Apple Posts Revised Samsung Apology on UK Website, Hides It Below the Fold

[reefoid]

Originally Posted by iphoneclassic

Also UK needs Joe Arpaio to make sure Apple complies.

Had to look him up. I think we could do with him actually. Can we borrow him for a few years? Our police commissioners are about to be elected so perfect timing

[Ironduke]

Originally Posted by Glideslope

I have no problem doing things for monetary compensation. Almost every US company rapes you of tax income daily. You think that is going to change?
Your leaders encourage it. You may not like our Hearts, but your leaders have no problem bending over for us?

no just Blair

quit trying to be funny

YOUR NOT

[Psychj0e]

I hope the court gets back at Apple for this.

And next I hope Apple is held to account for not paying its due to the UK taxpayer.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by jvmxtra

What I don't understand about this judge is that decision is so freaking blind. Sammy clearly copies apple. Even droid nut knows that.. but yet it came to this.

Seriously?

Then almost all the courts are blind regarding the ipad design patents/community designs

----------

Originally Posted by gnasher729

What the **** are you on about? Apple wasn't found guilty of anything. The judge decided that even though Samsung copied Apple's design, the copy wasn't good enough to infringe on Apple's design patents.

This is false and you know it because people have explained it to you more than once

[JackieTreehorn]

Originally Posted by Jsameds

It does come across as a little smarmy but originally they followed the court order to the letter, but the judge didn't agree - he was being pedantic about the whole affair, so Apple responded like this, playing him at his own game.

Exactly. That judge held more grudges towards Apple than Apple does towards Samsung/Google.

[jessica.]

Originally Posted by MMOTotal

If it is legit then there is nothing Apple should worry about.

It is legit but it seems if the judge stepped in once then he doesn't believe Apple is within the spirit of the agreement. I just wouldn't go as far as pushing it the next time around like Apple has.

[MacGit]

Originally Posted by Glideslope

no problem bending over for us?

LOL! That just about sums up what that makes those who do that then.
Nice one. Looks like you need some bandage for your foot.

[Ironduke]

Originally Posted by Psychj0e

I hope the court gets back at Apple for this.

And next I hope Apple is held to account for not paying its due to the UK taxpayer.

well said

we should dress up like chavs and throw some american tourists into the thames too

APPLE PAY YOUR TAXES!

[Fishticks]

If you regard how they intend to treat GoogleMaps appn and the way they don't stand up to their errors, it just proves that they aren't able to fight back commercially and with innovations anymore.

[kd5jos]

Originally Posted by Macboy Pro

What kind of teenagers are making these decisions at Apple? Just display the dang text and let the 30 days expire. If you are right and your product is great, you will be fine. Instead you look immature and arrogant.

Immaturity and arrogance has been handed down as a determination from the court. Apple is just protecting itself from their stupidity. That's all. I applaud them for it. I'm surprised they didn't make the text white on a white background. Maybe they'll use that next. I can hope

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by Jsameds

Ioriginally they followed the court order to the letter, but the judge didn't agree -

No, they didn't, they added text to the court recomandation without submitting it

[kd5jos]

Originally Posted by Psychj0e

I hope the court gets back at Apple for this.

And next I hope Apple is held to account for not paying its due to the UK taxpayer.

This isn't about justice, it's about revenge. Okay, I get it.

[AnonMac50]

Originally Posted by rmatthewware

Apple wasn't found guilty of anything. They sued for copyright infringement and Samsung was found not guilty.

This would be like you suing someone for scratching your car then being unable to prove they did it, then the judge saying you have to put a billboard over your house for a month saying you're a liar. It's pretty ridiculous.

Except Apple continued to say that Samsung had copied them. I can't find their exact words right now, but if I do, I'll post them.

[datasmog]

Really should expect something better from MacRumours, the Apple UK home page doesn't look anything like the image posted here. In fact apart from the statement in the footer it's pretty much identical to the US site.
Furthermore one would expect to scroll down a page to see the footer anyway. Apple are entitled to design web pages to promote their products any way they choose. And if that means using a fairly large image so what?
I really don't see what the problem is here.

[lrjr]

Originally Posted by JackieTreehorn

Exactly. That judge held more grudges towards Apple than Apple does towards Samsung/Google.

I don't think you have read the judgement if you think they followed it correctly. Sir Robin Jacob gave the judgement for the Court of Appeal and he said that unless another suggestion was made by the parties the statement should be:-

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given].

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe

The fact that apple followed their statement with a factually inaccurate and misleading paragraph was the reason they were found to be in non compliance with the order and told to rectify it. As to grudges, it has been my experience that judges do not take kindly to those that disobey their rulings so in that respect Apple has earned Sir Robin's ire.

Also if you want to educate yourself the whole judgement can be found at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

[Psychj0e]

Originally Posted by kd5jos

This isn't about justice, it's about revenge. Okay, I get it.

It's about justice and complying with a host nations wishes.

[Mainyehc]

Originally Posted by odditie

It's kinda humorous going back and forth from apple.com to apple.com/uk to see the differences.

I'm sure they are pissed, but hopefully this doesn't just drag the whole thing out longer.

I'm guessing they did it on purpose… A quick check of various international pages of countries which, like the US, have an official online Apple Store, reveals that they display the same layout as the UK page. The only pages which show up as apple.com are, ironically, those which don't have a store.

So, either they forgot to update the code on those, or they didn't update it for the apple.com site on purpose and, since the other sites are for "lesser countries" (contrast http://www.apple.com/br and http://www.apple.com/pt , and don't forget Brazil is arguably an immensely larger market than Portugal) and sometimes aren't even translated from english (take http://www.apple.com/sa , for instance), they just reuse the code from the main site, hence the similarity.

Anyway, back on topic, this is very well played on their part. Sorry to say but, as trollish as Apple may have been (even to begin with, as they started it all by suing), the UK judge's decision and the arguments he threw around just don't really stick.

Now, in all fairness, if a product is a copycat (outright or not), what does it matter whether it's cooler or not than the original? It could be even cooler while still being a copy; the simple fact that the judge mentioned the "coolness" factor as a measure of infringement is, in and of itself, an admission of guilt. Coolness comparisons *were* made because they *were* warranted, and Samsung was excused of infringing only because they did it, as usual, in a sloppy fashion. And Apple had, IMHO, the right to point out that out to the public…

Now, they just link to the ruling, letting their end-customers figure it out for themselves. The judge got its way, Samsung still comes off looking like a copycat, Apple complied, and they can still deny they did this "under-the-fold" thing on purpose as they use that code across various websites and also used it before. Everybody (except Samsung) wins!

[Glideslope]

Originally Posted by Ironduke

no just Blair

quit trying to be funny

YOUR NOT

I'm not trying to be funny Duke. These threads with the Kangaroo Court lead by the Mad Hatter generate genuine anger. I don't always side with Apple. However, in this ruling I have been consistent. Legal Exhibitionism.

If you think it's so bad, withdraw from the EU and try and go it alone. You're not in the currency? What is holding you back? Leaders who can't take on Big Bad American Business? It's still Blair's fault in 2013 for all purposes?

Save it. Take us on head first or leave it on the table.

[Jibbajabba]

Originally Posted by Silmarien

Why not just take it like a champ? All this mess just seems immature to me.

Indeed - I don't care if its Apple's or Samsung's fault - getting a bit tired of this childish back and forth.

[Peppa]

So childish.

[tctony]

Originally Posted by samcraig

I find it funny that you write "who cares?" and then "it's such a childish judgement"

I guess you care?

I mean who cares what Apple does with this. Its such a lame and childish judgement on the judge's behalf anyway. Seriously.. "You have to post an apology on your website" What is this, 6th grade?

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by tctony

I mean who cares what Apple does with this. Its such a lame and childish judgement on the judge's behalf anyway. Seriously.. "You have to post an apology on your website" What is this, 6th grade?

It is not an apology.

Why it is childish?

[lrjr]

Originally Posted by Mainyehc

Anyway, back on topic, this is very well played on their part. Sorry to say but, as trollish as Apple may have been (even to begin with, as they started it all by suing), the UK judge's decision and the arguments he threw around just don't really stick.

Now, in all fairness, if a product is a copycat (outright or not), what does it matter whether it's cooler or not than the original? It could be even cooler while still being a copy; the simple fact that the judge mentioned the "coolness" factor as a measure of infringement is, in and of itself, an admission of guilt. Comparisons *were* made because they *were* warranted, and Samsung was excused of copying only for doing a sloppy job. And Apple was, IMHO, in its right to point out that to the public…

So Judge Birss' reasoning doesn't stick. Interesting conclusion so what do you disagree with then. Did Judge Birss not use the correct legal test or was the test applied wrongly? If the test was applied incorrectly how should it have been?

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the case was brought on a copyright basis when it was in fact brought under alleged infringement of a community registered design. The test of infringement is when the informed user is not left with a different overall impression than the community design.

So you were in fact completely incorrect in your assumption about the basis on which the courts made their decisions. If you want to learn more about the case why don't you read the judgments which can be found here:-

High Court:- www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

Court of Appeal:- www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by Mainyehc

Now, in all fairness, if a product is a copycat (outright or not), what does it matter whether it's cooler or not than the original? It could be even cooler while still being a copy; the simple fact that the judge mentioned the "coolness" factor as a measure of infringement is, in and of itself, an admission of guilt. Coolness comparisons *were* made because they *were* warranted, and Samsung was excused of infringing only because they did it, as usual, in a sloppy fashion. And Apple had, IMHO, the right to point out that out to the public…

You have not read the ruling, do you?

Coolness was not a measure of infringement

[lrjr]

Originally Posted by Glideslope

I'm not trying to be funny Duke. These threads with the Kangaroo Court lead by the Mad Hatter generate genuine anger. I don't always side with Apple. However, in this ruling I have been consistent. Legal Exhibitionism.

If you think it's so bad, withdraw from the EU and try and go it alone. You're not in the currency? What is holding you back? Leaders who can't take on Big Bad American Business? It's still Blair's fault in 2013 for all purposes?

Save it. Take us on head first or leave it on the table.

What on earth are you talking about? You have called the court "Kangaroo" multiple times but provided no reasoning, maybe that's because you don't have any real reasons and you are simple posturing. Also by real reasons I mean reasons grounded in good legal argument not something you may have pulled from nowhere.