or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad - Page 5

post #161 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

"The court’s initial order to post a notice was designed t

That was the 'design' but the actual product is a different matter. And in legal matters the product is the key.

As you say they were told what to write and they did. But it wasn't what the Judge really wanted them to write or did he bar them from writing anything else. That was his bad. But Apple followed the order as it was declared and placed in court record so there is no contempt.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #162 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid View Post

 

Doing it "their own way" is what got them into this mess in the first place.  How about doing the "right way" instead?

 

Also, looks like they have 48 hours to comply, unless Tim Cook gets involved.  From the BBC:

 

Of course Apple will do it the "right" way (if not the "right way"). 1smoking.gif

post #163 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


No accounting for Judges crazy with power and ego I suppose.

 

No accounting for respect of the law in some peoples outlook I suppose.

post #164 of 446
Originally Posted by whatever71 View Post

And to try to stave off any fandroid type comments I own an iPhone 4s…

 

No one cares. If your argument is broken, no number of purchases, real or otherwise, can stave off anything.


Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Actually you see it in Apple's App Store rules as well.  Funny, right?

 

Not really, no. Explain?


Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Can we keep the school massacre talk out of the thread please.

 

Yes, please. Other than it invalidating the point you've made. I guess keeping the truth out of arguments is how things operate over there.

 

But no, honestly, there's no need for this to use an analogy as a segue into an unrelated point.

 
Originally Posted by fredawest View Post
Oh dear - first time posters must be liars, fantastic logic.

 

Oh dear, if only that was what I said (or even implied) in any regard under any definition of any of the words I used. 1oyvey.gif


Originally Posted by herbapou View Post
This is the kind of bad press Apple doesnt need, especially in Europe where they are not doing well at all.

 

Some European countries have higher Apple marketshare than the US.

post #165 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I quite like the punishment since it's hard to really punish a company that brings in billions in a month in revenue. That said, the judge has failed to be precise in his punishment which allowed for a great deal of interpretation as we're seeing now. Apple followed it exactly but he was too lazy, stupid, or merely didn't think it through and now he says it's not good enough with an implication of that isn't what he meant. Can UK courts actually operate that way? I don't know but I sure hope not.


I absolutely think that they can operate this way, and they will be as harsh as possible to Apple if the perceived non compliance continues. And all the Samsung fanatics can wave the Union Jack as they burn Tim Cook's effigy. Laughable situation actually.

The UK courts argue that the 'apology' was intended to reduce the harm brought to the Samsung brand. Really? I personally find it difficult impossible to understand how anyone can harm a company that is so morally bankrupt. That they copied I have no doubt about. That they 'infringed' is a legal distinction I will leave to the UK judges to decide, rule, enforce, whatever...

post #166 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Cite? Evidence?

I seem to remember seeing the UK quoted as Apple's second biggest market a few years ago, though doubtless China has overtaken it now, and possibly Japan too, as the iPhone is very popular there.


Apple doesn't do by-country revenue reporting, but an estimate of $6bn sales in the UK has been doing the rounds*, of $156bn total revenue**.  It's a sizeable market that Apple wouldn't give up on lightly.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2127048/Apple-6bn-UK--paid-10m-tax.html

** http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312511282113/d220209d10k.htm

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #167 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


No accounting for Judges crazy with power and ego I suppose.

Same can be said about COMPANIES crazy with power and ego 1cool.gif

post #168 of 446

There is no such thing as bad publicity (except your own obituary).  

 

Drawing this out - and getting their digs in as a bonus - are positive PR outcomes for The Company.

 

And the whole time it plays out, we get to hear the Benny Hill soundtrack playing in our heads.  Hilarity ensues.

post #169 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Cite? Evidence?

Don't hold your breath waiting for a cite, because it's not true of course.

 

The UK only has around 62 million people. It's hardly that large of a market and certainly not Apple's most profitable market outside of the US.

 

In FY2011, China was the only country outside the U.S. to contribute more than 10% of Apple's reported revenue total.

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/663981-apple-s-revenue-growth-a-dual-track-bullet-train

 

The UK is so tiny that it gets lumped in with Europe as a whole, and Europe is doing pretty crappy at the moment, thanks to their dire economic situation.

post #170 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Did you miss the part where I said the kid is fully aware of the Dad's dislike for pickles and put them in deliberately? 

 

No.  You still are missing the point that dad didn't provide specific instructions and only ASSUMED that child would respect his wishes.  This was your analogy, remember.  Now, you are testy over someone pointing out it's flaws.  Are you actually the judge?  You are doing the exact same thing!

 

Quote:

I'm amazed by the dual standards of requiring that Apple receive completely unambiguous instruction in all matters, yet decrying Apple being treated like a child.  Logic, there is no place for you at the Appleinsider forums.

 

I am not promoting a dual standard.  If you re-read my post, I said nothing about the judge, Samsung, or Apple.

 

As for logic, use some of that, yourself.  I hope you realize that precise language is required in legal documents.  And all requirements must be included by quotation or by reference.  If the judge didn't do that, he really should not be upset.

 

Apple, on the other hand, should be careful to choose their enemies wisely--and not fight battles that they can't win or are not worth winning.

post #171 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yes, please. Other than it invalidating the point you've made. I guess keeping the truth out of arguments is how things operate over there.

 

But no, honestly, there's no need for this to use an analogy as a segue into an unrelated point.

I'd love to see you explain what the hell you mean by this?  How does me objecting to casually tossed around nationalistic barbs about school massacres (on both sides of the Atlantic) have anything to do with what we're talking about?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #172 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredawest View Post

 

Oh dear - first time posters must be liars, fantastic logic.  Any chance of moderating my 4th post?  Kind of Stalinist of you to hold back posts which you disagree with isn't it?

 

Oh look, what are the odds this idiot is also the same guy who used to post as "fredaroony"? Creating multiple accounts to keep coming back and post trash shows what an absolute loser you are.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 

big snip

 

 

Couldn't wait to pat yourself on the back I see. So what? Anyone saying this would get the attention of the judge or Samsung had a 50:50 chance of being right. In fact, they probably had a better than 50:50 chance.

 

I don't think the issue is that they ruffled some feathers - it's whether they were legally allowed to do what they did, and I still think they were. Little whiny judges getting mad that they were out-smarted by Apple's legal team. The judge should have made his initial order clearer instead of having to clean up a mess afterwards from his being incompetent/lazy.

 

 

I have a question for you: Can you show me any single case in UK court history where a company was forced to post a public notice like this after losing a lawsuit in court? And before you start, you can't include any cases from tabloids that printed a story like "Tom Cruise is Gay" and were forced to print a retraction. That is a compltely different issue. Apple never published anything on their website or in any print or online media about Samsung copying them. If they had, then being forced to print a retraction would make 100% sense.

post #173 of 446
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
I'd love to see you explain what the hell you mean by this?  How does me objecting to casually tossed around nationalistic barbs about school massacres (on both sides of the Atlantic) have anything to do with what we're talking about?

 

I don't see anything nationalistic about that. He threw up some false comment about how Americans have to bring guns to school for protection, ignoring the point of the thread, and someone else replied with a school shooting in your own country. 

 

Specifically, he claimed that all US schools are shot up regularly enough that students must protect themselves with weapons. Nonsense on the face of it and wholly off-topic, ignoring the point I was making, but stated nonetheless. Within his context, he implied not only that US schools are dangerous, but that UK schools are safe—or at the very least, that this doesn't happen.

 

Someone else replied in the negative in that regard, and then you decided that his point was invalid simply because it would have proven incorrect his implication. It did not, on its own, disprove his explicit statement, but that's already so far gone that we know it not to be true.

 

EDIT: Corrected for pronouns. But this one is still correct.


Edited by Tallest Skil - 11/1/12 at 9:34am
post #174 of 446

"A consumer might well think: 'I had better not buy a Samsung - maybe it's illegal and if I buy one it may not be supported'," Sir Robin said.

 

Well that is just silly.

 

Also they only really need to remove the reference to the German and US rulings, there is no need to rewrite the entire statement.

post #175 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredawest View Post

No accounting for respect of the law in some peoples outlook I suppose.

Human history is replete with examples of protest when the law is an ass. As it appears to be in the case.
Edited by anantksundaram - 11/1/12 at 9:32am
post #176 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff View Post

No.  You still are missing the point that dad didn't provide specific instructions and only ASSUMED that child would respect his wishes.  This was your analogy, remember.  Now, you are testy over someone pointing out it's flaws.  Are you actually the judge?  You are doing the exact same thing!

Not getting testy at all, just checking that we have the same understanding.  Not that it's cleared up that we are I can wholeheartedly say that I think you're wrong, and that what you claim is a flaw is not a flaw.  

 

There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption.  Reasonableness can be tested in court, but it is something that underpins a lot of judicial process.  I think that the dad in the analogy, and the judge in actuality were both completely reasonable in their expectation; that the kid would not be a little sod, and Apple would not be a creatively contrarian worm.  The law does not exist solely to spell out in precise step-by-step instruction exactly what should be done, there are also expectations and intentions and the spirit of the law; just like there is a spirit of responsible sandwich making.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #177 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I don't see anything nationalistic about that. You threw up some false comment about how Americans have to bring guns to school for protection, ignoring the point of the thread, and someone else replied with a school shooting in your own country. 

 

Specifically, you claimed that all US schools are shot up regularly enough that students must protect themselves with weapons. Nonsense on the face of it and wholly off-topic, ignoring the point I was making, but stated nonetheless. Within your context, you implied not only that US schools are dangerous, but that UK schools are safe—or at the very least, that this doesn't happen.

 

Someone else replied in the negative in that regard, and then you decided that his point was invalid simply because it would have proven incorrect your implication. It did not, on its own, disprove your explicit statement, but that's already so far gone that we know it not to be true.

None of this is true.  The person you are referring to wasn't me.  I expect an apology on the front page of your website.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #178 of 446
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
None of this is true.  The person you are referring to wasn't me.

 

Whoop, you're right. Sorry about that. Changed.

post #179 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Oh look, what are the odds this idiot is also the same guy who used to post as "fredaroony"? Creating multiple accounts to keep coming back and post trash shows what an absolute loser you are.

 

 

 

The odds are Zero - I'm genuinely a first time poster.  I guess you have a serious problem when anyone has the temerity not to agree with you. I love your take on debate and discussion it's truly priceless.

post #180 of 446

I still don't know what you're getting at.  I didn't claim "that his point was invalid simply because it would have proven incorrect his implication" (I'm not even sure who "he" is in this context) - I just asked that we not talk about high school massacres, as they're irrelevant to the discussion and bringing them up is a bit distasteful.

 

I also think bringing the UK education system into the discussion was a bit off.  You did that.

 

Maybe I've misunderstood you.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #181 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I have a question for you: Can you show me any single case in UK court history where a company was forced to post a public notice like this after losing a lawsuit in court? 

The judge's reasoning was clearly stated in the order I linked to earlier. If you read it for yourself without tinted glasses on you may even agree that the reasoning was proper.

 

If there's been a similar case I wouldn't know about it, nor do I know why it would matter. The original case Judge rendered an order that Apple didn't agree with. Apple appealed. Three more judges upheld the original order to publish with minor modifications to the original order, taking the time to explain to Apple and it's counsel why they felt the order was both necessary and proper. Apple feels they technically complied with the letter of the order, but went further than advised to break the spirit of the order as far as the Appeals Court is concerned. Four judge's heard this motion after Apple's notice was posted, and agree again that Apple is still using innuendo to claim Samsung's tablets are infringing on Apple's design patent regardless of what the European-wide ruling factually is. I don't think being heard by five judges next time would change the order that the original judge felt was needed in the first place, do you?

 

There's nothing confusing about where they are now IMO. It could have gone either way, but it's not hard to understand why the court may have had an issue with how Apple complied.


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/1/12 at 9:50am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #182 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Human history is replete with examples of protest when the law is an ass. As it appears to be in the case.

 

Jeez, I'm all for protest by people not frigging multinational prtotectionist companies.

post #183 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredawest View Post

No accounting for respect of the law in some peoples outlook I suppose.

Do you really believe this is an important legal issue? How did Apple show disrespect for the law? They complied with the order, the Judge thought it made his foolish ruling look foolish and got mad. Maybe they Judge should concentrate on not writing foolish rulings in the future.
post #184 of 446
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post
How did Apple show disrespect for the law?

 

No one seems to want to answer this question.

post #185 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The judge's reasoning was clearly stated in the order I linked to earlier. If you read it for yourself without tinted glasses on you may even agree that the reasoning was proper.

If there's been a similar case I wouldn't know about it, nor do I know why it would matter. The original case Judge rendered an order that Apple didn't agree with. Apple appealed. Three more judges upheld the original order to publish with minor modifications to the original order, taking the time to explain to Apple and it's counsel why they felt the order was both necessary and proper. Apple feels they technically complied with the letter of the order, but went further than advised to break the spirit of the order as far as the Appeals Court is concerned. Four judge's heard this motion after Apple's notice was posted, and agree again that Apple is still using innuendo to claim Samsung's tablets are infringing on Apple's design patent regardless of what the European-wide ruling factually is. I don't think being heard by five judges next time would change the order that the original judge felt was needed in the first place, do you?

There's nothing confusing about where they are now IMO.

Here is my issue. If Apple posted Simply "Samsung did not copy Apple" and then below it put a complete unedited copy of the court ruling, you would have the same innuendo. The innuendo comes from the ruling. Blame the Judge.
post #186 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


Do you really believe this is an important legal issue? 

 

Every legal issue is important whether you agree with it or not.  If the judge let's Apple get away with this it makes the law an even bigger ass.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


They complied with the order, the Judge thought it made his foolish ruling look foolish and got mad. Maybe they Judge should concentrate on not writing foolish rulings in the future.

 

Except they DIDN'T comply with the order.  You might not agree with that, but its a fact.

post #187 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Not getting testy at all, just checking that we have the same understanding.  Not that it's cleared up that we are I can wholeheartedly say that I think you're wrong, and that what you claim is a flaw is not a flaw.  

 

There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption.  Reasonableness can be tested in court, but it is something that underpins a lot of judicial process.  I think that the dad in the analogy, and the judge in actuality were both completely reasonable in their expectation; that the kid would not be a little sod, and Apple would not be a creatively contrarian worm.  The law does not exist solely to spell out in precise step-by-step instruction exactly what should be done, there are also expectations and intentions and the spirit of the law; just like there is a spirit of responsible sandwich making.

 

I agree.  It's clear from the paragraph 51 from the original ruling (which we both quoted earlier), that the entire point of requiring Apple to post this statement was to remove ambiguity.  Apple got clever and did exactly what the judge was complaining about and was called on it.

 

Here's an analogy for ya.  Suppose a tabacco company is instructed to include a "warning on it's packaging" (or a certain size) about the dangers of smoking "to correct the company's habit of saying one thing and implying another in terms of the safety of smoking" and the final packaging includes the warning as required but includes four times as much text talking about how other people have found that smoking might be good for you.  Is that company complying with the order?  No.  The instructions have context.

 

Apple should delete the extra crap, apologize to the court for it's "unintentional" noncompliance with the spirit of the order and call it a day.  If not, I'd say the appeals court could easily reverse their original "a link is ok" decision and force Apple to put the statement on the home page in the 11 point font as ordered.  (By the way to the guy arguing that there is case law that dictates what size fonts companies should use in these cases, there may be (or not) but it's moot.  The order specifically said the font size.  And no, white text on white background would not be considered complying.)

post #188 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

No one seems to want to answer this question.

Come on man, this has been answered to death by many people.  The final paragraph undermines the rest of the statement by referencing other judgements in other courts.  Those other courts are not relevant in the UK (and yes, that includes the German one which was a national court), but referencing the different decision undermines the very intention of the court order, to clear up confusion and innuendo about whether Samsung are infringing on Apple's design. Apple were ordered to clarify the situation, but they chose to obvuscate and create further inclarity by adding their own editorial, in conflict with the order.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #189 of 446
Quote:

Originally Posted by malax View Post

 

And no, white text on white background would not be considered complying.)

1biggrin.gif Very good.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #190 of 446
Politics and British Law...

This is a political judgment through and through. British Civil Law, and European Law for that matter, clearly defines what's permissible and what's not permissible under a set of laws. But with ample freedom for Justices to color judgments with their own biased interpretations.

As much as South Korean Civil Law contorts under pressure from the Korean industrial cartel, British Civil Law reins in threats to its sense of omnipotence by imposing top-down, abusive interpretations to what it considers to be an invasion of the British character's privacy. British Law is flexing his interpretative power muscles in this Apple case towards the overbearing transcendence of a foreign intruder.

Interpretation of the Law has nothing to do with British justice, specially when it comes to dealing with a foreign threat. It has everything to do with British politics and the British insular sense of defensiveness. British Justice would partner with the devil itself, ...which in this case happens to be a Google/Samsung cross-breed, to summon ambitious invaders to their top-down, whimsical interpretation of British Law. A Judge's mindset bounds the rule of Law, ...just as a Monarch's character traits used to define British Monarchy. I'm afraid the administration of British Justice has taken over the secular role of a ruling British Monarch... Sometimes equitable, ...always breathlessly arbitrary...

Should Apple conform to the diktats of power-play politics camouflaged as a civil judgment? Apple has so much idealism built into its business model...and into its products...that one wonders how it can co-exist alongside so much cynicism embedded into the righteous core of regulators and legal institutions. There seems to be an unholy alliance of legacy entitlement and a running commoditizing process to stop the merging of 'liberal arts' and technology in its track.

No. It shouldn't. It has to take a stand. But can, ...will Tim Cook rise to the 'liberal arts' part of the equation, as I suspect Steve Jobs would? If not, may God save Apple, for the Queen would not...
post #191 of 446
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Come on man, this has been answered to death by many people.

 

No, it hasn't. You seem to like pickles, so let's go back to that broken analogy.

 

Dad tells his kid he doesn't like pickles. Dad asks kid to go to the store, gives him the money for a specific set of groceries. Kid gets the groceries. Also uses his own money to buy pickles. Dad punishes kid.

 

Stop the projector (do not turn off the sound) and discuss with the class: was the dad ethically, morally, or legally correct in punishing his son?

post #192 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredawest View Post

 

Jeez, I'm all for protest by people not frigging multinational prtotectionist companies.

Corporations are people.

post #193 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

"A consumer might well think: 'I had better not buy a Samsung - maybe it's illegal and if I buy one it may not be supported'," Sir Robin said.


Well that is just silly.

Also they only really need to remove the reference to the German and US rulings, there is no need to rewrite the entire statement.

"Bravely bold Sir Robin, rode forth from Camelot,

He was not afraid to die, Oh Brave Sir Robin,
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin.

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a
pulp
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken;
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin.

His head smashed in, and his heart cut out,
And his liver removed, and his bowels unplugged,
And his nostrils raped, and his bottom burned off,
And his penis split ... and his ...

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, Brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave Sir Robin
Petrified of being dead
Soiled his pants then brave Sir Robin
Turned away and fled.
Bravely good Sir Robin was not at all afraid
To have his eyeballs skewered ...

... and his kidneys burnt and his nipples skewered off
..."
trad. arr. Monty Python
post #194 of 446

You've changed the context of that analogy quite significantly so I don't think it's relevant in its new form.  In your new analogy the kid's actions have no impact on the dad or his intentions.

 

i think we should drop the analogies for specific talk like we're getting into.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #195 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

You've changed the context of that analogy quite significantly so I don't think it's relevant in its new form.  In your new analogy the kid's actions have no impact on the dad or his intentions.

 

i think we should drop the analogies for specific talk like we're getting into.

 

Yeah, that's dumb.  If the kid was required to make his dad a sandwich "because dad doesn't like pickles" and the kid included pickles then that's not complying, period.

 

The more interesting question is how far the judge could go with respect to statements Apple makes outside of the specifically ordered statement.  What if Apple had posted an "open letter about the Samsung case" also linked from the Apple home page and made all the statements they included in the "offending" page and explained their position.  Would that be ok?  I'd say yes, probably. 

post #196 of 446

I am not going to read all the posts this time as there is just going to be too much infighting.

 

BUT....as I stated earlier....Apple is being forced to follow through correctly. I like Apple (and really LIKE the chaff they just jettisoned!) but Apple's lack of willingness to follow through with a legal order is disappointing. I wish Apple would just stand up and take their lumps. I expect the same from other companies when they are in the wrong, so I expect the same from Apple. They should act like responsible adults and not skeevy lawyers. 

post #197 of 446

That commentary on British Justice is a load of paranoiac carp.  And I don't mean fish.

 

"the British character's privacy"?  What the hell are you talking about?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #198 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I seem to remember seeing the UK quoted as Apple's second biggest market a few years ago, though doubtless China has overtaken it now, and possibly Japan too, as the iPhone is very popular there.


Apple doesn't do by-country revenue reporting, but an estimate of $6bn sales in the UK has been doing the rounds*, of $156bn total revenue**.  It's a sizeable market that Apple wouldn't give up on lightly.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2127048/Apple-6bn-UK--paid-10m-tax.html

** http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312511282113/d220209d10k.htm

The Daily Mail reporter is pulling numbers out of his....... hat. He claims £6B in sales in the UK, but says that Apple's tax fine was £10M.

 

Let's generously assume that there was no penalty in the £10M, i.e., all of it was tax owed. The math does not (remotely) compute. Here's why. Apple had a pre-tax margin of about 33%, i.e., £2B, on which they should have owed (according to the article) 24% in UK taxes, i.e., that would be £480M in taxes. They supposedly instead paid the Irish rate of 12.5% i.e., supposedly, £250M. 

 

In other words, they would have owed £230M more to the UK authorities if the article's numbers are to be believed. Yet, they paid £10M.

 

Explain?

post #199 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The judge's reasoning was clearly stated in the order I linked to earlier. If you read it for yourself without tinted glasses on you may even agree that the reasoning was proper.

 

If there's been a similar case I wouldn't know about it, nor do I know why it would matter.

 

Seriously? You don't know why it would matter?

 

If this has never happened before (and I think it's a first) then its a precadent setting ruling. Apple has every right to fight this tooth and nail if they are the first company in the UK that has ever had to post up such a notice. If this is common in the UK then Apple has no right to complain since it's an accepted practice.

 

I imagine a lot of companies that operate in the UK are happy Apple is fighting this and drawing attention to this ruling. That will reduce the chance of it happening to them should they find themselves in a similar lawsuit.

post #200 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The Daily Mail reporter is pulling numbers out of his....... hat. He claims £6B in sales in the UK, but says that Apple's tax fine was £10M.

 

Let's generously assume that there was no penalty in the £10M, i.e., all of it was tax owed. The math does not (remotely) compute. Here's why. Apple had a pre-tax margin of about 33%, i.e., £2B, on which they should have owed (according to the article) 24% in UK taxes, i.e., that would be £480M in taxes. They supposedly instead paid the Irish rate of 12.5% i.e., supposedly, £250M. 

 

In other words, they would have owed £230M more to the UK authorities if the article's numbers are to be believed. Yet, they paid £10M.

 

Explain?

Apple, along with many other companies, pay very little UK tax.  Most of their UK revenue goes through Ireland, so trying to estimate their UK revenue from their tax bill is a fruitless task.  And never believe anything in the Daily Mail, its only useful for wiping your backside on.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad