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

1356724

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 477
    hattighattig Posts: 860member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


     


    And which of these rules did Apple supposedly violate?



     


    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.

  • Reply 42 of 477
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


     


     


    The person acting like a child here is the judge. The guy is clearly a total imbecile.



    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.

  • Reply 43 of 477
    neo42neo42 Posts: 287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post


    They don't have to, but there will be consequences.


     


     


    Clearly those with legal authority don't agree with you here.  I tend to favour their opinion.  This is happening and Apple are in trouble.  Your continued denial is embarassing.


     


    You're mixing up your targets.  Apple is the entity that acted with child-like impudence.  And you're the one who's been throwing your toys out of the pram at any suggestion that Apple acted improperly. 



     


    There is no point in arguing with the the Apple apologists.  Apple is God, never doing wrong.

  • Reply 44 of 477
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


     


    "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.



    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.

  • Reply 45 of 477


    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

    Obviously Apple stepped over a line.


     


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






    They had to have known they were going to piss off the judge.  



     


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






    Don't understand why you always think Apple can do w/etf they want?



     


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





    Originally Posted by fredawest View Post

    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.


    imageimage


    image


     



    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

    Apple need to respect the judgements against them, in the spirit in which they are judged…


     


    The spirit of fallacy? 

  • Reply 46 of 477
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fredawest View Post


     


    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.



    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


     


     


     


    Quote:


    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.”



    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)

  • Reply 47 of 477

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


     


    Apple DID NOT comply with the court order. There are very specific rules for placement and font size in cases like this. The judge has confirmed that Apple broke these rules.


     


    If you believe that the judge is making this up as he goes along then you have no idea about how the English legal system works.



    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.

  • Reply 48 of 477
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    That's no surprised and completely justified. That was a very stupid move Apple did.
  • Reply 49 of 477
    hattighattig Posts: 860member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    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.


     



     


    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.

  • Reply 50 of 477
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    If Apple can be punished for obeying a court order, they'd be better off leaving your country entirely. As would every company.




    Get real.  They "obeyed" it with a twist, and now they're getting flack for the twist.  They knew exactly what they were doing and I'm sure they felt very clever about it.  Even Gruber described it as a "burn" - http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/10/26/uk-cool-judgment


     


    No court will tolerate a judgement being turned into a competitive burn, entirely against the spirit of the judgement.


     


     


    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    We'll see how long that lasts. 



    I'm going to hazard a guess that it'll be at least 14 days, which is as long as it takes Apple to delete some text from their website.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Apple's a singular entity, and your belief that the original wasn't in legal compliance is embarrassing. 



    Embarassing, and yet entirely correct according to the article we're commenting on.  Are you in  the same reality I am?


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Nope, I know exactly who I'm talking about. "Conformity, Safety, Servility." What, exactly, is wrong with the first one? Even the judges didn't say. 



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

  • Reply 51 of 477
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


     


    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.



    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.

  • Reply 52 of 477


    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

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


     


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

  • Reply 53 of 477


    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

  • Reply 54 of 477
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    richl wrote: »
    As I've already stated, there's very clear pre-existing rules on the printing (electronically or otherwise) of apologies like this one. Apple's lawyers would have been aware of these rules before the statement was posted on Apple's website.

    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.
  • Reply 55 of 477
    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.
  • Reply 56 of 477


    Originally Posted by AugustMoon View Post

    Apple are were ordered to say, "We were wrong!". Instead they said, "Somebody else said we were wrong!".


     


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


     




    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    …I don't recall these rules ever been brought up before.


     



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

  • Reply 57 of 477
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


     


    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.



    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?

  • Reply 58 of 477
    wdowellwdowell Posts: 234member

    I am sorry, but as a British citizen I agree with the Juge on this. I love Apple, it's products but this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.


     


    Can you imagine if Samsung found itself in this position in the US how you would react? Apple not only twisted the Order from the judge to the furthest limits (and apparently beyond), but it stuck up it's middle finger at the judge and THEN.. unbelievably claimed it needed 14 DAYS to update it's front page!


     


    I think it's perfectly clear why they claimed it would need 14 days - to kick things down the track, away from the recent announcements which are currently taking up prime real estate on the front page.. 


     


    They would have been better off just obeying things in the first place, instead of attracting additional bad publicity over this little 'stunt'

  • Reply 59 of 477
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


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



    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.

  • Reply 60 of 477

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


     


    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.



     


     


    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 :)

Sign In or Register to comment.