UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad - Page 2

 

The ruling says the statement was inaccurate, which anyone with any kind of grasp of the English language knows is not the same as untrue or incorrect.  So why on Earth anyone should provide you with an irrelevant list is pretty pointless.  Just except Apple are acting like spoilt brats and move on please.

 

Changing the text of the apology.

Not putting the apology where they were told to (i.e., they hid it away behind a small link, when it should be prominent on the front page).

Not making the text of the apology large enough.

Turning an apology into an advert.

 

Apple's lawyers would have been aware of the legal requirements of such notices, so this is a wilful failure to follow the court order.

While that may or may not be true, he is still the judge.  Apple need to respect the judgements against them, in the spirit in which they are judged (i.e. don't jerk around with the wording to undermine the judgement), or face legal consequences.

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.

 

And, again, WHAT line is that? Even the judges did not say.

 

Doing exactly what the judge says will… make him mad. Got it. What whacked out world do you think this is?

 

Including obeying incorrect legal orders correctly! I know, so silly of us to think they could do that.

 

 

The spirit of fallacy? 

Edited by Tallest Skil - 11/1/12 at 6:58am

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)

Edited by Tulkas - 11/1/12 at 7:00am

Well having read the original court order, I have to come to the conclusion, that the English legal system doesn't work. It sounded rather like coming straight out of a Monty Python episode. And Apple responded exactly in the right fashion.

That's no surprised and completely justified. That was a very stupid move Apple did.

 

The fact is that the court has made a ruling that Apple did not follow the legal requirements for posting a notice.

 

I.e., the court has said that adding additional "facts" is not allowed. Editorializing is not allowed.

 

This will have been driven by prior case law that determines how such public notices should be delivered to consumers so that consumers see them. I.e,. not via a small link on the front page of the website leading to editorial comment around the statement they should have made.

You're on a different, Apple-shaped planet.  Open your eyes.

Have you even read the ruling from the appeal?

 

-They did not change the text of the apology. Actually, they was NO APOLOGY ORDERED.

-They actually cut and pasted exactly  the text that was ordered

-They put the link on their main page exactly as order by the appeals court. Again, read the ruling. The court ordered the link to appear on the main page.

-The used the exactly font and size ordered

-No apology was ordered. They were ordered to post the courts decision in order to clear up any confusion from potential buyers about the status of the case. Period

 

Please read the ruling. Apple followed exactly what was ordered. All you can fault them for is adding to the notice additional facts. That's it.

 

Still waiting for anyone to tell me what was actually wrong or non-compliant in what Apple did.

A little background to this story wouldn't go amiss before people start throwing their toys out of the pram.

 

As far as I can remember Apple Samsung initiated proceedings against Samsung Apple in the UK, but [Apple] lost.  However as the UK is part of the EU, that was an EU-wide verdict.  They [Apple] then took a similar case to Germany and won.  That's why the Judge Birss ordered the 'clarification' in the first place.  Apple were effectively trying to get another EU state to overturn the original case whilst simultaneously appealing it in the UK.  Apple's counsel tried to get smart and it bit them on the ass.  Then they compounded their mistake by trying to get clever with the wording of the clarification.  Apple should get a new EU legal team.  They're the ones that have dropped the ball here.

 

 

Edited for accuracy - Samsung took Apple to court in the UK not vice versa

Edited by webweasel - 11/1/12 at 7:08am

Would you mind the posting the rules. If they exist and Apple broke them then Apple would be in the wrong, but I don't recall these rules ever been brought up before.

Apple are were ordered to say, "We were wrong!". Instead they said, "Somebody else said we were wrong!". So they didn't follow that order. It's that simple.

Of course, personally I don't agree with the UK courts judgement, but that's another matter.

 

Nope. They copied down exactly what they were told to say.

 

They likely didn't exist until Apple posted their in-compliance, correct in regard to the incorrect legal judgement answer. 

Actually, the court did not say adding additional facts was not allowed. They ruled what the statement should include NOT what it should be in it's entirety. Apple didn't editorialize, they included factual statements, most of which came from the original judge.

 

And again, you seem to have a problem with the fact  that Apple added a link to their main page for their statement. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE ORDERED TO DO. How can that be a violation?

An analogy.

 

I'm your dad.  I don't like pickles, which you're fully aware of.  You've misbehaved, and as part of making it up to me, I tell you to go make me a ham sandwich, which you do, but knowingly put a couple of pickles in it.

 

Doesn't matter how much you whine "I did what I was told to", you're getting grounded.

 

 

I'm sorry, but I do not blindly accept the law of ANY country. For that matter, I do not particularly care for the UK's increasingly Marxist inhabitants either. 

Sometimes the legal system is just plain wrong and should be questioned. Without questioning the system, we get no progression. If it were not for the Suffragettes questioning the status quo, women's rights would still be in the dark ages.

 

Here's to the crazy ones :)

The solution is so simple. Write the notice and have the judge approve it. Place it on the web page as instructed.

Then right below it put a link to all Apple's other court cases around the world. This will "separate" the judges ordered statement from "regular " website content.

And I have the perfect title for the link: "One More Thing".

Seriously, though, the court has no right to tell Apple what they can and can't post on their website that they own. They can only tell Apple what to do regarding this notice. Separate the notice from "other content" and Apple gets compliance while still making people aware of Samsungs blatant copying of Apple in many other areas.

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 1/23/13 at 6:07am

 

The original Bloomberg report quotes are not attributed to the Judge, you'll find it is what Samsung claimed at the hearing, the Judges upheld the view that the statement was inaccurate.

 I'll correct some misconceptions for you.

 

-Apple never sued Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple.

-The appeals court actually said they would not have even allowed Judge Biriss order for a public statement  to stand, other than because of the publicity generated by Biriss' statement that Samsung was not cool. They said that was the only reason the would allow the order for a public statement to stand.

It was attributed to the court.

 

"Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges in a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) for posting a notice on its website that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”"

 

You think they wrapped those words in quotations just for fun?

Are you seriously equating Apple and Samsung butting heads over design with universal suffrage?

 

Can't believe the hubris of the Apple faithful.

 

 

Marxist   We have a way more right wing government than the US right now.

 

Doesn't apply. 

 

1. Hey, look, more CHILDREN references. Companies and countries aren't children and parents.

2. Once a legal order is complied with, that's it, period. 

To slightly alter a very witty rhyme penned by Humbert Wolfe, an Italian-born British poet, man of letters and civil servant. regarding the British journalist, here it is amended to read "jurist" instead (which is pretty close and just as apt):

 

"You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British jurist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to!"

 

Point 1 - That makes more sense. I've corrected my post.

Point 2 - Do you have a link for that?

 

When the full judgement comes out boy will you have some humble (apple) pie to eat.

1. It's an analogy to illustrate the simple point that you don't seem to understand.  Sorry for trying to be helpful; enjoy your ignorance.

2. I quite agree, and await satisfactory compliance.

Don't know much about their government in this regard: is the UK capable of being sued for damages? Apple needs to just turn around and do that, bringing the lies back to the table.

 

Yes, the point that… what, again? The point that never do anything you're not told to do at any time for any reason, despite doing exactly what we told you to do? Sounds like that's the case.

 

 

Well, the judge thought otherwise. Forgive me for valuing the legal acumen of a high court judge over that of an internet forum moderator.

For everyone saying Apple somehow disobeyed the court, broke rules, or included untrue statements, please at least read the ruling first. Don't make statements based in ignorance.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

 

My response was to your nonsense even more unrelated to facts. 

 

Also please see the previous AI article comments (http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/153785/apples-uk-site-says-samsung-devices-not-as-cool-in-compliance-with-court-ruling) where the following posters & posts insisted that Apple was in contempt of court and should be punished. 

 

Post #11 e_veritas , #21 stike vomit, #47 Lamewing, #52 Galbi, #135 Sensi

 

The judge did not and will not hold Apple in contempt because they weren't and aren't.

Judges are human too and can make mistakes. Common sense seems to show these judges are acting out perhaps from a sense of personal insult which never happened.

 

Some are just soft headed.

I think the "job is done", so to speak. Look at the press Apple has received over this. Even if they altered the order, nobody will care anymore.

I'm surprised nobody has suggested Apple make two notices. The original one and a second one apologizing to the court for the first notice.

Can't see anything about putting Tim Cook in prison.  Never happened.

Some people get way too hung up on Apple & simply refuse to see this company for the arrogant beast they've become.  If anyone wants an inaccuracy pointing out well try the German decision for one.  The English court's decision overrode that one, something to do with community court & so their verdict is europe wide.  Another fact that can be argued as factually correct for now is the US decision - how many would genuinely beta against that one being thrown out in december; especially with the bounce back patent being tentatively ruked invalid by the US Patent office.

 

Please open your eyes to what the majority of people can see - Apple don't care about customers nor whatever means they have to apply to attempt to keep their dwindling market share in both tablet and phone markets.  They are fighting a losing battle; made even more difficult for them since they opened the pandoras box of patent litigation.  Do you really think the likes of google will just sit there & watch this whilst at the same time seeing apple blatantly ripping off their technology such as the patent pending drop down notifications bar - or should I guess that apple users see this as an innivative apple development rather than something rippoed from a 2yr old version of Android?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

 

See #82