Apple Removes Code Hiding Samsung Court Order on UK Website

[Ryan John]

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.

[damitssam]

$537 and dropping. LOOL!

[MikeyMike01]

Originally Posted by M-O

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

What do you expect from the UK?

[Ubuntu]

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

----------

Originally Posted by Ryan John

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.

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

[Tech198]

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.

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by BvizioN

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

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

----------

Originally Posted by damitssam

$537 and dropping. LOOL!

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?

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by MikeyMike01

What do you expect from the UK?

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.

[kalsta]

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

Just undoing Scott Forstall trickery

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

[faroZ06]

Haha
Now will it be white text on white?

[hamkor04]

Originally Posted by rei101

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

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.

[divinox]

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

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.

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

[8a22a]

Originally Posted by emdotdee

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

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

[dreadnort]

Originally Posted by Nem Wan

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.

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.

----------

Originally Posted by MikeyMike01

What do you expect from the UK?

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

[lrjr]

Originally Posted by MikeyMike01

What do you expect from the UK?

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

[thefourthpope]

Cheeky buggers. (everyone involved)

[pooprscooper]

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

[unigolyn]

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.

[Lennholm]

Originally Posted by Mak47

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mak47

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?

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.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by lrjr

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

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.

[spyguy10709]

Originally Posted by divinox

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

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.

----------

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

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.

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

----------

Originally Posted by apolloa

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.

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.

----------

Originally Posted by Oletros

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

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.

[RiverCitySlim]

Originally Posted by MacDav

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.

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.

[Wordman]

Originally Posted by MikeyMike01

What do you expect from the UK?

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

[Dave.UK]

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

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.

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

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by nick_elt

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)

For example:

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

(click to enlarge)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnsha...ung-verdict/2/

[spyguy10709]

Originally Posted by Dave.UK

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

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