Some people get way too hung up on Apple & simply refuse to see this company for the arrogant beast they've become. If anyone wants an inaccuracy pointing out well try the German decision for one. The English court's decision overrode that one, something to do with community court & so their verdict is europe wide. Another fact that can be argued as factually correct for now is the US decision - how many would genuinely beta against that one being thrown out in december; especially with the bounce back patent being tentatively ruked invalid by the US Patent office.
Please open your eyes to what the majority of people can see - Apple don't care about customers nor whatever means they have to apply to attempt to keep their dwindling market share in both tablet and phone markets. They are fighting a losing battle; made even more difficult for them since they opened the pandoras box of patent litigation. Do you really think the likes of google will just sit there & watch this whilst at the same time seeing apple blatantly ripping off their technology such as the patent pending drop down notifications bar - or should I guess that apple users see this as an innivative apple development rather than something rippoed from a 2yr old version of Android?
So now doing exactly what was legally required of them, copying the exact text of what they were legally told to say, and formatting it exactly as they were told to format it… is "not in compliance".
"Fire trucks are red." You can think otherwise. Doesn't make you right in any universe.
Ooh, would an Airstrip One reference be out of line? It's fitting, even more than just the setting:
Apple does exactly what they're told to do.
"You have done nothing you were told to do. You have never done anything you were told to do."
Can you imagine if Samsung found itself in this position in the US how you would react?
Would that be the same Samsung that leaked documents to the press because they disagreed with the judge who told them they were inadmissible as evidence?
Or the same Samsung that destroyed emails after the same judge had told them they must be submitted to the court?
-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.
Based on that it's clear that Apple was ordered to
"at its own expense, (a) post in a font size no small [sic] than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home pages of its EU websites ("the Defendant's Websites"), as specified in Schedule 1 to this order, together with a hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 09 July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on the Defendant's Websites for a period of one year from the date of this Order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in The Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine." (paragraph 4, emphasis mine).
on the Euro-region versions of the Apple Web site.
This request was modified by paragraph 57 to limit it to 6 month and the UK site only.
Clearly Apple was supposed to put the statement ON the home page and not just link to it. That's their non-compliance. That and the font size. How did it go from being "Arial 14" to "11 point" in the later order?
"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.
No matter, the judge's original ruling was ridiculous, and childish. I expect Apple to do whatever they can to reduce the impact of having to post an admission they clearly do not agree with. I expect Apple to push this to the limit.
Based on that it's clear that Apple was ordered to
"at its own expense, (a) post in a font size no small [sic] than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home pages of its EU websites ("the Defendant's Websites"), as specified in Schedule 1 to this order, together with a hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 09 July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on the Defendant's Websites for a period of one year from the date of this Order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in The Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine." (paragraph 4, emphasis mine).
on the Euro-region versions of the Apple Web site.
This request was modified by paragraph 57 to limit it to 6 month and the UK site only.
Clearly Apple was supposed to put the statement ON the home page and not just link to it. That's their non-compliance. That and the font size. How did it go from being "Arial 14" to "11 point" in the later order?
85. I turn to the form of the publicity order. No more than that which is proportionate is necessary. As regards the newspaper publicity we had no complaint about the detail of that and, subject to the wording, I would affirm Judge Birss's order. As regards publicity on the Apple home web page, Mr Carr realistically recognised that Apple had a genuine interest in keeping it uncluttered. He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate.
Font size is mentioned in #64, quoting the original ruling from Biriss. 11 was for the web, 14 was for the newspapers.
Quote:
As a result of his second judgment, Judge Birss ordered that:
Within seven days of the date of this Order [18th July 2012] [Apple] shall at its own expense (a) post in a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this order on the homepage of its UK website ... as specified in Schedule 1 to this Order, together with a hyperlink to the Judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 9th July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on [Apple's] websites for a period of six months from the date of this order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no smaller than Arial 14pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine.
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.
It's so far from the case it's ridiculous that you're still arguing. Apple didn't just throw in a few extra words for decoration, they deliberately structured the closing paragraph of the statement to undermine the rest of it. They pickled the sandwich, knowing full well that it would cast a shadow over the rest of the statement and give Apple extra sneering points. They tried to turn a legal clarification into ad-burn. They don't get to do that in court ordered statements, and now (and in my opinion, rightfully) are getting in trouble over trying to do so. It's what I said should happen, and what you denied would happen. I'm calling 1-0.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What does your education system look like? Do people get Fs on their papers for getting all the answers correct?
If someone answered a 2x2 maths question with 4 (but other answers are available in other legal juristictions) then the exam board might be a little confused by the intent. not sure if that would mean an F, but I'm no more an examiner than I am a judge.
They don't get to do that in court ordered statements…
I don't recall the court saying anything about that initially. You only see the old trope of "changing the rules as the game is played" in children's (HEY LOOK CHILDREN) programs (programmes) as examples of how not to behave. It's the bad guy doing it.
If someone answered a 2x2 maths question with 4 (but other answers are available in other legal juristictions) then the exam board might be a little confused by the intent.
That you believe the UK judgement is objective right only outlines just how completely wrong you are.
Thanks. The wrinkle is in "He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate."
Apple was ordered to put "the notice" on their home page. They argued that they should be able to just link to "the notice" and the appeals court acquieced. They didn't ask to be replace the notice on the home page with a link to a page with the notice plus some editorial stuff. That's where Apple's in the wrong. They just need to delete the other stuff and call it a day. The judge is wrong about the size of the font on the home page of course.
So, apparently no a single person can come up with a single part of Apple's statement that was untrue and incorrect. No one person can provide evidence on how Apple was in breach.
I really an eager to read the actual details of this newest ruling. I want to understand the judges' reasoning here because so far nothing in the media reports is making any sense. Of course these are the same outlets that erroneously reported that Apple was order to apologize, which was never ordered.
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.
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.
What does your education system look like? Do people get Fs on their papers for getting all the answers correct?
This is European BS!! Don't do it Apple! We all know Samsung is one hellava copycat smartphone manufacturer. We need to change the culture of Far East Asia. They can't clone intellectual property. I predict that Apple will crush Samsung's smartphone division within 5 years! LOL
For all those on here that believe they know the English & worldwide legal system, please check sites such as groklaw for as much information as you can absorb on the apple samsung ongoing nonsense & other legal stuff. Information you'll find of interest & which is from a legal point of view:
Why Apple didn't comply with the English court order ref Samsung not infringing
Why Apple will very likely not see a penny of the $1bn damages awarded by the US court
Why the Apple win in the US will be overturned
Oh, and you could probably learn a thing or two about patents, prior art & why patent trolls such as Apple will ultimately lose in their quest to litigate competition out of the market.
And to try to stave off any fandroid type comments I own an iPhone 4s, Galaxy S2 & a Samsung TV which does put me more in the Samsung camp but not in the Android camp.
Comments
Can't see anything about putting Tim Cook in prison. Never happened.
Some people get way too hung up on Apple & simply refuse to see this company for the arrogant beast they've become. If anyone wants an inaccuracy pointing out well try the German decision for one. The English court's decision overrode that one, something to do with community court & so their verdict is europe wide. Another fact that can be argued as factually correct for now is the US decision - how many would genuinely beta against that one being thrown out in december; especially with the bounce back patent being tentatively ruked invalid by the US Patent office.
Please open your eyes to what the majority of people can see - Apple don't care about customers nor whatever means they have to apply to attempt to keep their dwindling market share in both tablet and phone markets. They are fighting a losing battle; made even more difficult for them since they opened the pandoras box of patent litigation. Do you really think the likes of google will just sit there & watch this whilst at the same time seeing apple blatantly ripping off their technology such as the patent pending drop down notifications bar - or should I guess that apple users see this as an innivative apple development rather than something rippoed from a 2yr old version of Android?
Quote:
Originally Posted by webweasel
Point 1 - That makes more sense. I've corrected my post.
Point 2 - Do you have a link for that?
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
See #82
Quote:
82. Given the massive publicity of HHJ Birss's "not as cool" judgment, if there had been nothing else I would not have let the order he made come into force. Events had made it unnecessary.
Originally Posted by stike vomit
Well, the judge thought otherwise.
So now doing exactly what was legally required of them, copying the exact text of what they were legally told to say, and formatting it exactly as they were told to format it… is "not in compliance".
"Fire trucks are red." You can think otherwise. Doesn't make you right in any universe.
Ooh, would an Airstrip One reference be out of line? It's fitting, even more than just the setting:
Apple does exactly what they're told to do.
"You have done nothing you were told to do. You have never done anything you were told to do."
Cat and mouse game until the end of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdowell
Can you imagine if Samsung found itself in this position in the US how you would react?
Would that be the same Samsung that leaked documents to the press because they disagreed with the judge who told them they were inadmissible as evidence?
Or the same Samsung that destroyed emails after the same judge had told them they must be submitted to the court?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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.
Can you post a link to the appeals court ruling? All I could find was the original trial ruling http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html
Based on that it's clear that Apple was ordered to
"at its own expense, (a) post in a font size no small [sic] than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home pages of its EU websites ("the Defendant's Websites"), as specified in Schedule 1 to this order, together with a hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 09 July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on the Defendant's Websites for a period of one year from the date of this Order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in The Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine." (paragraph 4, emphasis mine).
on the Euro-region versions of the Apple Web site.
This request was modified by paragraph 57 to limit it to 6 month and the UK site only.
Clearly Apple was supposed to put the statement ON the home page and not just link to it. That's their non-compliance. That and the font size. How did it go from being "Arial 14" to "11 point" in the later order?
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.
No matter, the judge's original ruling was ridiculous, and childish. I expect Apple to do whatever they can to reduce the impact of having to post an admission they clearly do not agree with. I expect Apple to push this to the limit.
Originally Posted by fredawest
Originally Posted by AugustMoon
Originally Posted by whatever71
All these new single post signups… all from the UK… and all lying…
Humor.
(Oh, sorry, "humour".)
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Can you post a link to the appeals court ruling? All I could find was the original trial ruling http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html
Based on that it's clear that Apple was ordered to
"at its own expense, (a) post in a font size no small [sic] than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home pages of its EU websites ("the Defendant's Websites"), as specified in Schedule 1 to this order, together with a hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 09 July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on the Defendant's Websites for a period of one year from the date of this Order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in The Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine." (paragraph 4, emphasis mine).
on the Euro-region versions of the Apple Web site.
This request was modified by paragraph 57 to limit it to 6 month and the UK site only.
Clearly Apple was supposed to put the statement ON the home page and not just link to it. That's their non-compliance. That and the font size. How did it go from being "Arial 14" to "11 point" in the later order?
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
Number 85
Quote:
85. I turn to the form of the publicity order. No more than that which is proportionate is necessary. As regards the newspaper publicity we had no complaint about the detail of that and, subject to the wording, I would affirm Judge Birss's order. As regards publicity on the Apple home web page, Mr Carr realistically recognised that Apple had a genuine interest in keeping it uncluttered. He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate.
Font size is mentioned in #64, quoting the original ruling from Biriss. 11 was for the web, 14 was for the newspapers.
Quote:
As a result of his second judgment, Judge Birss ordered that:
Within seven days of the date of this Order [18th July 2012] [Apple] shall at its own expense (a) post in a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this order on the homepage of its UK website ... as specified in Schedule 1 to this Order, together with a hyperlink to the Judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 9th July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on [Apple's] websites for a period of six months from the date of this order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no smaller than Arial 14pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine.
Exactly as ordered.
Soak it up Apple. Take the length and keep on grinning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
It's so far from the case it's ridiculous that you're still arguing. Apple didn't just throw in a few extra words for decoration, they deliberately structured the closing paragraph of the statement to undermine the rest of it. They pickled the sandwich, knowing full well that it would cast a shadow over the rest of the statement and give Apple extra sneering points. They tried to turn a legal clarification into ad-burn. They don't get to do that in court ordered statements, and now (and in my opinion, rightfully) are getting in trouble over trying to do so. It's what I said should happen, and what you denied would happen. I'm calling 1-0.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What does your education system look like? Do people get Fs on their papers for getting all the answers correct?
If someone answered a 2x2 maths question with 4 (but other answers are available in other legal juristictions) then the exam board might be a little confused by the intent. not sure if that would mean an F, but I'm no more an examiner than I am a judge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121101091853360
They showed disrespect to a court of law. Now they are being slapped down for it, end of.
Originally Posted by Crowley
They don't get to do that in court ordered statements…
I don't recall the court saying anything about that initially. You only see the old trope of "changing the rules as the game is played" in children's (HEY LOOK CHILDREN) programs (programmes) as examples of how not to behave. It's the bad guy doing it.
If someone answered a 2x2 maths question with 4 (but other answers are available in other legal juristictions) then the exam board might be a little confused by the intent.
That you believe the UK judgement is objective right only outlines just how completely wrong you are.
Thanks. The wrinkle is in "He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate."
Apple was ordered to put "the notice" on their home page. They argued that they should be able to just link to "the notice" and the appeals court acquieced. They didn't ask to be replace the notice on the home page with a link to a page with the notice plus some editorial stuff. That's where Apple's in the wrong. They just need to delete the other stuff and call it a day. The judge is wrong about the size of the font on the home page of course.
So, apparently no a single person can come up with a single part of Apple's statement that was untrue and incorrect. No one person can provide evidence on how Apple was in breach.
I really an eager to read the actual details of this newest ruling. I want to understand the judges' reasoning here because so far nothing in the media reports is making any sense. Of course these are the same outlets that erroneously reported that Apple was order to apologize, which was never ordered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121101091853360
They showed disrespect to a court of law. Now they are being slapped down for it, end of.
How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
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.
What does your education system look like? Do people get Fs on their papers for getting all the answers correct?
It looks a shitload better than yours Skil.
We don't have to bring guns to school.
So, is the judge saying that he didn't say Apple products are cool?
For all those on here that believe they know the English & worldwide legal system, please check sites such as groklaw for as much information as you can absorb on the apple samsung ongoing nonsense & other legal stuff. Information you'll find of interest & which is from a legal point of view:
Why Apple didn't comply with the English court order ref Samsung not infringing
Why Apple will very likely not see a penny of the $1bn damages awarded by the US court
Why the Apple win in the US will be overturned
Oh, and you could probably learn a thing or two about patents, prior art & why patent trolls such as Apple will ultimately lose in their quest to litigate competition out of the market.
And to try to stave off any fandroid type comments I own an iPhone 4s, Galaxy S2 & a Samsung TV which does put me more in the Samsung camp but not in the Android camp.