This whole thing is simply about Apple yanking the UK judges' chain. I love it.
Apple will (and should) do what these silly people are asking -- in their own way....
Coming form someone who thinks the US legal system has become a joke: The British system appears to be laughably worse, by comparison. Even Monty Python couldn't have thunk this up.
Obviously Apple stepped over a line. They had to have known they were going to piss off the judge. Don't understand why you always think Apple can do w/etf they want? Get a clue.
This is the kind of bad press Apple doesnt need, especially in Europe where they are not doing well at all. They should comply ASAP and let that thing died.
In fact, Apple has a chance to gain market share in EU with Google getting slam by France over Tax and ad revenu of the french press. All Apple has to do is play nice.
Ah, I see. Yes, if your presumption is that Apple shouldn't have expected this reaction then the beer is a better analogy. I disagree with the premise though, so I'll stick with the pickles
meh, you might be right. Maybe someone did stick a pickle in the judge's ass. Actually seem quite likely.
This whole thing is simply about Apple yanking the UK judges' chain. I love it.
Apple will (and should) do what these silly people are asking -- in their own way....
Coming form someone who thinks the US legal system has become a joke: The British system appears to be laughably worse, by comparison. Even Monty Python couldn't have thunk this up.
Doing it "their own way" is what got them into this mess in the first place. How about doing the "right way" instead?
Also, looks like they have 48 hours to comply, unless Tim Cook gets involved. From the BBC:
Quote:
He asked that the company be given 14 days to post the replacement - but the request was firmly denied.
Lord Justice Longmore told Mr Beloff: "We are just amazed that you cannot put the right notice up at the same time as you take the other one down."
Sir Robin Jacob added: "I would like to see the head of Apple [Tim Cook] make an affidavit about why that is such a technical difficulty for the Apple company."
Obviously Apple stepped over a line. They had to have known they were going to piss off the judge. Don't understand why you always think Apple can do w/etf they want? Get a clue.
Grow up. Apple's just having some fun with these silly wankers.
And, speaking as just one shareholder, I heartily approve!
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.
The Judge included rules in his order for those issues, which Apple followed.
IF he wanted Apple to follow some generally accepted 'style book' for such things he should have said 'per law thus and such'. Just like he should have been more careful about the order in general.
<span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:15px;line-height:24px;">"The court’s initial order to post a notice was designed t</span>
That was the 'design' but the actual product is a different matter. And in legal matters the product is the key.
As you say they were told what to write and they did. But it wasn't what the Judge really wanted them to write or did he bar them from writing anything else. That was his bad. But Apple followed the order as it was declared and placed in court record so there is no contempt.
I quite like the punishment since it's hard to really punish a company that brings in billions in a month in revenue. That said, the judge has failed to be precise in his punishment which allowed for a great deal of interpretation as we're seeing now. Apple followed it exactly but he was too lazy, stupid, or merely didn't think it through and now he says it's not good enough with an implication of that isn't what he meant. Can UK courts actually operate that way? I don't know but I sure hope not.
I absolutely think that they can operate this way, and they will be as harsh as possible to Apple if the perceived non compliance continues. And all the Samsung fanatics can wave the Union Jack as they burn Tim Cook's effigy. Laughable situation actually.
The UK courts argue that the 'apology' was intended to reduce the harm brought to the Samsung brand. Really? I personally find it difficult impossible to understand how anyone can harm a company that is so morally bankrupt. That they copied I have no doubt about. That they 'infringed' is a legal distinction I will leave to the UK judges to decide, rule, enforce, whatever...
I seem to remember seeing the UK quoted as Apple's second biggest market a few years ago, though doubtless China has overtaken it now, and possibly Japan too, as the iPhone is very popular there.
Apple doesn't do by-country revenue reporting, but an estimate of $6bn sales in the UK has been doing the rounds*, of $156bn total revenue**. It's a sizeable market that Apple wouldn't give up on lightly.
The UK is so tiny that it gets lumped in with Europe as a whole, and Europe is doing pretty crappy at the moment, thanks to their dire economic situation.
Did you miss the part where I said the kid is fully aware of the Dad's dislike for pickles and put them in deliberately?
No. You still are missing the point that dad didn't provide specific instructions and only ASSUMED that child would respect his wishes. This was your analogy, remember. Now, you are testy over someone pointing out it's flaws. Are you actually the judge? You are doing the exact same thing!
Quote:
I'm amazed by the dual standards of requiring that Apple receive completely unambiguous instruction in all matters, yet decrying Apple being treated like a child. Logic, there is no place for you at the Appleinsider forums.
I am not promoting a dual standard. If you re-read my post, I said nothing about the judge, Samsung, or Apple.
As for logic, use some of that, yourself. I hope you realize that precise language is required in legal documents. And all requirements must be included by quotation or by reference. If the judge didn't do that, he really should not be upset.
Apple, on the other hand, should be careful to choose their enemies wisely--and not fight battles that they can't win or are not worth winning.
Yes, please. Other than it invalidating the point you've made. I guess keeping the truth out of arguments is how things operate over there.
But no, honestly, there's no need for this to use an analogy as a segue into an unrelated point.
I'd love to see you explain what the hell you mean by this? How does me objecting to casually tossed around nationalistic barbs about school massacres (on both sides of the Atlantic) have anything to do with what we're talking about?
Oh dear - first time posters must be liars, fantastic logic. Any chance of moderating my 4th post? Kind of Stalinist of you to hold back posts which you disagree with isn't it?
Oh look, what are the odds this idiot is also the same guy who used to post as "fredaroony"? Creating multiple accounts to keep coming back and post trash shows what an absolute loser you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
big snip
Couldn't wait to pat yourself on the back I see. So what? Anyone saying this would get the attention of the judge or Samsung had a 50:50 chance of being right. In fact, they probably had a better than 50:50 chance.
I don't think the issue is that they ruffled some feathers - it's whether they were legally allowed to do what they did, and I still think they were. Little whiny judges getting mad that they were out-smarted by Apple's legal team. The judge should have made his initial order clearer instead of having to clean up a mess afterwards from his being incompetent/lazy.
I have a question for you: Can you show me any single case in UK court history where a company was forced to post a public notice like this after losing a lawsuit in court? And before you start, you can't include any cases from tabloids that printed a story like "Tom Cruise is Gay" and were forced to print a retraction. That is a compltely different issue. Apple never published anything on their website or in any print or online media about Samsung copying them. If they had, then being forced to print a retraction would make 100% sense.
Comments
This whole thing is simply about Apple yanking the UK judges' chain. I love it.
Apple will (and should) do what these silly people are asking -- in their own way....
Coming form someone who thinks the US legal system has become a joke: The British system appears to be laughably worse, by comparison. Even Monty Python couldn't have thunk this up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek
As far as I am aware the UK is Apple's most profitable market outside of the US.
Cite? Evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Obviously Apple stepped over a line. They had to have known they were going to piss off the judge. Don't understand why you always think Apple can do w/etf they want? Get a clue.
This is the kind of bad press Apple doesnt need, especially in Europe where they are not doing well at all. They should comply ASAP and let that thing died.
In fact, Apple has a chance to gain market share in EU with Google getting slam by France over Tax and ad revenu of the french press. All Apple has to do is play nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Ah, I see. Yes, if your presumption is that Apple shouldn't have expected this reaction then the beer is a better analogy. I disagree with the premise though, so I'll stick with the pickles
meh, you might be right. Maybe someone did stick a pickle in the judge's ass. Actually seem quite likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
This whole thing is simply about Apple yanking the UK judges' chain. I love it.
Apple will (and should) do what these silly people are asking -- in their own way....
Coming form someone who thinks the US legal system has become a joke: The British system appears to be laughably worse, by comparison. Even Monty Python couldn't have thunk this up.
Doing it "their own way" is what got them into this mess in the first place. How about doing the "right way" instead?
Also, looks like they have 48 hours to comply, unless Tim Cook gets involved. From the BBC:
Quote:
He asked that the company be given 14 days to post the replacement - but the request was firmly denied.
Lord Justice Longmore told Mr Beloff: "We are just amazed that you cannot put the right notice up at the same time as you take the other one down."
Sir Robin Jacob added: "I would like to see the head of Apple [Tim Cook] make an affidavit about why that is such a technical difficulty for the Apple company."
No accounting for Judges crazy with power and ego I suppose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Obviously Apple stepped over a line. They had to have known they were going to piss off the judge. Don't understand why you always think Apple can do w/etf they want? Get a clue.
And, speaking as just one shareholder, I heartily approve!Grow up. Apple's just having some fun with these silly wankers.
The Judge included rules in his order for those issues, which Apple followed.
IF he wanted Apple to follow some generally accepted 'style book' for such things he should have said 'per law thus and such'. Just like he should have been more careful about the order in general.
That was the 'design' but the actual product is a different matter. And in legal matters the product is the key.
As you say they were told what to write and they did. But it wasn't what the Judge really wanted them to write or did he bar them from writing anything else. That was his bad. But Apple followed the order as it was declared and placed in court record so there is no contempt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid
Doing it "their own way" is what got them into this mess in the first place. How about doing the "right way" instead?
Also, looks like they have 48 hours to comply, unless Tim Cook gets involved. From the BBC:
Of course Apple will do it the "right" way (if not the "right way").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
No accounting for Judges crazy with power and ego I suppose.
No accounting for respect of the law in some peoples outlook I suppose.
Originally Posted by whatever71
And to try to stave off any fandroid type comments I own an iPhone 4s…
No one cares. If your argument is broken, no number of purchases, real or otherwise, can stave off anything.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Actually you see it in Apple's App Store rules as well. Funny, right?
Not really, no. Explain?
Originally Posted by Crowley
Can we keep the school massacre talk out of the thread please.
Yes, please. Other than it invalidating the point you've made. I guess keeping the truth out of arguments is how things operate over there.
But no, honestly, there's no need for this to use an analogy as a segue into an unrelated point.
Originally Posted by fredawest
Oh dear - first time posters must be liars, fantastic logic.
Oh dear, if only that was what I said (or even implied) in any regard under any definition of any of the words I used.
Originally Posted by herbapou
This is the kind of bad press Apple doesnt need, especially in Europe where they are not doing well at all.
Some European countries have higher Apple marketshare than the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I quite like the punishment since it's hard to really punish a company that brings in billions in a month in revenue. That said, the judge has failed to be precise in his punishment which allowed for a great deal of interpretation as we're seeing now. Apple followed it exactly but he was too lazy, stupid, or merely didn't think it through and now he says it's not good enough with an implication of that isn't what he meant. Can UK courts actually operate that way? I don't know but I sure hope not.
I absolutely think that they can operate this way, and they will be as harsh as possible to Apple if the perceived non compliance continues. And all the Samsung fanatics can wave the Union Jack as they burn Tim Cook's effigy. Laughable situation actually.
The UK courts argue that the 'apology' was intended to reduce the harm brought to the Samsung brand. Really? I personally find it difficult impossible to understand how anyone can harm a company that is so morally bankrupt. That they copied I have no doubt about. That they 'infringed' is a legal distinction I will leave to the UK judges to decide, rule, enforce, whatever...
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Cite? Evidence?
I seem to remember seeing the UK quoted as Apple's second biggest market a few years ago, though doubtless China has overtaken it now, and possibly Japan too, as the iPhone is very popular there.
Apple doesn't do by-country revenue reporting, but an estimate of $6bn sales in the UK has been doing the rounds*, of $156bn total revenue**. It's a sizeable market that Apple wouldn't give up on lightly.
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2127048/Apple-6bn-UK--paid-10m-tax.html
** http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312511282113/d220209d10k.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
No accounting for Judges crazy with power and ego I suppose.
Same can be said about COMPANIES crazy with power and ego
There is no such thing as bad publicity (except your own obituary).
Drawing this out - and getting their digs in as a bonus - are positive PR outcomes for The Company.
And the whole time it plays out, we get to hear the Benny Hill soundtrack playing in our heads. Hilarity ensues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Cite? Evidence?
Don't hold your breath waiting for a cite, because it's not true of course.
The UK only has around 62 million people. It's hardly that large of a market and certainly not Apple's most profitable market outside of the US.
In FY2011, China was the only country outside the U.S. to contribute more than 10% of Apple's reported revenue total.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/663981-apple-s-revenue-growth-a-dual-track-bullet-train
The UK is so tiny that it gets lumped in with Europe as a whole, and Europe is doing pretty crappy at the moment, thanks to their dire economic situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Did you miss the part where I said the kid is fully aware of the Dad's dislike for pickles and put them in deliberately?
No. You still are missing the point that dad didn't provide specific instructions and only ASSUMED that child would respect his wishes. This was your analogy, remember. Now, you are testy over someone pointing out it's flaws. Are you actually the judge? You are doing the exact same thing!
Quote:
I'm amazed by the dual standards of requiring that Apple receive completely unambiguous instruction in all matters, yet decrying Apple being treated like a child. Logic, there is no place for you at the Appleinsider forums.
I am not promoting a dual standard. If you re-read my post, I said nothing about the judge, Samsung, or Apple.
As for logic, use some of that, yourself. I hope you realize that precise language is required in legal documents. And all requirements must be included by quotation or by reference. If the judge didn't do that, he really should not be upset.
Apple, on the other hand, should be careful to choose their enemies wisely--and not fight battles that they can't win or are not worth winning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, please. Other than it invalidating the point you've made. I guess keeping the truth out of arguments is how things operate over there.
But no, honestly, there's no need for this to use an analogy as a segue into an unrelated point.
I'd love to see you explain what the hell you mean by this? How does me objecting to casually tossed around nationalistic barbs about school massacres (on both sides of the Atlantic) have anything to do with what we're talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredawest
Oh dear - first time posters must be liars, fantastic logic. Any chance of moderating my 4th post? Kind of Stalinist of you to hold back posts which you disagree with isn't it?
Oh look, what are the odds this idiot is also the same guy who used to post as "fredaroony"? Creating multiple accounts to keep coming back and post trash shows what an absolute loser you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
big snip
Couldn't wait to pat yourself on the back I see. So what? Anyone saying this would get the attention of the judge or Samsung had a 50:50 chance of being right. In fact, they probably had a better than 50:50 chance.
I don't think the issue is that they ruffled some feathers - it's whether they were legally allowed to do what they did, and I still think they were. Little whiny judges getting mad that they were out-smarted by Apple's legal team. The judge should have made his initial order clearer instead of having to clean up a mess afterwards from his being incompetent/lazy.
I have a question for you: Can you show me any single case in UK court history where a company was forced to post a public notice like this after losing a lawsuit in court? And before you start, you can't include any cases from tabloids that printed a story like "Tom Cruise is Gay" and were forced to print a retraction. That is a compltely different issue. Apple never published anything on their website or in any print or online media about Samsung copying them. If they had, then being forced to print a retraction would make 100% sense.