it's effective, but Apple should have done it as instructed and moved on.
Adding their own commentary simply pissed off the judge. Not something you want to make a habit of doing.

[NightFox]

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.

It's because Jony Ive is so busy with the reshuffle that he hasn't got the time to design it and personally craft it out of a single block of aluminium. Not sure if he'll go for:

"The Statement You've Been Waiting For"

or

"This Changes Nothing. Again"

At least it'll be non-skeuomorphic though, with no artificial tear-stain effect.

[bedifferent]

As I understand, the ruling wasn't completely with Apple and the judge sought a legal reprimand in order to counter Apple's tarnishing of Samsung's device(s). Apple legal suits bit them in the arse and turn about is fair play. These suits have been highly publicized and as a result have negatively impacted Samsung's reputation. Whether you agree with Apple or not, the judge decided on a legal ruling and as such Apple should abide. This "game" they're playing is immature at best. If Samsung pulled this move, I'm certain MacRumors would be aflame with anti-Samsung comments.

I'm an Apple user, have been for over a decade which is why I frequent this site. However, there is a line and Apple has crossed it too many times. More innovation and less legal threats, please.

[melendezest]

Originally Posted by Prallethrin

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.

Great point. It is plausible that Apple may be taking the "just let this go away" approach so they can get back to money-making this time.

But the legal precedent set by this judge NEEDS to be fought, ASAP. Their mandate seems a bit scary to me.

[PVisitors]

Originally Posted by melendezest

Great point. It is plausible that Apple may be taking the "just let this go away" approach so they can get back to money-making this time.

But the legal precedent set by this judge NEEDS to be fought, ASAP. Their mandate seems a bit scary to me.

To be fair, the Court of Appeal judges did admit that they questioned the use of the court order by Birrss when the facts applied to that scenario. They only ruled in favour of it being necessary because of recent events of Apple winning a case in Germany, the Judges felt it would be appropriate to clear the air by posting the notice on the UK site regarding Samsung's legal product. And that legal ambiguity is to do with the EU structure, not a ploy by Apple.

What I find more concerning is that a High Court patents judge thinks that "Samsung's product isn't as cool or as well designed as Apple, ergo there is no infringement" is a perfectly rational judgment. What sort of precedent does this set, from his judgment one could easily conclude therefore that any iPad [or other product] knock offs could then be construed as not infringing as they're not as 'cool'.

[rjohnstone]

Originally Posted by spazzcat

It's not technical, but if Apple is anything like other large companies I worked for, I can believe the two weeks. Has more to do with the paperwork required and yes you can rush things, but people will still drag their feet.

BS.
When we get an OFAC update from the feds to block card accounts, it takes less than 24 hours to push through a change.
That is a hell of a lot more complicated then adding text to a corporate web site.
If a company has that much "red tape" in its processes that it takes two weeks to change text on a web page, there is a problem with the process.

[zin]

Originally Posted by unplugme71

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.

Yes, and I'm sure the revenue lost would piss off Apple.

[TrikieD]

Originally Posted by melendezest

Great point. It is plausible that Apple may be taking the "just let this go away" approach so they can get back to money-making this time.

But the legal precedent set by this judge NEEDS to be fought, ASAP. Their mandate seems a bit scary to me.

What's scary and what needs to be fought? The fact that Apple lost?

Apple sued Samsung and lost. Apple appealed. Between the original judgement and the appeal Apple's PR carried on making the claims they had already lost on. Apple lost at appeal. The judgement is to counter the effect on Samsung of Apple continuing with their claims between the court judgements.

All Apple were told to do was make a statement. They chose to make it is a juvenile way that referenced other cases that had no impact on the case including one German case that was superseded by this one anyway. That's what's upset the three other three judges now.

[everything-i]

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.

I can imagine there isn't any technical reason but in an organisation the size of Apple there are going to be a lot of people involved in issuing any statement like this including all the lawyers and such so I can imagine that taking a fair while but two weeks, no that is too long.

[RDStrong]

Originally Posted by unplugme71

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.

It is quite astonishing how often people on this forum resort to threats that wouldn't be out of place coming from the mouth of a tyrant.

[rorschach]

Originally Posted by TrikieD

What's scary and what needs to be fought? The fact that Apple lost?

Apple sued Samsung and lost. Apple appealed. Between the original judgement and the appeal Apple's PR carried on making the claims they had already lost on. Apple lost at appeal. The judgement is to counter the effect on Samsung of Apple continuing with their claims between the court judgements.

All Apple were told to do was make a statement. They chose to make it is a juvenile way that referenced other cases that had no impact on the case including one German case that was superseded by this one anyway. That's what's upset the three other three judges now.

If judges don't want their rulings quoted then perhaps they should leave out those parts. The ad was specified down to the font size; if the judge had wanted specific text and nothing else on the page, then he should have said so.

[Prallethrin]

Originally Posted by melendezest

Great point. It is plausible that Apple may be taking the "just let this go away" approach so they can get back to money-making this time.

But the legal precedent set by this judge NEEDS to be fought, ASAP. Their mandate seems a bit scary to me.

Well the judge wasn't totally unreasonable.

He recognize that forcing Apple to declare that Samsung did not infringe was unreasonable, as Apple did not believe it so and it would to violate their right to free speech.

But his decision to force Apple to disseminate the verdict IMO is controversial.

[smwatson]

Originally Posted by melendezest

Great point. It is plausible that Apple may be taking the "just let this go away" approach so they can get back to money-making this time.

But the legal precedent set by this judge NEEDS to be fought, ASAP. Their mandate seems a bit scary to me.

Eh? So many of the posts in this thread and the last one make no sense to me.

What legal precedent? Why does it need to be fought? What is scary?

[G4DP]

Originally Posted by unplugme71

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.

Another person who thinks Apple actually employs a lot of people. How many people do you really think they employ in all of there 30+ stores?

The UK web site is run from Ireland, along with all support services.

For everyone, including half of people in the UNITED KINGDOM.

IRELAND IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDANT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. They employ no more than 1,000 in the UNITED KINGDOM.

All services we use in the UK are either run from IRELAND or the NETHERLANDS.

[Intarweb]

Originally Posted by ChazUK

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

COMIC SANS

Or Papyrus

[Glideslope]

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.

The Kangaroo Court. IMO. : 0 )

[PVisitors]

Originally Posted by smwatson

Eh? So many of the posts in this thread and the last one make no sense to me.

What legal precedent? Why does it need to be fought? What is scary?

The idea of needing to post on your own site that a product didn't infringe just because you lost the case is pretty strong new precedent which is pretty much unheard of in modern patent law. To put it into context the CA judges had to go back to case law back in the 1800s to try rationalise Judge Birss's decision.

Of course this talking about the material facts relating to the time of the July decision. After the appeal there was grounds for it to avoid commercial uncertainty. But when Justice Birss was dealing with the case? Quite frankly it was entirely unnecessary.