Apple still hasnt Apoligized properly

[rnaodm]

Apple were given two orders by a Judge to issue an apology and have it visible on the front page.

Apple went as far as to write a JavaScript that resizes everything on the front page depending on the browser resolution, Making sure that the "apology" Which isn't an apology at all just instructions to click a link for more info regarding the case, Is not visable unless you scroll DOWN, Which is pretty childish on their part.

Not only do they not apoligize at all, they go as far as to hide any mention of the judges ruling

Below is shown the front page at 1920x1080res and rMBP res




----------

My apologies SBG Thanks for taking the time to do it.

[Mr_Brightside_@]

Samsung will probably sue them.

[rnaodm]

Originally Posted by Mr_Brightside_@

Samsung will probably sue them.

I dunno I think they'll get their revenge by refusing to provide them with panels for their devices starting 2013

[Mr_Brightside_@]

Originally Posted by rnaodm

I dunno I think they'll get their revenge by refusing to provide them with panels for their devices starting 2013

Choosing to forgoe sales out of spite? I doubt it. Besides, they have a relatively large amount owing to Apple as it is.

[thejadedmonkey]

I don't think it's javascript as much as it's just how the retina display works.

If you scroll down, it's clearly present.

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by rnaodm

Apple were given two orders by a Judge to issue an apology and have it visible on the front page.
....
Not only do they not apoligize at all, they go as far as to hide any mention of the judges ruling
....

The court gave very specific instructions, and the court will enforce the ruling if it feels it is inadequate. At this point, Apple won't play games. A judge's discretion to enforce their ruling is quite broad and far-reaching. If the apology remains as is for a couple of days, then you can be assured that the judge has decided it meets their instructions.

Samsung has nothing to with this ... it's between the court and Apple.

[rnaodm]

Originally Posted by thejadedmonkey

I don't think it's javascript as much as it's just how the retina display works.

If you scroll down, it's clearly present.

Its not just on retina screens, the first was a different computer using a 1920x1080 res, You can use any resolution you want on any computer the JavaScript will make sure you do not see it

----------

Originally Posted by snberk103

The court gave very specific instructions, and the court will enforce the ruling if it feels it is inadequate. At this point, Apple won't play games. A judge's discretion to enforce their ruling is quite broad and far-reaching. If the apology remains as is for a couple of days, then you can be assured that the judge has decided it meets their instructions.

Samsung has nothing to with this ... it's between the court and Apple.

Its between the court and Apple in regards to Samsung's lawsuit and victory

[chown33]

Originally Posted by rnaodm

Apple were given two orders by a Judge to issue an apology and have it visible on the front page.

There was no order for an apology.

There was a publicity order, which you can read here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

I suggest reading it completely, so the actual orders from the judge are clear.


The purpose of the publicity order is to remove commercial uncertainty. Nowhere in that judgement or its predecessor is the word "apology", "apologize", or anything similar. The words "punish", "grovel", and "lose face" do appear, but in a negative sense:

81. How then does all of that affect the decision as to whether or not there should be a publicity order? The grant of such an order is not to punish the party concerned for its behaviour. Nor is it to make it grovel - simply to lose face. The test is whether there is a need to dispel commercial uncertainty. [Emphasis added]

Both documents are linked from this page, exactly as specified in the above-linked Appeals judgement:
http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

[thejadedmonkey]

Originally Posted by rnaodm

Its not just on retina screens, the first was a different computer using a 1920x1080 res, You can use any resolution you want on any computer the JavaScript will make sure you do not see it

----------



Its between the court and Apple in regards to Samsung's lawsuit and victory

True. It seems to resize dynamically so that the hero photo is always the same relative size, compared to the browser window.

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by rnaodm

....
Its between the court and Apple in regards to Samsung's lawsuit and victory

Doesn't matter who won the case. This issue is simply about whether the judge is satisfied that their orders were followed properly. Samsung has no say in whether or not the publicity order is followed properly... it is up to the court.

[rnaodm]

I just don't care for apple to simply sweep it under the rug by putting it at the bottom of the page, and rewriting the website so it scales to every users screen to the point where what they wrote admitting they were wrong will not be seen,
Apple is appealing the order because following the judges orders would "substantially interfere with the design and layout of its important marketing tool, its homepage." Thats just ridiculous.

IMO if if the shoe was on the other foot and Samsung swept it under the rug as well, Apple would throw a fit and they would be back in court

Originally Posted by chown33

There was no order for an apology.

There was a publicity order, which you can read here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

I suggest reading it completely, so the actual orders from the judge are clear.


The purpose of the publicity order is to remove commercial uncertainty. Nowhere in that judgement or its predecessor is the word "apology", "apologize", or anything similar. The words "punish", "grovel", and "lose face" do appear, but in a negative sense:

81. How then does all of that affect the decision as to whether or not there should be a publicity order? The grant of such an order is not to punish the party concerned for its behaviour. Nor is it to make it grovel - simply to lose face. The test is whether there is a need to dispel commercial uncertainty. [Emphasis added]

Both documents are linked from this page, exactly as specified in the above-linked Appeals judgement:
http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

[smoledman]

Why should Apple apologize to the Shamsung who was found GUILTY of copying and has to pay $1 billion? Shamesung should be forced to run apologies 24/7!

[mrsir2009]

Wait up - Where is it? I can't see it... Haha this is embarrassing

[chown33]

Originally Posted by rnaodm

I just don't care for apple to simply sweep it under the rug by putting it at the bottom of the page, and rewriting the website so it scales to every users screen to the point where what they wrote admitting they were wrong will not be seen,

Bring it to the attention of the court. Then go read the entire order. Pay particular attention to what the court says is allowed, required, or forbidden regarding layout and placement.

Apple is appealing the order because following the judges orders would "substantially interfere with the design and layout of its important marketing tool, its homepage." Thats just ridiculous.

You've used the wrong tense. It's not "is appealing", it's "already appealed and lost". Which is why they complied with the order. Eventually.

IMO if if the shoe was on the other foot and Samsung swept it under the rug as well, Apple would throw a fit and they would be back in court

Again, take it up with the court, or alert Samsung's legal team.

----------

Originally Posted by mrsir2009

Wait up - Where is it? I can't see it... Haha this is embarrassing

Here:
http://www.apple.com/uk/

Bottom of the page. In "a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt", per the judicial order.

On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by smoledman

Why should Apple apologize to the Shamsung who was found GUILTY of copying and has to pay $1 billion? Shamesung should be forced to run apologies 24/7!

This is in the UK, the UK courts do not give a **** what a bought court and bought jury, and bought jury in the US think.

[rnaodm]

Originally Posted by smoledman

Why should Apple apologize to the Shamsung who was found GUILTY of copying and has to pay $1 billion? Shamesung should be forced to run apologies 24/7!

Because this has nothing to do with that lawsuit, Apple said "Galaxy tabs copy our tablets, and are infringing on our patents" A judge told them to shut the **** up, no they don't, and ordered them to retract their statement.

[chrono1081]

Originally Posted by rnaodm

Apple were given two orders by a Judge to issue an apology and have it visible on the front page.

Apple went as far as to write a JavaScript that resizes everything on the front page depending on the browser resolution, Making sure that the "apology" Which isn't an apology at all just instructions to click a link for more info regarding the case, Is not visable unless you scroll DOWN, Which is pretty childish on their part.

Not only do they not apoligize at all, they go as far as to hide any mention of the judges ruling

Below is shown the front page at 1920x1080res and rMBP res




----------

My apologies SBG Thanks for taking the time to do it.

And this affects you how?

Who cares. Samsung ripped off Apple, got caught, Apple took revenge too far, whatever its how companies operate. Its just not in the news unless its Apple.

[rnaodm]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

And this affects you how?

Who cares. Samsung ripped off Apple, got caught, Apple took revenge too far, whatever its how companies operate. Its just not in the news unless its Apple.

It doesn't I'm just trying to have a discussion in the discussion forum.

Why does this upset you so much? And while the whole Samsung ripping off Apple is still laughably debatable, it has nothing too do with this.

[Blackberryroid]

Is it in the front page? Yes. That's it. The end. Over.

This is clever thinking on Apple's part. The case says that it needs to be displayed in the front page, but not necessarily with flashing banners. Apple did put it in the front page. Nothing's wrong.

It isn't illegal to make it a bit hidden, all that's required is that it has to be in the front page.

Samsung can't sue for that.

Besides, what can you expect from a company that is forced to do something that they don't want to? They'll have to think of a way to at least lessen the pain. And they did.

There is no such thing as "Apologizing properly". Apple did their part.

[cambookpro]

Nobody ever said apologise. Apple simply had to say that they didn't copy Samsung - no apology needed.

[roadbloc]

Originally Posted by smoledman

Why should Apple apologize to the Shamsung who was found GUILTY of copying and has to pay $1 billion? Shamesung should be forced to run apologies 24/7!

Sorry, but they weren't found guilty over here.

As for the scrolling down... who cares? Apple were always going to try and hide it the best they can. It wasn't as if they were ever going to let an apology take the place of that iPad Mini they're displaying on their website. I guess we'll see if this satisfies our courts at last.

[Evoken]

Interesting how the page where the correct statement is placed has absolutely no branding like the rest of the site but is completely blank.

They definitely played it smart there. First place the statement at the very bottom of the page, where users need to scroll down to see it and in a way that the text is easily confused with the usual copyright information that most sites have. Then place the text of the actual statement in a completely blank page to avoid making it look like something posted within Apple's site.

Clever, and as it seems it complies with the requirements of the court order.