Apple. basically mocked the orders of the UK judge and made a fool of him.
Not agreeing with his ruling is one thing, but to bring in other European courts decisions is going too far.
This is contempt of court.
It is not contempt of court and the judge made a fool of himself.
He did not order an apology. He said that Apple must post a statement saying Samsung did not infringe and a link to the verdict. Apple has complied. He said that Apple did not have to make it into an advert for Samsung products, Apple has not.
He cannot ask Apple to remove his comments (he did say that the iPad was cool and the Samsung tab was 'thin' and 'insubstantial) because then he would be ordering censorship of records that are already public.
He can ask Apple to remove the final paragraph since the outcomes in non-EU countries are not relevant.
Apple has not offered an opinion, it has simply presented the facts. The judge said it, the judge has to deal with it.
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.
I find that stupid too, but it's not your place to say what that order 'deserves'. Apple is not above the law, that's a primordial rule. If they don't want to play by the rules, they'll end up like MS in the 90's in EU, and they won't be able to say that's not their fault.
So when there is no contempt of court finding will you and all the others of your ilk posting on this thread come and admit that you were wrong? You're welcome to post a link to a page where it says "the UK court did not find Apple in contempt but Fandroids throughout the world think Tim Cook and his lawyers deserve to rot in jail for their childishness."
In the US case, Judge Koh told Samsung that documents they filed late were not admissible as evidence. Samsung's response was to release them to the public. I don't remember the Android fans complaining too loudly about that.
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.
The above is so full of crap I can smell it way over here in the Midwest. :rolleyes:
The big mistake here was made by Samsung. They brought the case to begin with, so as soon as the judge said that iPad was cool and the Samsung tab was thin and insubstantial, they should have called a halt to it and requested a new judge (bias?). They were so focussed on the winning that they failed to see how it could easily turn into a marketing loss.
In the US case, Judge Koh told Samsung that documents they filed late were not admissible as evidence. Samsung's response was to release them to the public. I don't remember the Android fans complaining too loudly about that.
Of course not, because in that case the judge really was being so unreasonable that Samsung couldn't rationally abide by her decision... /s
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.
The judge never said Apple had to apologise (Why should they? They didn't bring the case). He simply said Apple needed to state that Samsung did not infringe on its trademark. Apple put that right at the top of the page, along with a link to the judgement.
The judge can tell Apple to remove the last paragraph (it's irrelevant to the UK judgement) , but will he risk making a fool of himself by telling Apple to censor the reasons behind his decision?
"Samsung's products do not infringe on Apple's trademark because Apple's iPad is cool, and the Samsung product is thin and insubstantial."
That's what the judge said and Apple is well within its rights to quote him as it's the reason they lost the case.
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.
This is my major takeaway also. The real problem is the ridiculous order and I'm not sure why any sane judicial body wouldn't have vacated it when Apple appealed, although the UK courts are overly fond of this kind of parental nonsense.
Remedies and penalties should take standard forms that are established by the legal system as a whole. A judge isn't (or shouldn't be) God. They shouldn't have the right to just make up whatever punishment they feel good about. I mean what if he said that every Apple employee had to wash every Samsung employees car for a year or something equally stupid? The UK legal system, is clearly a f*cking joke.
I don't know how you can say this in reference to what is a childish, ridiculous judgement in the first place. The judge was acting immaturely, and the UK legal system is insane to support such nonsense.
Sigh. No, I don't want the to "wail". I never said anything such as that. I expected them to state that they were wrong in their statement. If they wanted to add something along the lines of "pursuant to court order number xxxxxx we were wrong in our statement regarding Samsung...."
Adding the extra nonsense about the other cases bypasses the actual point of the court's order and they should be held in contempt for the act.
What more did "I want"? Nothing. Never said I did. Reread my post.
Did the order say they had to say they were wrong?
If all the order said was they had to post the court decision, they have done so. Beyond that, what else do you want? You say nothing, but only because you assume more was asked. Maybe that is the case. Show me. Otherwise, my question stands, beyond what they did, anything else you would like is 'more'.
Apple has a lot of lawyers on their payroll. I am pretty sure them ensured the met every part of the order. So, anything you want over and above, is over and above. If you want them to say they were wrong, that is over and above (unless you can show me otherwise).
This is my major takeaway also. The real problem is the ridiculous order and I'm not sure why any sane judicial body wouldn't have vacated it when Apple appealed, although the UK courts are overly fond of this kind of parental nonsense.
Remedies and penalties should take standard forms that are established by the legal system as a whole. A judge isn't (or shouldn't be) God. They shouldn't have the right to just make up whatever punishment they feel good about. I mean what if he said that every Apple employee had to wash every Samsung employees car for a year or something equally stupid? The UK legal system, is clearly a f*cking joke.
Nice generalisation. You're basically writing off one of the world's leading legal systems (that many other countries base their legal systems on, including the U.S.) because you disagree with one judge's decision on one case. Nice.
Out of curiosity, do you have any legal background at all , or are you just spouting uninformed rubbish?
I don't know how you can say this in reference to what is a childish, ridiculous judgement in the first place. The judge was acting immaturely, and the UK legal system is insane to support such nonsense.
Here's a conspiracy theory:
Samsung brought the case. Not Apple
Samsung wanted to get a judgement in the UK stating that it did not infringe and it would like a public statement from Apple, if the case went its way.
The judge decided that under UK law, Apple did not infringe, but also thought that such a statement would be tantamount to forcing Apple to advertise Samsung products.
So, during the case, he throws Apple a massive bone....
Either that, or the judge got dazzled by being in the spotlight and shot himself in the foot while trying to appear hip.
This is my major takeaway also. The real problem is the ridiculous order and I'm not sure why any sane judicial body wouldn't have vacated it when Apple appealed, although the UK courts are overly fond of this kind of parental nonsense.
Remedies and penalties should take standard forms that are established by the legal system as a whole. A judge isn't (or shouldn't be) God. They shouldn't have the right to just make up whatever punishment they feel good about. I mean what if he said that every Apple employee had to wash every Samsung employees car for a year or something equally stupid? The UK legal system, is clearly a f*cking joke.
I've read people that justify the public shaming aspect of the order with "well, Apple sued, they lost, so they should have to acknowledge that". Except Apple didn't sue. In this case, it was Samsung that initiate the lawsuit. They won. Good for them. It then just becomes petty for the judge to require a public shaming. His decision might be valid (debatable) but his order is just nonsensical.
This is my major takeaway also. The real problem is the ridiculous order and I'm not sure why any sane judicial body wouldn't have vacated it when Apple appealed, although the UK courts are overly fond of this kind of parental nonsense.
Remedies and penalties should take standard forms that are established by the legal system as a whole. A judge isn't (or shouldn't be) God. They shouldn't have the right to just make up whatever punishment they feel good about. I mean what if he said that every Apple employee had to wash every Samsung employees car for a year or something equally stupid? The UK legal system, is clearly a f*cking joke.
I thought it a bit silly myself when it was first ordered. But now with Apple's latest response to the judge's order it does seem to serve a purpose. Apple continues to assert that Samsung is infringing on this design patent even after the EU wide legal judgement that they do not, and apparently the UK judge may have anticipated Apple's continued claims contrary to the ruling.
A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:
Existence of a lawful order
The potential contemnor's knowledge of the order
The potential contemnor's ability to comply
The potential contemnor's failure to comply
The other "direct" form of contempt is disrepect in the presence of the judge or disruption of the actual legal procedings, which clearly doesn't apply here.
Apple was ordered to do something; they did it. Ergo no "contempt" in a legal sense.
If I was ordered to give you $1000 as compensation, I could include a note saying "I think this is totally unfair and the judge made 1000 errors during the trial, but I am required to give you a $1000, so here you go." and that would not be contempt either. Fortunately we live in nations of laws and not ones run my judicial god-emperors.
Sigh. No, I don't want the to "wail". I never said anything such as that. I expected them to state that they were wrong in their statement. If they wanted to add something along the lines of "pursuant to court order number xxxxxx we were wrong in our statement regarding Samsung...."
Adding the extra nonsense about the other cases bypasses the actual point of the court's order and they should be held in contempt for the act.
What more did "I want"? Nothing. Never said I did. Reread my post.
In the UK, a judge may order you to apologise, but they will not ask you to say you were wrong. I don't know why that is but I think it's because under UK law, it is your right to disagree, even if the judgement goes against you. In this country, even when someone has been acquitted of murder, we've had senior police officers telling the press that they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the crime. In short, they are disagreeing with the verdict.
Forcing you to say you're wrong would be infringing on that right. If I can refer back to my favourite court-ordered apology, the Sun newspaper vs Elton John.
The paper had to put up a front page spread that apologised for stating Elton John was gay. The paper complied, but it never said that Elton John wasn't gay; it only apologised for saying it. The difference is not even subtle.
In any case, how can Apple be forced to apologise and say they were wrong when they didn't bring the case in the first place?
If you could be forced to say you were wrong or you were forced to say you were guilty, then how could you ever appeal?
You know Apple has done something big when so many idiots are getting pissed. BTW, I'm having some legal issues and need a good lawyer to help me out. It seems I've got several to choose from.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Apple. basically mocked the orders of the UK judge and made a fool of him.
Not agreeing with his ruling is one thing, but to bring in other European courts decisions is going too far.
This is contempt of court.
It is not contempt of court and the judge made a fool of himself.
He did not order an apology. He said that Apple must post a statement saying Samsung did not infringe and a link to the verdict. Apple has complied. He said that Apple did not have to make it into an advert for Samsung products, Apple has not.
He cannot ask Apple to remove his comments (he did say that the iPad was cool and the Samsung tab was 'thin' and 'insubstantial) because then he would be ordering censorship of records that are already public.
He can ask Apple to remove the final paragraph since the outcomes in non-EU countries are not relevant.
Apple has not offered an opinion, it has simply presented the facts. The judge said it, the judge has to deal with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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.
I find that stupid too, but it's not your place to say what that order 'deserves'. Apple is not above the law, that's a primordial rule. If they don't want to play by the rules, they'll end up like MS in the 90's in EU, and they won't be able to say that's not their fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
So when there is no contempt of court finding will you and all the others of your ilk posting on this thread come and admit that you were wrong? You're welcome to post a link to a page where it says "the UK court did not find Apple in contempt but Fandroids throughout the world think Tim Cook and his lawyers deserve to rot in jail for their childishness."
In the US case, Judge Koh told Samsung that documents they filed late were not admissible as evidence. Samsung's response was to release them to the public. I don't remember the Android fans complaining too loudly about that.
The above is so full of crap I can smell it way over here in the Midwest. :rolleyes:
The big mistake here was made by Samsung. They brought the case to begin with, so as soon as the judge said that iPad was cool and the Samsung tab was thin and insubstantial, they should have called a halt to it and requested a new judge (bias?). They were so focussed on the winning that they failed to see how it could easily turn into a marketing loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
In the US case, Judge Koh told Samsung that documents they filed late were not admissible as evidence. Samsung's response was to release them to the public. I don't remember the Android fans complaining too loudly about that.
Of course not, because in that case the judge really was being so unreasonable that Samsung couldn't rationally abide by her decision... /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
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.
The judge never said Apple had to apologise (Why should they? They didn't bring the case). He simply said Apple needed to state that Samsung did not infringe on its trademark. Apple put that right at the top of the page, along with a link to the judgement.
The judge can tell Apple to remove the last paragraph (it's irrelevant to the UK judgement) , but will he risk making a fool of himself by telling Apple to censor the reasons behind his decision?
"Samsung's products do not infringe on Apple's trademark because Apple's iPad is cool, and the Samsung product is thin and insubstantial."
That's what the judge said and Apple is well within its rights to quote him as it's the reason they lost the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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.
This is my major takeaway also. The real problem is the ridiculous order and I'm not sure why any sane judicial body wouldn't have vacated it when Apple appealed, although the UK courts are overly fond of this kind of parental nonsense.
Remedies and penalties should take standard forms that are established by the legal system as a whole. A judge isn't (or shouldn't be) God. They shouldn't have the right to just make up whatever punishment they feel good about. I mean what if he said that every Apple employee had to wash every Samsung employees car for a year or something equally stupid? The UK legal system, is clearly a f*cking joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
... Grow up people.
I don't know how you can say this in reference to what is a childish, ridiculous judgement in the first place. The judge was acting immaturely, and the UK legal system is insane to support such nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
Sigh. No, I don't want the to "wail". I never said anything such as that. I expected them to state that they were wrong in their statement. If they wanted to add something along the lines of "pursuant to court order number xxxxxx we were wrong in our statement regarding Samsung...."
Adding the extra nonsense about the other cases bypasses the actual point of the court's order and they should be held in contempt for the act.
What more did "I want"? Nothing. Never said I did. Reread my post.
Did the order say they had to say they were wrong?
If all the order said was they had to post the court decision, they have done so. Beyond that, what else do you want? You say nothing, but only because you assume more was asked. Maybe that is the case. Show me. Otherwise, my question stands, beyond what they did, anything else you would like is 'more'.
Apple has a lot of lawyers on their payroll. I am pretty sure them ensured the met every part of the order. So, anything you want over and above, is over and above. If you want them to say they were wrong, that is over and above (unless you can show me otherwise).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This is my major takeaway also. The real problem is the ridiculous order and I'm not sure why any sane judicial body wouldn't have vacated it when Apple appealed, although the UK courts are overly fond of this kind of parental nonsense.
Remedies and penalties should take standard forms that are established by the legal system as a whole. A judge isn't (or shouldn't be) God. They shouldn't have the right to just make up whatever punishment they feel good about. I mean what if he said that every Apple employee had to wash every Samsung employees car for a year or something equally stupid? The UK legal system, is clearly a f*cking joke.
Nice generalisation. You're basically writing off one of the world's leading legal systems (that many other countries base their legal systems on, including the U.S.) because you disagree with one judge's decision on one case. Nice.
Out of curiosity, do you have any legal background at all , or are you just spouting uninformed rubbish?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I don't know how you can say this in reference to what is a childish, ridiculous judgement in the first place. The judge was acting immaturely, and the UK legal system is insane to support such nonsense.
Here's a conspiracy theory:
Samsung brought the case. Not Apple
Samsung wanted to get a judgement in the UK stating that it did not infringe and it would like a public statement from Apple, if the case went its way.
The judge decided that under UK law, Apple did not infringe, but also thought that such a statement would be tantamount to forcing Apple to advertise Samsung products.
So, during the case, he throws Apple a massive bone....
Either that, or the judge got dazzled by being in the spotlight and shot himself in the foot while trying to appear hip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This is my major takeaway also. The real problem is the ridiculous order and I'm not sure why any sane judicial body wouldn't have vacated it when Apple appealed, although the UK courts are overly fond of this kind of parental nonsense.
Remedies and penalties should take standard forms that are established by the legal system as a whole. A judge isn't (or shouldn't be) God. They shouldn't have the right to just make up whatever punishment they feel good about. I mean what if he said that every Apple employee had to wash every Samsung employees car for a year or something equally stupid? The UK legal system, is clearly a f*cking joke.
I've read people that justify the public shaming aspect of the order with "well, Apple sued, they lost, so they should have to acknowledge that". Except Apple didn't sue. In this case, it was Samsung that initiate the lawsuit. They won. Good for them. It then just becomes petty for the judge to require a public shaming. His decision might be valid (debatable) but his order is just nonsensical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This is my major takeaway also. The real problem is the ridiculous order and I'm not sure why any sane judicial body wouldn't have vacated it when Apple appealed, although the UK courts are overly fond of this kind of parental nonsense.
Remedies and penalties should take standard forms that are established by the legal system as a whole. A judge isn't (or shouldn't be) God. They shouldn't have the right to just make up whatever punishment they feel good about. I mean what if he said that every Apple employee had to wash every Samsung employees car for a year or something equally stupid? The UK legal system, is clearly a f*cking joke.
I thought it a bit silly myself when it was first ordered. But now with Apple's latest response to the judge's order it does seem to serve a purpose. Apple continues to assert that Samsung is infringing on this design patent even after the EU wide legal judgement that they do not, and apparently the UK judge may have anticipated Apple's continued claims contrary to the ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Looks like Apple failed to follow court order here
Looks like you failed comprehension in school...
From good old Wikipedia:
A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:
Existence of a lawful order
The potential contemnor's knowledge of the order
The potential contemnor's ability to comply
The potential contemnor's failure to comply
The other "direct" form of contempt is disrepect in the presence of the judge or disruption of the actual legal procedings, which clearly doesn't apply here.
Apple was ordered to do something; they did it. Ergo no "contempt" in a legal sense.
If I was ordered to give you $1000 as compensation, I could include a note saying "I think this is totally unfair and the judge made 1000 errors during the trial, but I am required to give you a $1000, so here you go." and that would not be contempt either. Fortunately we live in nations of laws and not ones run my judicial god-emperors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
Sigh. No, I don't want the to "wail". I never said anything such as that. I expected them to state that they were wrong in their statement. If they wanted to add something along the lines of "pursuant to court order number xxxxxx we were wrong in our statement regarding Samsung...."
Adding the extra nonsense about the other cases bypasses the actual point of the court's order and they should be held in contempt for the act.
What more did "I want"? Nothing. Never said I did. Reread my post.
In the UK, a judge may order you to apologise, but they will not ask you to say you were wrong. I don't know why that is but I think it's because under UK law, it is your right to disagree, even if the judgement goes against you. In this country, even when someone has been acquitted of murder, we've had senior police officers telling the press that they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the crime. In short, they are disagreeing with the verdict.
Forcing you to say you're wrong would be infringing on that right. If I can refer back to my favourite court-ordered apology, the Sun newspaper vs Elton John.
The paper had to put up a front page spread that apologised for stating Elton John was gay. The paper complied, but it never said that Elton John wasn't gay; it only apologised for saying it. The difference is not even subtle.
In any case, how can Apple be forced to apologise and say they were wrong when they didn't bring the case in the first place?
If you could be forced to say you were wrong or you were forced to say you were guilty, then how could you ever appeal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
... but they declare Samsung DID infringe. Twice even.
yes and they did. They just didn't infringe in the UK.
Since you are a huge corporation and can't say it, I will: Vuck You Samsang
LOL.
You know Apple has done something big when so many idiots are getting pissed. BTW, I'm having some legal issues and need a good lawyer to help me out. It seems I've got several to choose from.