Apple Removes Code Hiding Samsung Court Order on UK Website

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.

$537 and dropping. LOOL!

M-O said:

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

Click to expand...

What do you expect from the UK?

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

----------

Ryan John said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Browsing UK site on iPad 3, you must still scroll when Ipad is used horizontal, but you can easily see the cort order notoce, when viewed vertically.

BvizioN said:

You are joking, right? You must be. Otherwise you need an urgent eye test.

Click to expand...

He thinks he's joking, but he lives in a Windows world, so that kind of explains it.

----------

damitssam said:

$537 and dropping. LOOL!

Click to expand...

Yeah. Thanks a lot Obama. The whole market is tanking since the election.



Just to set the record straight I am joking. It's not Obama...It's Romney's fault.

For not getting elected. No... I'm just kidding...or am I?

MikeyMike01 said:

What do you expect from the UK?

Click to expand...

Okay, write on the chalk board one hundred times...I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement.
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
No...I'm not going to do it 100 times.

spyguy10709 said:

Just undoing Scott Forstall trickery

Click to expand...

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

Haha
Now will it be white text on white?

rei101 said:

Steve Jobs was a decent man, he wouldn't be playing with things like that. Apple is becoming a joke.

Click to expand...

Also, Im noticing more and more Apple users (they are proper users) becoming more Apple haters, because of what they are doing now, I am trying to understand. I thing they have their point.

spyguy10709 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

emdotdee said:

"They would've got away with it if it weren't for all those pesky gadget blogs"

Click to expand...

Exactly. Why spoil it? I would have never have known.

Nem Wan said:

Apple should withdraw recognition of the sovereignty and legitimacy of the United Kingdom and declare their former territory to be a failed state. British refugees should report to the nearest Apple Store for assistance.

Click to expand...

thats funny, and what school did you go to!

With that kind of thinking it must be the reason Samsung have a Royal Warrant and Apple does'nt.
Next we shall here its not a big deal well speak to the McIlhenny Co. they think its a very big deal.

----------

MikeyMike01 said:

What do you expect from the UK?

Click to expand...

arh ha another person who hates the UK well done now go stand in the corner and don't come back until you have learnt your lesson.

Now go away or i shall taunt you a second time

MikeyMike01 said:

What do you expect from the UK?

Click to expand...

You should read the whole judgement which adequately explains things. Hopefully it should dispel your ignorance on this subject.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html

Cheeky buggers. (everyone involved)

Who cares if you have to scroll down to read the entire page. Some people will whine about anything...

If they'd just quietly complied with the ruling in the first place, this would be a non-issue.

I don't agree with the court order, but Apple's behavior is completely childish.

Mak47 said:

Steve Jobs would have told them where to put their order.

The man refused to use a license plate, sped everywhere he went and parked in handicapped spaces. (yes, even when he wasn't sick)

He would have read that order, hit delete, and moved on with his work.

Click to expand...

Sure, he would try to find and exploit loopholes, exactly like Apple did here but also just as it ended up for Apple, Steve Jobs would've had to eventually suck it up and comply.

Mak47 said:

There is absolutely no reason that any company should be required to do this. Any company, or individual for that matter has the right to file suit. The court saw fit to hear the case, so it's clearly not some frivolous lawsuit and it wasn't an abuse of the courts--if it were, they could have thrown it out.

When you file suit, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. In this case Apple lost. OK, fine, let the lawsuit end so both parties can go about their business.

A judge ordering a company to post a message like this is simply punishing them for exercising their rights. Losing the case (and all the financial issues that accompany that) should be enough.

This judge is sending a message, and it says: Don't sue people, don't try to protect your property. If you lose, not only will you lose the case, but you'll be publicly shamed for even trying.

Apple should have simply refused to comply with the order entirely. What is this judge going to do, demand extradition of Tim Cook from the US so he can do jail time for not saying he's sorry?

Click to expand...

Why don't you look into the case before you comment? The judge didn't punish Apple for "exercising their rights", he punished them for publicly making accusations of "blatant copying" that the court ruled unfounded and untrue.

The message the judge is sending is this and only this: Don't make accusations that are unfounded and untrue because you won't get away with it.

If Apple refuses to comply with a court order they can AND WILL lose their right to do business in that territory.

lrjr said:

You should read the whole judgement which adequately explains things. Hopefully it should dispel your ignorance on this subject.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html

Click to expand...

That linked order should be required reading for anyone to comment in this thread.

It fully explains the three judges' reasons for making Apple change their website posting.

Then people can debate the actual reasoning, instead of talking about made-up ideas skimmed from blogs and forums, or worse, making immature comments about the UK etc.

divinox said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

----------

KnightWRX said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

----------

apolloa said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

----------

Oletros said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

MacDav said:

Okay, write on the chalk board one hundred times...I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement.
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
I will not sue Samsung for patent infringement
No...I'm not going to do it 100 times.

Click to expand...

We will not blatantly and wilfully attempt to mislead the public into believing that Samsung infringed the Community design '607 or its US design patent equivalent, D'889.
We will not blatantly and wilfully attempt to mislead the public into believing that Samsung infringed the Community design '607 or its US design patent equivalent, D'889.
We will not blatantly and wilfully attempt to mislead the public into believing that Samsung infringed the Community design '607 or its US design patent equivalent, D'889.
We will not blatantly and wilfully attempt to mislead the public into believing that Samsung infringed the Community design '607 or its US design patent equivalent, D'889.
We will not blatantly and wilfully attempt to mislead the public into believing that Samsung infringed the Community design '607 or its US design patent equivalent, D'889.
We will not blatantly and wilfully attempt to mislead the public into believing that Samsung infringed the Community design '607 or its US design patent equivalent, D'889.
We will not blatantly and wilfully attempt to mislead the public into believing that Samsung infringed the Community design '607 or its US design patent equivalent, D'889.

MikeyMike01 said:

What do you expect from the UK?

Click to expand...

Wow, a xenophobe. Thought they'd all died out.

spyguy10709 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

nick_elt said:

You guys might not think its related but I dont think stuff like this and stories about AAPL dropping 20% is unrelated. Public perception of Apple is changing. And not for the good. (I Still think there is money to be made and bad press to change but Apple has to change first)

Click to expand...

For example:

Here's How Apple's Reputation Dived After the Samsung Verdict

(click to enlarge)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnsh...reputation-dived-after-the-samsung-verdict/2/​

Click to expand...

Dave.UK said:

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

Click to expand...

I promise you - it was autocorrect. I'm not sure how that got in there... but it did.