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

[johncrab]

Here is my version of how Apple should "apologize":

"Dear Consumer,

Courts have told us we have to apologize for our reactions to a vendor who broke security and non-disclosure agreements, stole our designs, knocked them off and tried to compete with us while still wanting to be a vendor to Apple. This is a lot like someone breaking into your house and stealing your TV set then coming back for the stereo system while offering to sell you a new TV. We apologize to this thieving company and believe that they need to get along without any further opportunities to steal so we are sourcing parts from other vendors. Please know that the one thing this company can't knock-off is our attention to detail in our products and our support of our customers. We wish them sell in selling their creaky plastic junk and victimizing consumers who can't see the value in a superior product."

 

[samcraig]

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.

No - it's not like that at all. Maybe you don't know as much about this issue as you think you do if you think that analogy remotely fits.

 

[justperry]

No, Apple's first website posting was childish. There is nothing wrong with this. The text is quite large, even if it's at the bottom of the screen - disclaimers are usually put at the bottom of the screen.

Go back to the first page and look which posts gets the most upvotes.

It is still childish, Apple lost, if they want do do business in the UK then they have to abide by their laws.

 

[reefoid]

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.

I think some of you should read the other threads on this because you seem awfully misinformed.

Apple didn't sue, Samsung brought the case asking the judge if their devices infringed or not on Apple's registered design (not copyright).

And the judge didn't order Apple to publish the statement because they lost, but because Apple continued to make statements contrary to the original decision.

 

[samcraig]

Nice - but that's a lot of lies - isn't it. And you know it.

Here is my version of how Apple should "apologize":

"Dear Consumer,

Courts have told us we have to apologize for our reactions to a vendor who broke security and non-disclosure agreements, stole our designs, knocked them off and tried to compete with us while still wanting to be a vendor to Apple. This is a lot like someone breaking into your house and stealing your TV set then coming back for the stereo system while offering to sell you a new TV. We apologize to this thieving company and believe that they need to get along without any further opportunities to steal so we are sourcing parts from other vendors. Please know that the one thing this company can't knock-off is our attention to detail in our products and our support of our customers. We wish them sell in selling their creaky plastic junk and victimizing consumers who can't see the value in a superior product."

 

[blackhand1001]

I for one am happy that Apple is remembering their roots and not conforming like sheep to the court after a silly ruling like that.
Bravo Apple.


Image

The funny thing is that Steve Jobs became exactly like the man in the picture with his fans. They will line up to buy anything they release.

 

[wgnoyes]

So big damn deal! That's where I would put it, too. Hell, the link's larger now than it was before. What, you want them to push their products off the main page and put a great big "The Courts Think We Suck" icon and link? No, it goes down on the bottom along with site map, hot news, rss feeds, media info, job opportunities, contact us, and the rest of the stuff that nobody really cares about. It's entirely appropriate!

 

[Tech198]

Sneaky.... If i remember righly, my mates old website tried to do the same thing to get round Google ranking......

It didn't work, and i doubt this will either.

Good job, for trying though. I probably would have done the same.

 

[tctony]

Who cares? It's such a childish judgement to begin with.

 

[G4DP]

I find it quiet funny that all the complaints about the ruling are from the US. Yet when a 'British' company tried to be smarmy in US courts reactions were the opposite.

The best thing was it wasn't even a British Company and hadn't been for 15 years.

The hypocrisy is hilarious.

 

[Oletros]

Who cares? It's such a childish judgement to begin with.

Which one?

 

[ChrisTX]

You guys are foolish if you think Apple is going to display this front, and center on their website. Kudos to Apple for displaying this on their home page but keeping it from the public eye at the same time!

 

[samcraig]

Who cares? It's such a childish judgement to begin with.

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

I guess you care?

 

[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?

 

[Lennholm]

Here is my version of how Apple should "apologize":

"Dear Consumer,

Courts have told us we have to apologize for our reactions to a vendor who broke security and non-disclosure agreements, stole our designs, knocked them off and tried to compete with us while still wanting to be a vendor to Apple. This is a lot like someone breaking into your house and stealing your TV set then coming back for the stereo system while offering to sell you a new TV. We apologize to this thieving company and believe that they need to get along without any further opportunities to steal so we are sourcing parts from other vendors. Please know that the one thing this company can't knock-off is our attention to detail in our products and our support of our customers. We wish them sell in selling their creaky plastic junk and victimizing consumers who can't see the value in a superior product."

That's exactly the kind of accusations that got Apple in this hassle in the first place. They publicly accused Samsung of "blatantly copying" Apple before any official ruling had taken place. The court later ruled that these accusations by Apple were unfounded and untrue and therefor Apple has to apologize for their damaging statements.

 

[smwatson]

Deary me. I suspect the judge may take some more action.

Apple should strike a deal. We'll change the court ruling if they pay their taxes?

 

[Ironduke]

Careful. You live on an Island. Germany makes most of your stuff.

No liberty ships next time. You lost the Revolution. Give it up man, give it up!!!!

just checking

nope germany doesnt make most of our stuff

LIAR

and what do you think pulled you out of the depression funboy

i know you like to thinks your people do stuff out of the good of your heart but everyone knows you do it only for money

 

[cambox]

APPLE was not found guilty. The ruling was regarding SAMSUNG and if they violated any issue.

They were found guilty of not complying with the first court ruling regards the advert on their website. Try and think what the context is before shouting your mouth off.

 

[samcraig]

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?

Seriously - do you know that this requirement has nothing to do with the original court case but because after the ruling that Samsung's tablet did NOT infringe, Apple still was stating it did?

Clarifying this over and over to people who refuse to understand the issue can be exhausting.

----------

 

[croooow]

The Court and Apple are both being childish. It is silly to force a company to make a statement that they would not otherwise make. It is not fooling anyone.

 

[cambox]

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.

So this is quite clearly Samsung the thief getting away with it.

They were found guilty of not complying with the first court ruling regards the advert on their website. Try and think what the context is before shouting your mouth off.

 

[Unspeaked]

Apple isn't "becoming" anything. It has always loved to mess with lawyers.

The most humorous example is when Carl Sagan sued Apple for using his name as a codename. Apple changed it to BHA (butthead astronomer.) Sagan lost but Apple changed it to LAW (lawyers are wimps.)

I didn't say the attitude is new, I meant the enormity of the company is.

That stuff may have been "cute" when Apple was the little guy sticking it to the man (I remember eating it up back then myself), but now that they're the largest company in the world, that kind of attitude is pathetic and reflects far more poorly on them than the companies they think they're taking shots at.

 

[iphoneclassic]

Apple is behaving like a juvi who litters the road when ordered to pick up trash as part of community service.

Next thing we know Judge may order this apology should be default wecome page with "Continue" button to actual web page.

Also UK needs Joe Arpaio to make sure Apple complies.

 

[Glideslope]

just checking

nope germany doesnt make most of our stuff

LIAR

and what do you think pulled you out of the depression funboy

i know you like to thinks your people do stuff out of the good of your heart but everyone knows you do it only for money

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?

 

[lrjr]

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?

But that's not the legal test is it. I suggest you read the judgment by Judge Birss QC. He clearly states that an infringement will only exist where:-

A design..... does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression [from the registered design].

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/samsung-apple.pdf