The solution is so simple. Write the notice and have the judge approve it. Place it on the web page as instructed.
Then right below it put a link to all Apple's other court cases around the world. This will "separate" the judges ordered statement from "regular " website content.
And I have the perfect title for the link: "One More Thing".
Seriously, though, the court has no right to tell Apple what they can and can't post on their website that they own. They can only tell Apple what to do regarding this notice. Separate the notice from "other content" and Apple gets compliance while still making people aware of Samsungs blatant copying of Apple in many other areas.
The original Bloomberg report quotes the judges as saying Apple's notice included statements that were untrue and incorrect.
The original Bloomberg report quotes are not attributed to the Judge, you'll find it is what Samsung claimed at the hearing, the Judges upheld the view that the statement was inaccurate.
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 initiated proceedings against Samsung in the UK, but lost. However as the UK is part of the EU, that was an EU-wide verdict. They 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.
I'll correct some misconceptions for you.
-Apple never sued Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple.
-The appeals court actually said they would not have even allowed Judge Biriss order for a public statement to stand, other than because of the publicity generated by Biriss' statement that Samsung was not cool. They said that was the only reason the would allow the order for a public statement to stand.
Funny to see the blind defenders here arguing on a website about something that multiple judges and trials have deemed to be in violation.
Go ahead and ask me again to prove to you, as if that is necessary, what Apple did wrong. None of us are English Judges, so none of us have to explain anything to anyone. Anyone that questions the validity of this is most likely free to hire a lawyer and fight Apples case for them. Considering Apples own lawyers haven't been able to stop this, I think you are all tilting at windmills. But keep up the good work, the rose colored glasses industry needs lemmings like you guys.
The original Bloomberg report quotes are not attributed to the Judge, you'll find it is what Samsung claimed at the hearing, the Judges upheld the view that the statement was inaccurate.
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
Are you seriously equating Apple and Samsung butting heads over design with universal suffrage?
Can't believe the hubris of the Apple faithful.
Marxist We have a way more right wing government than the US right now.
To slightly alter a very witty rhyme penned by Humbert Wolfe, an Italian-born British poet, man of letters and civil servant. regarding the British journalist, here it is amended to read "jurist" instead (which is pretty close and just as apt):
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British jurist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to!"
-Apple never sued Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple.
-The appeals court actually said they would not have even allowed Judge Biriss order for a public statement to stand, other than because of the publicity generated by Biriss' statement that Samsung was not cool. They said that was the only reason the would allow the order for a public statement to stand.
Point 1 - That makes more sense. I've corrected my post.
Funny to see the blind defenders here arguing on a website about something that multiple judges and trials have deemed to be in violation.
Go ahead and ask me again to prove to you, as if that is necessary, what Apple did wrong. None of us are English Judges, so none of us have to explain anything to anyone. Anyone that questions the validity of this is most likely free to hire a lawyer and fight Apples case for them. Considering Apples own lawyers haven't been able to stop this, I think you are all tilting at windmills. But keep up the good work, the rose colored glasses industry needs lemmings like you guys.
Um, yeah, you do have to prove it as do the judges. You've stated that Apple has violated the law but you are willing to show proof that they have done that despite repeated attempts to get any evidence that there are laws that govern how these apologies letters are written. You seriously don't see how ignorant you sound? Others making the contrary argument have pointed out what the judge asked for and have shown that Apple provided all that info in their apology letter, so they've actually argued their point well instead of just implying a foolish "because!"
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.
Originally Posted by Crowley
1. It's an analogy to illustrate the simple point that you don't seem to understand.
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.
2. I quite agree, and await satisfactory compliance.
What does your education system look like? Do people get Fs on their papers for getting all the answers correct?
For everyone saying Apple somehow disobeyed the court, broke rules, or included untrue statements, please at least read the ruling first. Don't make statements based in ignorance.
Well, the judge thought otherwise. Forgive me for valuing the legal acumen of a high court judge over that of an internet forum moderator.
Judges are human too and can make mistakes. Common sense seems to show these judges are acting out perhaps from a sense of personal insult which never happened.
Comments
Then right below it put a link to all Apple's other court cases around the world. This will "separate" the judges ordered statement from "regular " website content.
And I have the perfect title for the link: "One More Thing".
Seriously, though, the court has no right to tell Apple what they can and can't post on their website that they own. They can only tell Apple what to do regarding this notice. Separate the notice from "other content" and Apple gets compliance while still making people aware of Samsungs blatant copying of Apple in many other areas.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
The original Bloomberg report quotes the judges as saying Apple's notice included statements that were untrue and incorrect.
The original Bloomberg report quotes are not attributed to the Judge, you'll find it is what Samsung claimed at the hearing, the Judges upheld the view that the statement was inaccurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by webweasel
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 initiated proceedings against Samsung in the UK, but lost. However as the UK is part of the EU, that was an EU-wide verdict. They 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.
I'll correct some misconceptions for you.
-Apple never sued Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple.
-The appeals court actually said they would not have even allowed Judge Biriss order for a public statement to stand, other than because of the publicity generated by Biriss' statement that Samsung was not cool. They said that was the only reason the would allow the order for a public statement to stand.
Funny to see the blind defenders here arguing on a website about something that multiple judges and trials have deemed to be in violation.
Go ahead and ask me again to prove to you, as if that is necessary, what Apple did wrong. None of us are English Judges, so none of us have to explain anything to anyone. Anyone that questions the validity of this is most likely free to hire a lawyer and fight Apples case for them. Considering Apples own lawyers haven't been able to stop this, I think you are all tilting at windmills. But keep up the good work, the rose colored glasses industry needs lemmings like you guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredawest
The original Bloomberg report quotes are not attributed to the Judge, you'll find it is what Samsung claimed at the hearing, the Judges upheld the view that the statement was inaccurate.
It was attributed to the court.
"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.”"
You think they wrapped those words in quotations just for fun?
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
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
Are you seriously equating Apple and Samsung butting heads over design with universal suffrage?
Can't believe the hubris of the Apple faithful.
Marxist
Originally Posted by Crowley
An analogy.
Doesn't apply.
1. Hey, look, more CHILDREN references. Companies and countries aren't children and parents.
2. Once a legal order is complied with, that's it, period.
To slightly alter a very witty rhyme penned by Humbert Wolfe, an Italian-born British poet, man of letters and civil servant. regarding the British journalist, here it is amended to read "jurist" instead (which is pretty close and just as apt):
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British jurist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to!"
Quote:
-Apple never sued Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple.
-The appeals court actually said they would not have even allowed Judge Biriss order for a public statement to stand, other than because of the publicity generated by Biriss' statement that Samsung was not cool. They said that was the only reason the would allow the order for a public statement to stand.
Point 1 - That makes more sense. I've corrected my post.
Point 2 - Do you have a link for that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
It was attributed to the court.
"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.”"
You think they wrapped those words in quotations just for fun?
When the full judgement comes out boy will you have some humble (apple) pie to eat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Doesn't apply.
1. Hey, look, more CHILDREN references. Companies and countries aren't children and parents.
2. Once a legal order is complied with, that's it, period.
1. It's an analogy to illustrate the simple point that you don't seem to understand. Sorry for trying to be helpful; enjoy your ignorance.
2. I quite agree, and await satisfactory compliance.
Um, yeah, you do have to prove it as do the judges. You've stated that Apple has violated the law but you are willing to show proof that they have done that despite repeated attempts to get any evidence that there are laws that govern how these apologies letters are written. You seriously don't see how ignorant you sound? Others making the contrary argument have pointed out what the judge asked for and have shown that Apple provided all that info in their apology letter, so they've actually argued their point well instead of just implying a foolish "because!"
A quick look at your post history reveals another troll, and another useless commeter to add to my ever growing "block list."
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.
Originally Posted by Crowley
1. It's an analogy to illustrate the simple point that you don't seem to understand.
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.
2. I quite agree, and await satisfactory compliance.
What does your education system look like? Do people get Fs on their papers for getting all the answers correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
2. Once a legal order is complied with, that's it, period.
Well, the judge thought otherwise. Forgive me for valuing the legal acumen of a high court judge over that of an internet forum moderator.
For everyone saying Apple somehow disobeyed the court, broke rules, or included untrue statements, please at least read the ruling first. Don't make statements based in ignorance.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Never happened. Stick to actual arguments and facts please.
My response was to your nonsense even more unrelated to facts.
Also please see the previous AI article comments (http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/153785/apples-uk-site-says-samsung-devices-not-as-cool-in-compliance-with-court-ruling) where the following posters & posts insisted that Apple was in contempt of court and should be punished.
Post #11 e_veritas , #21 stike vomit, #47 Lamewing, #52 Galbi, #135 Sensi
The judge did not and will not hold Apple in contempt because they weren't and aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
Well, the judge thought otherwise. Forgive me for valuing the legal acumen of a high court judge over that of an internet forum moderator.
Judges are human too and can make mistakes. Common sense seems to show these judges are acting out perhaps from a sense of personal insult which never happened.
Some are just soft headed.
I'm surprised nobody has suggested Apple make two notices. The original one and a second one apologizing to the court for the first notice.