UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad - Page 6

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Should it be "The tooth and nail have been fought with"? 

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

 

Figures.

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!

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.

British-English mate, it's a wonderfully flexible language 

Nice, thanks for your input.

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.

 

The xenophobia in this thread is strong.

Seriously, you and your countrymen that think like you are simply a bunch of simple minded prats. Period.

 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Eric, this may explain it for you.

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

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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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? 

 

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.

 

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.

 

Kellogs?

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

 

He's obviously a clueless blowhard.

 

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

Hahahahahahahahahah

 

Apple is just eating their own words. 

 

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

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

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.

...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

 

Sorry but that is the wrong analogy.