Apple Ordered to Alter Website Statement Acknowledging Samsung Galaxy Tab Did Not Infringe on iPad Design
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Next up: "Apple should buy the U.K and shut it down"
Surprised not to have seen that said yet given the posting history here.
hahaha, yeah give it time, give it time.
Last edited by a moderator:
8a22a
macrumors 6502a
macfacts
macrumors 603
So you think Apple got permission from their lawyers before putting the following text in hidden text on Apple's webpage: "so su me"?
http://shinysparkly.com/blog/2010/03/21/so-sue-me-css/
I hope you're being sarcastic.
No... because it would be a humungous slap in the face of the OP if his request became true
his beloved Apple would fall sharply.. and he would be eating those words.
GadgetDon
macrumors 6502
So if Apple had drawn a line after the court ordered statement, put a heading in of "Apple's response to the court order" and included the rest, would that be acceptable in your view? Or must Apple only post a position that confirms the judge's decision and be barred from making any statement to the contrary?
coffeemadmanUK
macrumors 6502a
Can you please provide a direct link to the ruling where the court told Apple exactly what to post? I looked through the ruling that was linked from the Apple UK page, and I only saw the conclusion where the court says there was no infringement. I am just curious about the wording.
In regards to what Apple did post... I think it is funny. Nobody is going to read it and come to any other conclusion than what they already believe. Apple fans will think Apple got ripped off... Samsung fans will think there was no infringement... and most others will probably think there was at least some infringement but could give crap!
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html
The following notice shall be posted and displayed upon the Defendant's Websites currently at
http://www.apple.com/benl/ http://www.apple.com/befr/
http://www.apple.com/bg/ http://www.apple.com/cz/
http://www.apple.com/dk/ http://www.apple.com/de/
http://www.apple.com/ee/ http://www.apple.com/es/
http://www.apple.com/fr/ http://www.apple.com/gr/
http://www.apple.com/hr/ http://www.apple.com/it/
http://www.apple.com/lv/ http://www.apple.com/li/iphone/
http://www.apple.com/lt/ http://www.apple.com/lu/
http://www.apple.com/hu/ http://www.apple.com/mt/
http://www.apple.com/nl/ http://www.apple.com/at/
http://www.apple.com/pl/ http://www.apple.com/pt/
http://www.apple.com/ro/ http://www.apple.com/sk/
http://www.apple.com/si/ http://www.apple.com/fi/
http://www.apple.com/se/ http://www.apple.com/uk/
"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (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 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]."
The defendant shall arrange for the following notice to be published in The Financial Times; the Daily Mail; The Guardian; Mobile Magazine; and T3 magazine:
"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (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 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]."
I really have to ask how many people read full threads and/or full stories before posting just blatant ignorance or - dare I say - stupidity.
This isn't about what is fair or not. It is what was ordered by the court.
This isn't Samsung doing anything.
This is because Apple (now twice) defied/undermined the UK courts.
No - the notice Apple posted was not to the letter of what the court ordered.
No - the notice Apple posted wasn't in the spirit of what the court ordered.
Apple tried to get away with something they KNEW wasn't "cool" (to use a favorite word in this thread). They did it very much on purpose. They knew it would take days to get a slap on the wrist for doing so. They know it won't take but 10 minutes to change their site.
They are playing a game. And what could be a dangerous one because the UK courts don't take kindly to being mocked. And they could easily impose fines or worse for contempt.
And no - it is completely unrealistic for Apple to withdraw from the UK. To assert that as some grade school tactic is just ridiculous and shows how little one knows about business and economics.
This isn't about what is fair or not. It is what was ordered by the court.
This isn't Samsung doing anything.
This is because Apple (now twice) defied/undermined the UK courts.
No - the notice Apple posted was not to the letter of what the court ordered.
No - the notice Apple posted wasn't in the spirit of what the court ordered.
Apple tried to get away with something they KNEW wasn't "cool" (to use a favorite word in this thread). They did it very much on purpose. They knew it would take days to get a slap on the wrist for doing so. They know it won't take but 10 minutes to change their site.
They are playing a game. And what could be a dangerous one because the UK courts don't take kindly to being mocked. And they could easily impose fines or worse for contempt.
And no - it is completely unrealistic for Apple to withdraw from the UK. To assert that as some grade school tactic is just ridiculous and shows how little one knows about business and economics.
Oletros
macrumors 603
It is good that you acknowledge your limitations
JForestZ34
macrumors 6502a
It should take far less time in a large organization to make this change
Yes it was. Because if it was apple you'd be cheering and saying that Samsung did wrong and they should redo it.
Remember that when a judge sides with apple
Yes. They were making fun of it. Rightfully so. It was ridiculous in the first place. They disagree with the UK court's ruling. They should use whatever means available to them to defend their position.
Just because a judge says you're guilty/innocent does not mean that you really are; it applies only within the confines of the legal system. There have been plenty of people that have been wrongfully convicted, and exonerated later. Conversely, I'm convinced there have also been people that have been exonerated that should have been found guilty. To assume that any justice system is infallible is just unrealistic. If you knew you were innocent, would you just shut up and do the time?
So in this Apple vs Samsung ridiculousness, all of us consumers are going to take sides based on what we believe to be the truth. If you believe Samsung is in the right, hey, OK. If you think Apple got the UK court shaft, well, whoop-tee-doo.
Personally, I don't care one way or another. However, I agree with Apple here and I do believe Samsung is a blatant copycat, based on what I've seen; but it means nothing to me as long as good products keep coming out.
However, I would love for Apple, despite being a "respectable multi-billion dollar, super-huge, classy-whatever corporation" to give a blue jeans and black turtleneck, Malcom X by any means necessary, punk-rock, Revolutionary War-style middle-finger to the UK courts on this one. Simply for the entertainment value of it all, same as the reason why I come to these forums.
This is a very funny statement. Next time I murder someone and I'm found guilty by a judge I will make sure I stand up and tell him he's crazy and walk right out of the courtroom.
James
That's like saying:
Should Apple comply with the UK law and it's ruling as per the outcome of the trial in the UK courts, with said ruling being imposed due to Apple posting non factual statements about the Samsung VS Apple trial in the UK, and the matter would be forgotten about.
Or should they:
Be above all UK law, ignore anything imposed on them as a result of the trial and instead of abiding by the ruling that was imposed on Apple due to it's behaviour and incorrect public statements, it should instead make a mocker of UK law and post a statement that takes the judges quotes totally our of context and make him look like an idiot, and then post non factual statements proclaiming how the UK court ruling was wrong anyway.
It should basically stick a virtual bird sign up at the UK courts and it's rulings because they are above the law, their arrogance and money makes it so..
melendezest
Suspended
Yes, I saw it.
Forcing Apple to post on their site that "the High Court (not Apple) ruled that Samsung didn't infringe on particular patents" is the same thing.
Apple disagrees with the court's ruling. Period. They should be able to say so.
coffeemadmanUK
macrumors 6502a
Do you realise that the LAW and judge's RULINGS are different? Of course judgments can be inconsistent and unbalanced - it depends entirely on the judge and how they interpret and hand down the law. It's ALWAYS been like this and is the same in most western nations.
That was a list of websites proposed by Samsung. The judge didn't agree.
See this post for more info.
coffeemadmanUK
macrumors 6502a
They are free to say so.
They are not free to go against a judge in a country they operate in.
They are free to not operate in the UK. They would, therefore, not have to abide by such a ruling.
Simple.
Apple, and no other business, is above the law.
coffeemadmanUK
macrumors 6502a
Okay so the websites are reduced - the exact text remains the same.
mac.ross
macrumors regular
My understanding was that the page was specifically for the message which was directed by the court, this decision was made rather than ordering them to put it on their front page (which they could have done), instead put it on its own page in order to preserve the clean minimalism of the front page.
Apple are obviously free to put up their opposing statement, in big flashing red letters on their front page if they want, but attached to a legally mandated statement was very immature.
I'm aware of the history of sosumi, and I don't think it's getting permission as much as taking advice.
No, it hasn't backfired. Apple made the statement they wanted to make, and got lots of mileage out of press reaction, blog commentary, etc. Mission accomplished. Now they will, I'm sure, issue a short direct statement in strict compliance with the judge's instruction. Good on Apple for clever manipulation of this absurd ruling!
Macthemaca
macrumors newbie
Not as cool
The ruling by the British judge was ridiculous anyway and Apple simply pointed that out.
I thought it was funny
The ruling by the British judge was ridiculous anyway and Apple simply pointed that out.
I thought it was funny
Oletros
macrumors 603
The ruling by the British judge was ridiculous anyway and Apple simply pointed that out.
I thought it was funny
What was ridiculous?
#1 Apple was NOT ordered to apologize. They were ordered to post a statement.
#2 Petulance has nothing to do with this. Apple does not agree with the court's ruling, and they certainly do not agree with the order to post the statement and take out the advertisements. They have made their position clear, probably knowing that the original statement would not be allowed to stand. Now they can post the statement as ordered without much risk that the public will think they agree with the court. Minimal damage done.
Taz Mangus
macrumors 604
How ironic that you say that considering you constantly spin whatever Apple does into the case where Apple is wrong and can't do anything right. Pot meet kettle.