Apple's UK site says Samsung devices 'not as cool' in compliance with court ruling

2456789

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 167
    Called it when it was announced Apple lost the appeal.

    Although I went further and suggested they list the US verdict as well, but that doesn't relate much to the Galaxy.
  • Reply 22 of 167
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    e_veritas wrote: »
    Sounds good to me....do you really think a UK judge is going to buy that pitch though???

    I fear this will end very badly for Apple. They were already given a reprieve during the appeal to only include a PROMINENT link on the homepage instead of the actual apology. However, a link in the last section of a page scanned in the English language (lower right), in the smallest font used on the page, is the exact opposite of prominent. And good luck convincing any judge that this "apology", taken in its entirety (which is how a court will evaluate it), meets the criteria of this court ruling.

    Do you have any evidence that this sort of judgement has unstated rules and previous cases where the judge forced the plaintiffs to rewrite an apology letter despite having followed the judgement to the letter of the law? If the Judge wanted it to be more precise and not to include any additional info then he should have specified.
  • Reply 23 of 167


    I wonder how the print ads are going to turn out. The small tiny link on the front page of the website was the obvious thing to do and I'm sure lots of people expected the same. It is the print ads that I am curious about.


     


    And why the f aren't these trolls happy that Apple has put this in? They have complied right? Why these calls of contempt of court and multi-billion pound fines?

  • Reply 24 of 167
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,385member


    I thought the statement would be alot worse than what it actually is. Its not that bad, seemed more like a pitch for the iPad than 'we did not copy them'. 

  • Reply 25 of 167


    Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

    I wonder how the print ads are going to turn out. The small tiny link on the front page of the website was the obvious thing to do and I'm sure lots of people expected the same. It is the print ads that I am curious about.


     


    They could put it in the real estate section. 


     


    "Samsung, ssry. No cp iPa, iPo, iPh. 2 bd. 3 bh. View of city. Uncool."





    And why the f aren't these trolls happy that Apple has put this in? They have complied right? Why these calls of contempt of court and multi-billion pound fines?



     


    You're joking, right? If Apple had replaced their entire home page with


     


    "WE'RE SO SORRY, SAMSUNG. WE COPIED YOU, YOU DIDN'T COPY US. WE SUCK AND YOU HAVE CREATED EVERYTHING IN THE INDUSTRY." 


     


    they still would have complained the font was too small. You can't hope to understand the mental processes of someone stupid enough to support the innovation equivalent of a serial murderer, caught red handed dozens of times.

  • Reply 26 of 167
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,385member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post


    I wonder how the print ads are going to turn out. The small tiny link on the front page of the website was the obvious thing to do and I'm sure lots of people expected the same. It is the print ads that I am curious about.


     


    And why the f aren't these trolls happy that Apple has put this in? They have complied right? Why these calls of contempt of court and multi-billion pound fines?



     


    And these same people are equally concerned that Samsung should comply with their US court case, right? Oh wait, they're not. They're saying the case should be thrown out and Samsung shouldn't pay a dime, even though they lost and the judgement was passed down. Fucking hypocrites. 

  • Reply 27 of 167
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    No doubt Apple's leagal team reviewed every single word of this before it was posted. I doubt they would allow Apple to post something that would get them in contempt of court.
  • Reply 28 of 167
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post


     


    Sounds good to me....do you really think a UK judge is going to buy that pitch though???


     


    I fear this will end very badly for Apple. They were already given a reprieve during the appeal to only include a PROMINENT link on the homepage instead of the actual apology. However, a link in the last section of a page scanned in the English language (lower right), in the smallest font used on the page, is the exact opposite of prominent. And good luck convincing any judge that this "apology", taken in its entirety (which is how a court will evaluate it), meets the criteria of this court ruling.



    If the judge didn't want additional "commentary", he should have stated that explicitly. Apple is allowed to put up any commentary they want on their website as long as it's truthful and it is.

  • Reply 29 of 167
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member


    Nice how they repeatedly embedded the words "copied" and "infringed" in their post.


     


     


    I would like this for the print ads:


     


     


    "While many have have accused Samsung of copying their products over the years, according to the UK courts, they have not copied us. We are so sorry for thinking they did. How could we have been so confused? Not sure what we were thinking"



    "Not copied at all"



    Again, so sorry Samsung for thinking you copied. Obviously we were wrong. No copying."

  • Reply 30 of 167
    The Apple statement says quite clearly that Samsung did NOT infringe (as stipulated by the court order) and it is the AppleInsider headline/subhead that is wrong. Neat move to quote the judge's other statements though.
  • Reply 31 of 167
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,901member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post


     


    Agreed. This has contempt of court written all over it. 



     


    That will be the day when a judge cites a plaintiff with contempt of court for quoting verbatim from the judge's own verdict.  The judge might as well cite himself for contempt.   I'm not clear if the judge actually ordered Apple to actually apologize for accusing Samsung of patent violation or just to publicly admit that Samsung did not violate their patents.  If it's the latter, I don't see why explaining why the judge declared that the patents were not violated would be in contempt of the judge's order.


     


    If English law is the same as U.S. law in that judicial verdicts are case law and part of the law of the land, then the judge has just established as a legal finding that Samsung's product is not as "cool" as Apple's.  Ridiculous.  


     


    But I'm no lawyer, just pretending (poorly) to sound like one, so what do I know?

  • Reply 32 of 167
    pg4gpg4g Posts: 383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


     


    Basically it says Samsung was found not guilty by this court, but guilty by these other courts.  By tacking on the commentary they are undermining the intent of the court.



     


    The intent of the court was for Apple to be forced to say "Samsung did not copy us" which is clearly a lie, and that very court, and anyone who looks at this case, knows it.


     


    Its a disgusting and pathetic attempt from a judge who in his own words acknowledges the copying, however doesn't consider it enough to award judgement to them.


     


    I'm pretty sure Apple will just pay any fine out rather than lie and bag themselves out, but I'd be quite certain Apple's lawyers went over every word of the judge's demands to ensure that Apple followed the letter.


     


    If the court doesn't like it, the court should have been clearer what bullshit they wanted Apple to publish.

  • Reply 33 of 167


    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post


    If English law is the same as U.S. law in that judicial verdicts are case law and part of the law of the land, then the judge has just established as a legal truth that Samsung is not as cool as Apple.  Ridiculous.



     


    If English law were the same as US law, they'd have come to the right conclusion in the first place… 

  • Reply 34 of 167

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    No doubt Apple's leagal team reviewed every single word of this before it was posted. I doubt they would allow Apple to post something that would get them in contempt of court.


     


    Is this the same legal team that carefully reviewed Apple's previous comments that were found guilty of libel???

  • Reply 35 of 167

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post


     


    That will be the day when a judge cites a plaintiff with contempt of court for quoting verbatim from the judge's own verdict.  The judge might as well cite himself for contempt.   I'm not clear if the judge actually ordered Apple to actually apologize for accusing Samsung of patent violation or just to publicly admit that Samsung did not violate their patents.  If it's the latter, I don't see why explaining why the judge declared that the patents were not violated would be in contempt of the judge's order.


     


    If English law is the same as U.S. law in that judicial verdicts are case law and part of the law of the land, then the judge has just established as a legal finding that Samsung's product is not as "cool" as Apple's.  Ridiculous.  


     


    But I'm no lawyer, just pretending (poorly) to sound like one, so what do I know?



     


    It is not the aspect of quoting the judge's own verdict which is the contempt of court. It is the fact that they were found guilty of libel by saying that "Samsung was a slavish copycat", but then in the very same apology that was ordered to rectify the defamation, they repeat the exact same violation. At the end of the apology, they suggest the very same libelous statement with their remarks on a German case that was dropped on appeal, and a US case where the Galaxy Tab was in fact found to not infringe...


     


    While myself and others here may appreciate the humor in this, this is really going to piss off some UK judges....

  • Reply 36 of 167
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post


     


    Is this the same legal team that carefully reviewed Apple's previous comments that were found guilty of libel???





    what case is that? I'm not familiar with any libel case against Apple.

  • Reply 37 of 167
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member


    That's pretty childish coming from Apple. Why not write :


    "this is what the UK court forces us to write, but we strongly disagree


    TEXT


    remember that we only publish this because we have to"


     


    It doesn't work like that. I had imagined that they would do something like this, but never thought they'd actually do it. It's funny, but will turn against them.

  • Reply 38 of 167
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post


     


    It is not the aspect of quoting the judge's own verdict which is the contempt of court. It is the fact that they were found guilty of libel by saying that "Samsung was a slavish copycat", but then in the very same apology that was ordered to rectify the defamation, they repeat the exact same violation. At the end of the apology, they suggest the very same libelous statement with their remarks on a German case that was dropped on appeal, and a US case where the Galaxy Tab was in fact found to not infringe...


     


    While myself and others here may appreciate the humor in this, this is really going to piss off some UK judges....



    There is a reason the Samsung and HTC chose the UK to sue Apple. Their judges seem to be clowns. In what other country could Samsung sue Apple, win and then demand an apology from Apple for Samsung suing them?


     


     


    Does anyone have a copy of the court order? I've read the decision but have not found the order online. I would be interested in exactly what was ordered. Was it an order to apologize or an order to publish a notice of the court ruling? 

  • Reply 39 of 167
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post


    That's pretty childish coming from Apple. Why not write :


    "this is what the UK court forces us to write, but we strongly disagree


    TEXT


    remember that we only publish this because we have to"


     


    It doesn't work like that. I had imagined that they would do something like this, but never thought they'd actually do it. It's funny, but will turn against them.



    No more childish than a petty requirement for them to post the notices to begin with. It was a petty order and it deserves a petty implementation.

  • Reply 40 of 167
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    They could put it in the real estate section. 

    "Samsung, ssry. No cp iPa, iPo, iPh. 2 bd. 3 bh. View of city. Uncool."

    You're joking, right? If Apple had replaced their entire home page with
    [SIZE=72px]"WE'RE SO SORRY, SAMSUNG. WE COPIED YOU, YOU DIDN'T COPY US. WE SUCK AND YOU HAVE CREATED EVERYTHING IN THE INDUSTRY." [/SIZE]

    they still would have complained the font was too small. You can't hope to understand the mental processes of someone stupid enough to support the innovation equivalent of a serial murderer, caught red handed dozens of times.

    Sorry.

    Just couldn't help myself.

    Had to reply to this.

    (>_<)
Sign In or Register to comment.