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

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Nov 2, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Yesterday, we reported that Apple had been ordered a UK court to alter its published statement on its website acknowledging that the Samsung Galaxy Tab does not infringe upon the protected design of the iPad. The statement was required by an earlier court order, but Apple's version of the included additional content, playfully quoting statements from the judge's ruling saying that the Samsung Galaxy Tab was "not as cool" as the iPad and noting that it had won cases against Samsung in other jurisdictions.

    The judges were clearly unhappy with Apple's version of the notice and ordered the company to alter it within 48 hours, while Apple argued that it would take up to two weeks to revise and post the notice. As noted by TechCrunch, Apple has already removed its version of the notice from its UK website, but has yet to publish a revised version satisfying the court's demands.

    The Next Web also reports that the first of Apple's newspaper advertisements similarly required by the court has appeared in The Guardian today.
    [​IMG]
    Photo by Tim Acheson

    Article Link: Apple Removes UK Website Statement Regarding Galaxy Tab Design, Publishes Newspaper Acknowledgement
     
  2. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
  3. macrumors 6502a

    TheRainKing

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    #4
    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.
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2008
    Location:
    Ireland
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    Sweden
    #6
    I tell you, you know the U.K courts are screwed when they require you to use Arial. Talk about having zero taste.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
  8. macrumors 68040

    MonkeySee....

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    This will be overlooked when skimming the paper. Too right to as it was a joke.
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    #9
    Looks about as interesting as a Samsung advert :rolleyes:
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    Nipz

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    exactly why they have done it lol
     
  11. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #12
    Regardless - I'm pretty sure Apple absolutely hated to have to this at all
     
  13. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    #13
    Surprising by Apple to miss a space between "and" and "Wales", and to change kerning to fit that url in on one line :p
     
  14. macrumors 68030

    bbeagle

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #14
    Because they don't have to 'hurry up and do it'.

    Apple is clearly upset with the verdict and is dragging their feet. Of course they could do it in just a few minutes, but because they don't HAVE TO, they won't do it. This is their little LEGAL way of annoying the judge.

    For example: You get a parking ticket for $15 which you don't deserve. You fight it in court. The judge won't have it. You have 30 days to pay the $15, so to get a little sense of victory, you wait until the 30th day and pay the fine in pennies.

    Petty? Yes. Legal? Yes.
     
  15. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    #15
    There done.

    The whole thing was much ado about nothing to be honest.

    Apple was just order to dissemination the verdict - I don't think it's fair to demand that they do so, but that's for another post.

    Exactly how it got twisted into an "apology" I have no idea. Apple could still publicly assert that they disagree with the verdict if they so please.

    Good job tech press. You got the eyeballs you want and that's all that matters right?
     
  16. macrumors 603

    ChazUK

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Location:
    Essex (UK)
    #16
    At least it wasn't......

    COMIC SANS :mad:
     
  17. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    #17
    Because PR would like to have time to craft it. Nothing wrong with demanding that.
     
  18. macrumors 68030

    bbeagle

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #18
    Completely agree.

    What would stop a judge from telling Apple - in every 30 second commercial you air, the last 5 seconds must be an 'I'm sorry, Samsung' graphic with the Samsung logo 50% of the screen?

    No matter what side you're on, what they're making Apple do is completely ludicrous. I can understand paying Samsung money - and Samsung can then do whatever they want with the money. Samsung themselves could air these ads, why force Apple to? So 1800s.

    Apple should sue the judge now for 'forcing Apple to damage their reputation' or some such nonsense.
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    #19
    Such a shame...

    Personally, I think that Apple has the right to publish the reason why Samsung didn't infringed Apples patent.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    Sweden
    #20
    If I we're Tim Cook and they forced me to use Comic Sans I'd withdraw my products from the U.K. All common sense must then have been lost.
     
  21. macrumors 68030

    bbeagle

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #21
    Why can't it be an OLD ENGLISH font - that's really hard to read. This is the UK afterall.

    [​IMG]
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    FlatlinerG

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    Prince Edward Island, Canada
    #22
    So at what point can Apple sue the judge who keeps making Apple do these things? All of this extra press is now hurting Apple's image, the same reason Apple has to post this ridiculous documentation..
     
  23. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Location:
    Earth
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    melendezest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    #25
    "Fanboy"? Really?

    I don't think the issue is the posting of text (that is obviously simple), but where and how to place it on Apple's site while minimizing the impact of it. Having worked for large organizations, I can say that communication between legal, marketing, and IT departments can be time-consuming (and a pain in the rear).

    However, I agree that the time frame they requested is ridiculous, and despite what I mentioned above I think it is meant to be more strategic than anything else.
     

Share This Page