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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Apple need to respect the judgements against them, in the spirit in which they are judged…
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,
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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'
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Neo42
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
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.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Apple need to respect the judgements against them, in the spirit in which they are judged…
The spirit of fallacy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredawest
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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
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
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig
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.
Originally Posted by Crowley
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.
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
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.
Of course, personally I don't agree with the UK courts judgement, but that's another matter.
Originally Posted by AugustMoon
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
…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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig
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?
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'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig
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