UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad - Page 3

Originally Posted by stike vomit 
Well, the judge thought otherwise.

So now doing exactly what was legally required of them, copying the exact text of what they were legally told to say, and formatting it exactly as they were told to format it… is "not in compliance".

"Fire trucks are red." You can think otherwise. Doesn't make you right in any universe.

Ooh, would an Airstrip One reference be out of line? It's fitting, even more than just the setting:

• Apple does exactly what they're told to do.
• "You have done nothing you were told to do. You have never done anything you were told to do."
• Cat and mouse game until the end of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdowell 

Can you imagine if Samsung found itself in this position in the US how you would react?

 

Would that be the same Samsung that leaked documents to the press because they disagreed with the judge who told them they were inadmissible as evidence?

Or the same Samsung that destroyed emails after the same judge had told them they must be submitted to the court?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

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.

Can you post a link to the appeals court ruling?  All I could find was the original trial ruling http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html

Based on that it's clear that Apple was ordered to

"at its own expense, (a) post in a font size no small [sic] than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home pages of its EU websites ("the Defendant's Websites"), as specified in Schedule 1 to this order, together with a hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 09 July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on the Defendant's Websites for a period of one year from the date of this Order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in The Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine." (paragraph 4, emphasis mine).

on the Euro-region versions of the Apple Web site. 

This request was modified by paragraph 57 to limit it to 6 month and the UK site only.

Clearly Apple was supposed to put the statement ON the home page and not just link to it.  That's their non-compliance.  That and the font size.  How did it go from being "Arial 14" to "11 point" in the later order?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hattig 

 

"The court’s initial order to post a notice was designed to correct the impression that the South Korean company was copying Apple’s product. Apple’s post, criticized by judges today, inserted four paragraphs including excerpts of the original “cool” ruling and details of similar German lawsuits that the court today said weren’t true."

 

Apple were told what to write, and where to post it.

 

Apple decided to post something else (by adding four paragraphs), and they didn't post it on the web site's front page, as instructed.

 

Apple has been slapped down for it.

 

Some people here are way too protective of Apple. Apple was in the wrong according to UK law. Their actions show utter disrespect and contempt for UK law, and by extension, the UK and its inhabitants.

No matter, the judge's original ruling was ridiculous, and childish. I expect Apple to do whatever they can to reduce the impact of having to post an admission they clearly do not agree with. I expect Apple to push this to the limit. 

All these new single post signups… all from the UK… and all lying… 

Humor.

(Oh, sorry, "humour".)

Quote:

Originally Posted by malax 

 

Can you post a link to the appeals court ruling?  All I could find was the original trial ruling http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html

 

Based on that it's clear that Apple was ordered to

"at its own expense, (a) post in a font size no small [sic] than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home pages of its EU websites ("the Defendant's Websites"), as specified in Schedule 1 to this order, together with a hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 09 July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on the Defendant's Websites for a period of one year from the date of this Order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in The Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine." (paragraph 4, emphasis mine).

 

on the Euro-region versions of the Apple Web site. 

 

This request was modified by paragraph 57 to limit it to 6 month and the UK site only.

 

Clearly Apple was supposed to put the statement ON the home page and not just link to it.  That's their non-compliance.  That and the font size.  How did it go from being "Arial 14" to "11 point" in the later order?

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

Number 85

Font size is mentioned in #64, quoting the original ruling from Biriss. 11 was for the web, 14 was for the newspapers.

Exactly as ordered.

Soak it up Apple. Take the length and keep on grinning. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

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.

It's so far from the case it's ridiculous that you're still arguing.  Apple didn't just throw in a few extra words for decoration, they deliberately structured the closing paragraph of the statement to undermine the rest of it.  They pickled the sandwich, knowing full well that it would cast a shadow over the rest of the statement and give Apple extra sneering points.  They tried to turn a legal clarification into ad-burn.  They don't get to do that in court ordered statements, and now (and in my opinion, rightfully) are getting in trouble over trying to do so.  It's what I said should happen, and what you denied would happen.  I'm calling 1-0.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

What does your education system look like? Do people get Fs on their papers for getting all the answers correct?

If someone answered a 2x2 maths question with 4 (but other answers are available in other legal juristictions) then the exam board might be a little confused by the intent.  not sure if that would mean an F, but I'm no more an examiner than I am a judge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

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.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121101091853360

They showed disrespect to a court of law. Now they are being slapped down for it, end of.

Originally Posted by Crowley 
They don't get to do that in court ordered statements…

I don't recall the court saying anything about that initially. You only see the old trope of "changing the rules as the game is played" in children's (HEY LOOK CHILDREN) programs (programmes) as examples of how not to behave. It's the bad guy doing it.

That you believe the UK judgement is objective right only outlines just how completely wrong you are.

Thanks.  The wrinkle is in "He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate."

Apple was ordered to put "the notice" on their home page.  They argued that they should be able to just link to "the notice" and the appeals court acquieced.  They didn't ask to be replace the notice on the home page with a link to a page with the notice plus some editorial stuff.  That's where Apple's in the wrong.  They just need to delete the other stuff and call it a day.  The judge is wrong about the size of the font on the home page of course.

So, apparently no a single person can come up with a single part of Apple's statement that was untrue and incorrect. No one person can provide evidence on how Apple was in breach.

I really an eager to read the actual details of this newest ruling. I want to understand the judges' reasoning here because so far nothing in the media reports is making any sense. Of course these are the same outlets that erroneously reported that Apple was order to apologize, which was never ordered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hattig 

 

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121101091853360

 

They showed disrespect to a court of law. Now they are being slapped down for it, end of.

How?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

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.

 

What does your education system look like? Do people get Fs on their papers for getting all the answers correct?

It looks a shitload better than yours Skil.

We don't have to bring guns to school. 

So, is the judge saying that he didn't say Apple products are cool?

For all those on here that believe they know the English & worldwide legal system, please check sites such as groklaw for as much information as you can absorb on the apple samsung ongoing nonsense & other legal stuff.  Information you'll find of interest & which is from a legal point of view:

Why Apple didn't comply with the English court order ref Samsung not infringing

Why Apple will very likely not see a penny of the $1bn damages awarded by the US court

Why the Apple win in the US will be overturned

Oh, and you could probably learn a thing or two about patents, prior art & why patent trolls such as Apple will ultimately lose in their quest to litigate competition out of the market.

And to try to stave off any fandroid type comments I own an iPhone 4s, Galaxy S2 & a Samsung TV which does put me more in the Samsung camp but not in the Android camp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

I don't recall the court saying anything about that initially. You only see the old trope of "changing the rules as the game is played" in children's (HEY LOOK CHILDREN) programs (programmes) as examples of how not to behave. It's the bad guy doing it.

Actually you see it in Apple's App Store rules as well.  Funny, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

That you believe the UK judgement is objective right only outlines just how completely wrong you are.

I don't believe anything of the sort, I'm generally pretty apathetic to the Apple vs Samsung squabbles.  I do, however, believe judgements should be followed in the spirit of their intent, and that multinational corporations shouldn't be petulant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by malax 

Thanks.  The wrinkle is in "He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate."

 

Apple was ordered to put "the notice" on their home page.  They argued that they should be able to just link to "the notice" and the appeals court acquieced.  They didn't ask to be replace the notice on the home page with a link to a page with the notice plus some editorial stuff.  That's where Apple's in the wrong.  They just need to delete the other stuff and call it a day.  The judge is wrong about the size of the font on the home page of course.

Legally speaking, how were they wrong? It's easy to say they shouldn't have, but all they did was include factual statements most of which came from the original judge. They weren't instructed not to add anything. They were instructed to make the ruling public in order to clear the air. 

If the judges feel Apple was wrong, fine, but back it up with factual reasons. Instead they claim Apple was wrong because the additional info they added was unrtue and incorrect. That argument itself is untrue and incorrect. If a judge has to be dishonest to come to a decision, it probably isn't a good decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 

 

It looks a shitload better than yours Skil.

 

We don't have to bring guns to school. 

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre

Can we keep the school massacre talk out of the thread please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joelsalt 

...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre

Good work Joe, you can use the internet. Did you learn that in the USA or travel abroad for it? 

I notice that several people state that there are no "untruth" in the Apple statement.  As it pertains to the UK information, it is correct and accurate.  The "Untruth" was in the last paragraph where Apple states:"However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.". 

According to the Bloomberg article " The court’s initial order to post a notice was designed to correct the impression that the South Korean company was copying Apple’s product. Apple’s post, criticized by judges today, inserted four paragraphs including excerpts of the original“cool” ruling and details of similar German lawsuits that the court today said weren’t true."

So someone at Apple wrote the extra paragraph at the end to basically tell the U.K. judges that they are wrong and everyone should disregard what was decided.

I don't understand why the judge should be upset.

Thanks. I think you're cherry-picking though.  It's clear that the appeal judges were pretty annoyed that Apple had tried to seek an alternative verdict in Germany after Judge Birss' earlier finding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

Legally speaking, how were they wrong? It's easy to say they shouldn't have, but all they did was include factual statements most of which came from the original judge. They weren't instructed not to add anything. They were instructed to make the ruling public in order to clear the air. 

 

If the judges feel Apple was wrong, fine, but back it up with factual reasons. Instead they claim Apple was wrong because the additional info they added was unrtue and incorrect. That argument itself is untrue and incorrect. If a judge has to be dishonest to come to a decision, it probably isn't a good decision.

Apple was instructed to put "the notice" (that particular statement) "on the Apple homepage."  Apple argued that it would clutter things up, and asked if they could just link to it.  The appeals court, said "yeah that's reasonable; provide a link to the notice."

One could argue that the expectation was that the link would go to a page with nothing but the notice.

To put this in context, look at the original ruling at paragraph 51 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html the judge wrote:

"In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing."

Clearly the court was sensitive to word choice and context.  A link to "the statement" shouldn't be a link to "the statement plus some other stuff that Apple feels like adding."

No big deal, Apple just needs to delete the other stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

How?

They said they would post "the notice".

They posted "the notice" plus four paragraphs of advertorial undermining the notice.

They generalised the results of the US case - which as another post says actually matched the UK's decision on the aspect that the UK's case was about.

You are a judge, you have expectations of behaviour from professional lawyers. What happened is not what was agreed, and judges definitely look down on lawyers and companies that are not following the spirit of the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by webweasel 

Thanks. I think you're cherry-picking though.  It's clear that the appeal judges were pretty annoyed that Apple had tried to seek an alternative verdict in Germany after Judge Birss' earlier finding.

 

 

Even with those statements in mind, Apple's notice did exactly what it was intended to do.

It was explicitly not intended to be an apology but a statement of fact meant to "dispel commercial uncertainty". The example they give is a company looking to purchase phones but might decide against Samsung because of uncertainty regarding the UK case. 

Apple's statement very clearly stated the acknowledgement of the courts decision, posting it verbatim as the first paragraph. The next 3 paragraphs further explored the courts ruling. The last paragraph mentioned other ruling.  All were factually accurate.

The EU has 27 member states with at least 27 different legal systems.  I say at least, because one member state, the UK, has three, the legal systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Yes, the EU has recommendations (Directives) for principles to be legally implemented by every member nation, but these principles are subject to how they're interpreted and implemented within each member state's laws, hence the need for the European Court of Justice to resolve the inevitable arguments and debates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hattig 

 

They said they would post "the notice".

 

They posted "the notice" plus four paragraphs of advertorial undermining the notice.

 

They generalised the results of the US case - which as another post says actually matched the UK's decision on the aspect that the UK's case was about.

 

You are a judge, you have expectations of behaviour from professional lawyers. What happened is not what was agreed, and judges definitely look down on lawyers and companies that are not following the spirit of the law.

They obeyed every aspect of the order against them. Nothing they added was factually inaccurate. In fact 3 of the added paragraphs contained only information from the UK court ruling itself. None of that seems disrespectful. Only the last paragraph is questionable at best and it is also factually accurate. Judges shouldn't feel disrespected by facts. Nor should they let personal feelings of disrespect lead them to making up their own facts, like accusing Apple of making statements that are untrue or incorrect. If they have a bone to pick over being disrespected, say that. That shouldn't not (and should not be allowed) to make libelous, untrue statements in order to support their decision. A court that does that is perhaps not worth of respect.

I was right. It was contempt of court. lol
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by malax 

 

Apple was instructed to put "the notice" (that particular statement) "on the Apple homepage."  Apple argued that it would clutter things up, and asked if they could just link to it.  The appeals court, said "yeah that's reasonable; provide a link to the notice."

 

One could argue that the expectation was that the link would go to a page with nothing but the notice.

 

To put this in context, look at the original ruling at paragraph 51 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html the judge wrote:

 

"In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing."

 

Clearly the court was sensitive to word choice and context.  A link to "the statement" shouldn't be a link to "the statement plus some other stuff that Apple feels like adding."

 

No big deal, Apple just needs to delete the other stuff.

One could argue that the expectation was that the statement would contain only the text specified by the court, but one would have to argue that without any actual facts supporting that. Maybe I missed it (very possible) but I can find nothing in the ruling that supports the idea that Apple was not allowed to write the notice themselves and expect only to paste the suggested text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 

 

It looks a shitload better than yours Skil.

 

We don't have to bring guns to school. 

There is no right to bear arms in the UK.  Also, the people bringing guns to school and killing people are fucked in the head.  It isn't the norm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever71 

Oh, and you could probably learn a thing or two about patents, prior art & why patent trolls such as Apple will ultimately lose in their quest to litigate competition out of the market.

Patent trolls own patents and produce nothing, then sue people.  Apple produces products with their patents.  use the term patent troll corerctly.  It just makes you sound like a jackass when you don't.

Refuse, and fight it. 

Pay penalties, if necessary, as long as this doesn't risk a product ban (which would only drive up already skyrocketing demand, anyway.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley 

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.

Are you kidding me?  What about the judge acting out by ordering the statement in the first place.  Fine Apple lost, do they need to walk around with a banner saying our stuff is cooler than Samsungs?  Hell no!

I'm all for Apple putting the apology or whatever it is on the front page of their UK website. I would then of course make a DNS change to route all apple.co.uk requests to their US website until after the order time has expired. A bad ruling lead to a bad order and bad compliance of said order. Legal compliance to moronic orders is easy to side step. Of course they will be pissed, but maybe they will write a better order next time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 

 

It looks a shitload better than yours Skil.

 

We don't have to bring guns to school. 

Would they be able to figure out how to use them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

All these new single post signups… all from the UK… and all lying… 

 

Humor.

 

(Oh, sorry, "humour".)

As a moderator, you think this post is ok?