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 6

post #201 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredawest View Post

 

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

What is  "prtotectionist" about Apple? Are you off your rocker (as they say in the UK)?

post #202 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?

I have no idea, I didn't write the article, and I don't want to start a tax debate on top of this already quite divisive one.  The $6bn figure has been reported in a couple of places though, so seems to be accepted as a ball-park figure for Apple's UK revenue.  As Apple don't report by-country revenue then we're unlikely to get any better than that for now.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #203 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

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.

They've been through the appeal court, and they accepted the final judgement (even if they weaselled an editorial addition in there they still accepted the judgement).  The tooth and the nail have been fought.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #204 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid View Post

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.

The Daily Mail is, indeed, backside-wiping material, but the rest of your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed, which is, the original poster's claim that UK is the second most profitable market for Apple, after the US.

 

I am suggesting, using evidence he provided, that it's not so, not by a long shot.

post #205 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I have no idea, I didn't write the article, and I don't want to start a tax debate on top of this already quite divisive one.  The $6bn figure has been reported in a couple of places though, so seems to be accepted as a ball-park figure for Apple's UK revenue.  As Apple don't report by-country revenue then we're unlikely to get any better than that for now.

You started it with your claim. You should not make claims you can't substantiate. That's all.

post #206 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

This has gone through the court of appeal. Four judges (one for the original case, three for the appeal) have agreed on the same verdict.

No, it hasn't. The original order has gone through a court of appeals and the court said that Apple had to post the message. (Ridiculous, but the UK is apparently OK with juvenile, abusive behavior from its judges).

The appeals court has not yet heard the issue of whether Apple's published statement was acceptable. Apple obviously believes it was - and on the surface, it appears to do everything the judge required. Apple is free to appeal this new ruling - and the appeals court might well side with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

As I've already stated, there's very clear pre-existing rules on the printing (electronically or otherwise) of apologies like this one. Apple's lawyers would have been aware of these rules before the statement was posted on Apple's website.

Then feel free to post the specific rule that Apple has broken.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #207 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

The tooth and the nail have been fought.

Should it be "The tooth and nail have been fought with"? 1wink.gif

post #208 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Then feel free to post the specific rule that Apple has broken.

I asked him that too. I don't think you're going to get a reply. 

 

Figures.

post #209 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

So where are all the blowhards who were saying this couldn't possibly happen because Apple were completely, demonstrably in the right?

Good decision, Apple need to be slapped down when they act out.

I didn't realize that people in the UK were that stupid, but now we know. Apple really should just tell these pretentious prats to fk off!
post #210 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You started it with your claim. You should not make claims you can't substantiate. That's all.

I wasn't the person who claimed the UK is Apple's second biggest market.  I haven't claimed anything like that, except that it's a sizeable market and I think I can remember reading the "second biggest" claim a few years back.  Evidence was asked for, so I added the best I could find.  I don't claim it's true, just that it's reported.

 

I don't think I need to substantiate anything, thanks.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #211 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Should it be "The tooth and nail have been fought with"? 1wink.gif

British-English mate, it's a wonderfully flexible language 1wink.gif

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #212 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


I didn't realize that people in the UK were that stupid, but now we know. Apple really should just tell these pretentious prats to fk off!

Nice, thanks for your input.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #213 of 446

I'm pretty sure a contempt of court fine is actually based on Worldwide revenue and not UK revenue and is limited to 10% so the fine could be upto $15.6 billion.

post #214 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


I didn't realize that people in the UK were that stupid, but now we know. Apple really should just tell these pretentious prats to fk off!

 

The xenophobia in this thread is strong.

post #215 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

They don't have to, but there will be consequences.


Clearly those with legal authority don't agree with you here.  I tend to favour their opinion.  This is happening and Apple are in trouble.  Your continued denial is embarassing.

You're mixing up your targets.  Apple is the entity that acted with child-like impudence.  And you're the one who's been throwing your toys out of the pram at any suggestion that Apple acted improperly. 

Seriously, you and your countrymen that think like you are simply a bunch of simple minded prats. Period.
post #216 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

They've been through the appeal court, and they accepted the final judgement (even if they weaselled an editorial addition in there they still accepted the judgement).  The tooth and the nail have been fought.

 

Since you're in the UK, and are an expert on legal matters, then perhaps you can answer the question Gatorguy couldn't. Namely, provide us with examples of this happening to other companies before Apple.

 

If there are none, then people are right to call it a stupid ruling.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #217 of 446

I'm not an expert in legal matters, and have no examples.  I won't even deny that it's an unusual ruling, probably without precedent.  But it is a ruling, and a ruling that has been through the appeal courts and been accepted.  Apple would have saved themselves a lot of trouble and negative publicity if they'd just taken it like a grown up company.

 

 

@FreeRange Sorry, I don't take insults from arrogant, xenophobic, non-entities.  Come back when you understand what the word nuance means.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #218 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The original Bloomberg report quotes the judges as saying Apple's notice included statements that were untrue and incorrect. That's plain English. Even someone without much of a grasp of the language could understand that,

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html



Hence my question: why parts were untrue and incorrect.

Still waiting. (and please don't lecture me on not understanding the language when you appear to have a tenuous grasp at best)

Who the hell are you that you're entitled to knowing what was deemed untrue and incorrect? Apple was given a specific order, waxing poetic and adding to it was obviously not allowed.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #219 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I wasn't the person who claimed the UK is Apple's second biggest market.  I haven't claimed anything like that, except that it's a sizeable market and I think I can remember reading the "second biggest" claim a few years back.  Evidence was asked for, so I added the best I could find.  I don't claim it's true, just that it's reported.

 

I don't think I need to substantiate anything, thanks.

Sorry! It should have been directed at the original poster then....1smile.gif

post #220 of 446

It's not really clear in that article what "untrue" and "incorrect" are in relation to, I can't see that they're part of any of the longer quotes from the lawyers or judges.

 

@anantksundaram no problem, there's been a lot of comments in this thread, it's hard to keep track of who said what.  I think most of the reasonable people in here would broadly agree that the UK is a big enough market (even if not the second biggest) that Apple are extremely unlikely to wholly withdraw over such a petty legal dispute.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #221 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


No, it hasn't. The original order has gone through a court of appeals and the court said that Apple had to post the message. (Ridiculous, but the UK is apparently OK with juvenile, abusive behavior from its judges).
The appeals court has not yet heard the issue of whether Apple's published statement was acceptable. Apple obviously believes it was - and on the surface, it appears to do everything the judge required. Apple is free to appeal this new ruling - and the appeals court might well side with them.

AFAIK incorrect JR. This IS the Appeals Court with another ruling that Apple hasn't complied with the last order from that same Appeals Court, and now requiring them to modify and re-post within 48 hours. That court is not going to side with Apple on this one.


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/1/12 at 11:20am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #222 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Since you're in the UK, and are an expert on legal matters, then perhaps you can answer the question Gatorguy couldn't. Namely, provide us with examples of this happening to other companies before Apple.

 

If there are none, then people are right to call it a stupid ruling.

Eric, this may explain it for you.

http://www.olswang.com/articles/2012/10/samsung-v-apple-publication-orders/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #223 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by protaginets View Post

I swear, there is something in the air that makes the English (and people who move to England) feel superior and smarter than everyoine else in the world.  Anyone (non british) who reads about this judge telling Apple they did it wrong is going to see the judge as a idiotic bully.  Ok, anyone with a semblance of common sense.  I would bet even the lawyers at Samsung are scratching their heads wondering what is up this judge's bum.I'm no

I'm not british nor do I live in the UK.  If I were, then reading the comments by most of the posters here would certainly give me cause to believe I was smarter.

post #224 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Eric, this may explain it for you.

http://www.olswang.com/articles/2012/10/samsung-v-apple-publication-orders/

 

So I was right and this is something new that's happening in the UK. And the wording of the rule is pretty vague:

 

"Member States shall ensure that, in legal proceedings instituted for infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of the information concerning the decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part. Member States may provide for other additional publicity measures which are appropriate to the particular circumstances, including prominent advertising."

 

Nothing about time periods, nothing about the font or point size, nothing about where on a web page, nothing about how many papers it should be in. Yet the judge saw fit to specify all these things including what page range they had to be on.

 

I imagine a lot of companies are going to be challenging this. It makes total sense from the POV of someone who is defamed publicly (like my prevous example of a tabloid or news station making false statements about someone well known, like a celebrity or politician).

 

But it makes no sense in the case of a company suing another over an issue that could have just as easily gone either way. This isn't a murder trial where there would need to be hard evidence (DNA, witnesses, murder weapon). It's a design lawsuit where things are judged based on perceptions. Which is why I still think companies are loving that Apple is bringing this to light as it will benefit them all.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #225 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

So I was right and this is something new that's happening in the UK. And the wording of the rule is pretty vague:

 

"Member States shall ensure that, in legal proceedings instituted for infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of the information concerning the decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part. Member States may provide for other additional publicity measures which are appropriate to the particular circumstances, including prominent advertising."

 

Nothing about time periods, nothing about the font or point size, nothing about where on a web page, nothing about how many papers it should be in. Yet the judge saw fit to specify all these things including what page range they had to be on.

 

I imagine a lot of companies are going to be challenging this. It makes total sense from the POV of someone who is defamed publicly (like my prevous example of a tabloid or news station making false statements about someone well known, like a celebrity or politician).

 

But it makes no sense in the case of a company suing another over an issue that could have just as easily gone either way. This isn't a murder trial where there would need to be hard evidence (DNA, witnesses, murder weapon). It's a design lawsuit where things are judged based on perceptions. Which is why I still think companies are loving that Apple is bringing this to light as it will benefit them all.

Eric, I don't believe the publish requirement was simply because Apple was on the losing end. Reading from the court's comments it was due to Apple's continuing efforts to give the impression that Samsung was guilty of infringing on Apple's "iPad design" patent despite the final European-wide judgement that they do not. I completely understand Apple's wish to keep it alive, but after losing a final judgement and two appeals it's probably best to comply and move on, don't you think?


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/1/12 at 11:58am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #226 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Eric, I don't believe the publish requirement was simply because Apple was on the losing end. Reading from the court's comments it was due to Apple's continuing efforts to give the impression that Samsung was guilty of infringing on Apple's "iPad design" patent despite the final European-wide judgement that they do not. I completely understand Apple's wish to keep it alive, but after losing a final judgement and two appeals it's probably best to comply and move on, don't you think?

 

Then Samsung should accept the $1billion fine, pay Apple and move on.

post #227 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Eric, I don't believe the publish requirement was simply because Apple was on the losing end. Reading from the court's comments it was due to Apple's continuing efforts to give the impression that Samsung was guilty of infringing on Apple's "iPad design" patent despite the final European-wide judgement that they do not. I completely understand Apple's wish to keep it alive, but after losing a final judgement and two appeals it's probably best to comply and move on, don't you think?

You completely skipped over his basic point, didn't you?

 

Typical of you: divert the conversation by providing some extraneous, tangential evidence on something vaguely related, and when caught out, pretend that the diversion you raised was the point under discussion.

 

Oh boy. Surprise us.

post #228 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You completely skipped over his basic point, didn't you?

 

Typical of you: divert the conversation by providing some extraneous, tangential evidence on something vaguely related, and when caught out, pretend that the diversion you raised was the point under discussion.

 

Oh boy. Surprise us.

I'm sorry.... was something I wrote inaccurate or not pertinent to the discussion? If so, please point it out. If it's just that you don't like what I wrote (likely IMO), fair enough. I doubt anyone likes everything any of the regulars posts. 

 

I was the only one that took the time to find an explanation, even linking to a legal opinion. I didn't see you making any effort to answer his question, and still don't. Far from skipping over his "basic points" I actually put forth some effort on his behalf rather than avoid being bothered. You're welcome.


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/1/12 at 12:27pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #229 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post

 

Then Samsung should accept the $1billion fine, pay Apple and move on.

If and when the appeals go against them they'll have to. That's the legal system.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #230 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm sorry.... was something I wrote inaccurate or not pertinent to the discussion? If so, please point it out. If it's just that you don't like what I wrote (likely IMO), fair enough. I doubt anyone likes everything any of the regulars posts. 

 

I was the only one that took the time to find an explanation, even linking to a legal opinion. I didn't see you making any effort to answer his question, and still don't. Far from skipping over his "basic points" I actually put forth some effort on his behalf rather than avoid being bothered. You're welcome.

1) Why don't you tell us: what do you think his basic question was?

 

2) In response to his question, you posted drivel that merely proved the premise of the challenge implied by the question (a premise with which I agree with 100% -- that you have zilch to offer by way of evidence).

 

You're not really following any of this, are you? lol.gif

post #231 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

 

Apple DID NOT comply with the court order. There are very specific rules for placement and font size in cases like this. The judge has confirmed that Apple broke these rules.

 

If you believe that the judge is making this up as he goes along then you have no idea about how the English legal system works.

 

Tell us of these "rules" and point us to the laws that force compliance.

 

Apple complied with the ruling of the appeals court, they should leave the notice exactly as it is, maybe adding more.

 

"Michael Beloff, a lawyer representing Apple, defending the notice, told the court that the judges themselves had said that it "is not designed to punish, it is not designed to make us grovel" and that its only purpose was "to dispel commercial uncertainty"." Source

 

Apple should tell those crusty old c*nts to go f*ck themselves with a gavel.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #232 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I find it interesting that the Apple defenderati that said the UK judge should have dictated the wording of the statement for Apple to put on the website are now criticising the UK legal system for treating its subjects like children.

 

I fear that you are affected by the same chemicals your famous namesake Alistair used to indulge in, hence, off to the ignore list with you.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #233 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

 

Where did you get your law degree? Ebay?

 

Kellogs?

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #234 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Tell us of these "rules" and point us to the laws that force compliance.

 

Apple complied with the ruling of the appeals court, they should leave the notice exactly as it is, maybe adding more.

 

"Michael Beloff, a lawyer representing Apple, defending the notice, told the court that the judges themselves had said that it "is not designed to punish, it is not designed to make us grovel" and that its only purpose was "to dispel commercial uncertainty"." Source

 

Apple should tell those crusty old c*nts to go f*ck themselves with a gavel.

You're at least the third person to as ask this guy. We're waiting.

 

He's obviously a clueless blowhard.

post #235 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Interesting. That actually demonstrates my point, As I have repeatedly asked: exactly what part of Apple statement was untrue? 

 

The court did not say Apple could not add additional facts. They didn't even say Apple couldn't editorialize the statement, which the didn't do. They simply added additional facts, most of which were directly from the court record of judge Biriss' original ruling.

 

So, they posted what they were instructed to posted, how and where they were supposed to post it. So they were slapped down for including facts. A court should never be afraid of facts, especially when the factual statements are from the court itself. So, given Apple's statements were facts, they cannot be untrue or incorrect and the judges said. If their reasons are flawed, then their ruling is wrong.

 

Exactly.

 

One of the judges - who noted he owned an iPad himself - explained why Apple had lost the appeal in his ruling.

"Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about," wrote Sir Robin Jacob.

"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law."

"So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products."

Source

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #236 of 446

Hahahahahahahahahah

 

Apple is just eating their own words. 

 

That is what you get for making snarky obviously sarcastic statements. 

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #237 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


The Judge included rules in his order for those issues, which Apple followed.
IF he wanted Apple to follow some generally accepted 'style book' for such things he should have said 'per law thus and such'. Just like he should have been more careful about the order in general.


BS. 

 

Substance vs form. 

 

Apple may have followed the form but they certainly have not followed the substance of the judge's order. 

 

The judge's orders were to state that Samsung's product does not "copy" Apple's product; not to go ahead and throw in extraneous information to try and mitigate their admission.  Not only that, they compared the UK's ruling with rulings from other countries, which has no relationship with the one in the UK!. Apple basically said FU to the authority of the UK judgement


Edited by Galbi - 11/1/12 at 1:14pm

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #238 of 446
More stupid, childish, arrogant and ignorant comments: It is really sad to see Apple executives falling that low, pandering to the fanbois with childish contempt of the court... I am GLAD it had backfired.
post #239 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) Why don't you tell us: what do you think his basic question was?

...was the court requirement to publish a common one or is this something relatively new. Can you find where I answered his question with a link to an excellent legal explanation? Why don't you tell us what you think his basic question was?

 

Eric's a big boy. I'm sure he can let me know if my answers weren't sufficient or flawed.


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/1/12 at 1:17pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #240 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

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?

 

Sorry but that is the wrong analogy. 

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
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