Sounds good to me....do you really think a UK judge is going to buy that pitch though???
I fear this will end very badly for Apple. They were already given a reprieve during the appeal to only include a PROMINENT link on the homepage instead of the actual apology. However, a link in the last section of a page scanned in the English language (lower right), in the smallest font used on the page, is the exact opposite of prominent. And good luck convincing any judge that this "apology", taken in its entirety (which is how a court will evaluate it), meets the criteria of this court ruling.
Do you have any evidence that this sort of judgement has unstated rules and previous cases where the judge forced the plaintiffs to rewrite an apology letter despite having followed the judgement to the letter of the law? If the Judge wanted it to be more precise and not to include any additional info then he should have specified.
I wonder how the print ads are going to turn out. The small tiny link on the front page of the website was the obvious thing to do and I'm sure lots of people expected the same. It is the print ads that I am curious about.
And why the f aren't these trolls happy that Apple has put this in? They have complied right? Why these calls of contempt of court and multi-billion pound fines?
I thought the statement would be alot worse than what it actually is. Its not that bad, seemed more like a pitch for the iPad than 'we did not copy them'.
I wonder how the print ads are going to turn out. The small tiny link on the front page of the website was the obvious thing to do and I'm sure lots of people expected the same. It is the print ads that I am curious about.
They could put it in the real estate section.
"Samsung, ssry. No cp iPa, iPo, iPh. 2 bd. 3 bh. View of city. Uncool."
And why the f aren't these trolls happy that Apple has put this in? They have complied right? Why these calls of contempt of court and multi-billion pound fines?
You're joking, right? If Apple had replaced their entire home page with
"WE'RE SO SORRY, SAMSUNG. WE COPIED YOU, YOU DIDN'T COPY US. WE SUCK AND YOU HAVE CREATED EVERYTHING IN THE INDUSTRY."
they still would have complained the font was too small. You can't hope to understand the mental processes of someone stupid enough to support the innovation equivalent of a serial murderer, caught red handed dozens of times.
I wonder how the print ads are going to turn out. The small tiny link on the front page of the website was the obvious thing to do and I'm sure lots of people expected the same. It is the print ads that I am curious about.
And why the f aren't these trolls happy that Apple has put this in? They have complied right? Why these calls of contempt of court and multi-billion pound fines?
And these same people are equally concerned that Samsung should comply with their US court case, right? Oh wait, they're not. They're saying the case should be thrown out and Samsung shouldn't pay a dime, even though they lost and the judgement was passed down. Fucking hypocrites.
No doubt Apple's leagal team reviewed every single word of this before it was posted. I doubt they would allow Apple to post something that would get them in contempt of court.
Sounds good to me....do you really think a UK judge is going to buy that pitch though???
I fear this will end very badly for Apple. They were already given a reprieve during the appeal to only include a PROMINENT link on the homepage instead of the actual apology. However, a link in the last section of a page scanned in the English language (lower right), in the smallest font used on the page, is the exact opposite of prominent. And good luck convincing any judge that this "apology", taken in its entirety (which is how a court will evaluate it), meets the criteria of this court ruling.
If the judge didn't want additional "commentary", he should have stated that explicitly. Apple is allowed to put up any commentary they want on their website as long as it's truthful and it is.
Nice how they repeatedly embedded the words "copied" and "infringed" in their post.
I would like this for the print ads:
"While many have have accused Samsung of copying their products over the years, according to the UK courts, they have not copied us. We are so sorry for thinking they did. How could we have been so confused? Not sure what we were thinking"
"Not copied at all"
Again, so sorry Samsung for thinking you copied. Obviously we were wrong. No copying."
The Apple statement says quite clearly that Samsung did NOT infringe (as stipulated by the court order) and it is the AppleInsider headline/subhead that is wrong. Neat move to quote the judge's other statements though.
Agreed. This has contempt of court written all over it.
That will be the day when a judge cites a plaintiff with contempt of court for quoting verbatim from the judge's own verdict. The judge might as well cite himself for contempt. I'm not clear if the judge actually ordered Apple to actually apologize for accusing Samsung of patent violation or just to publicly admit that Samsung did not violate their patents. If it's the latter, I don't see why explaining why the judge declared that the patents were not violated would be in contempt of the judge's order.
If English law is the same as U.S. law in that judicial verdicts are case law and part of the law of the land, then the judge has just established as a legal finding that Samsung's product is not as "cool" as Apple's. Ridiculous.
But I'm no lawyer, just pretending (poorly) to sound like one, so what do I know?
Basically it says Samsung was found not guilty by this court, but guilty by these other courts. By tacking on the commentary they are undermining the intent of the court.
The intent of the court was for Apple to be forced to say "Samsung did not copy us" which is clearly a lie, and that very court, and anyone who looks at this case, knows it.
Its a disgusting and pathetic attempt from a judge who in his own words acknowledges the copying, however doesn't consider it enough to award judgement to them.
I'm pretty sure Apple will just pay any fine out rather than lie and bag themselves out, but I'd be quite certain Apple's lawyers went over every word of the judge's demands to ensure that Apple followed the letter.
If the court doesn't like it, the court should have been clearer what bullshit they wanted Apple to publish.
If English law is the same as U.S. law in that judicial verdicts are case law and part of the law of the land, then the judge has just established as a legal truth that Samsung is not as cool as Apple. Ridiculous.
If English law were the same as US law, they'd have come to the right conclusion in the first place…
No doubt Apple's leagal team reviewed every single word of this before it was posted. I doubt they would allow Apple to post something that would get them in contempt of court.
Is this the same legal team that carefully reviewed Apple's previous comments that were found guilty of libel???
That will be the day when a judge cites a plaintiff with contempt of court for quoting verbatim from the judge's own verdict. The judge might as well cite himself for contempt. I'm not clear if the judge actually ordered Apple to actually apologize for accusing Samsung of patent violation or just to publicly admit that Samsung did not violate their patents. If it's the latter, I don't see why explaining why the judge declared that the patents were not violated would be in contempt of the judge's order.
If English law is the same as U.S. law in that judicial verdicts are case law and part of the law of the land, then the judge has just established as a legal finding that Samsung's product is not as "cool" as Apple's. Ridiculous.
But I'm no lawyer, just pretending (poorly) to sound like one, so what do I know?
It is not the aspect of quoting the judge's own verdict which is the contempt of court. It is the fact that they were found guilty of libel by saying that "Samsung was a slavish copycat", but then in the very same apology that was ordered to rectify the defamation, they repeat the exact same violation. At the end of the apology, they suggest the very same libelous statement with their remarks on a German case that was dropped on appeal, and a US case where the Galaxy Tab was in fact found to not infringe...
While myself and others here may appreciate the humor in this, this is really going to piss off some UK judges....
That's pretty childish coming from Apple. Why not write :
"this is what the UK court forces us to write, but we strongly disagree
TEXT
remember that we only publish this because we have to"
It doesn't work like that. I had imagined that they would do something like this, but never thought they'd actually do it. It's funny, but will turn against them.
It is not the aspect of quoting the judge's own verdict which is the contempt of court. It is the fact that they were found guilty of libel by saying that "Samsung was a slavish copycat", but then in the very same apology that was ordered to rectify the defamation, they repeat the exact same violation. At the end of the apology, they suggest the very same libelous statement with their remarks on a German case that was dropped on appeal, and a US case where the Galaxy Tab was in fact found to not infringe...
While myself and others here may appreciate the humor in this, this is really going to piss off some UK judges....
There is a reason the Samsung and HTC chose the UK to sue Apple. Their judges seem to be clowns. In what other country could Samsung sue Apple, win and then demand an apology from Apple for Samsung suing them?
Does anyone have a copy of the court order? I've read the decision but have not found the order online. I would be interested in exactly what was ordered. Was it an order to apologize or an order to publish a notice of the court ruling?
That's pretty childish coming from Apple. Why not write :
"this is what the UK court forces us to write, but we strongly disagree
TEXT
remember that we only publish this because we have to"
It doesn't work like that. I had imagined that they would do something like this, but never thought they'd actually do it. It's funny, but will turn against them.
No more childish than a petty requirement for them to post the notices to begin with. It was a petty order and it deserves a petty implementation.
"Samsung, ssry. No cp iPa, iPo, iPh. 2 bd. 3 bh. View of city. Uncool."
You're joking, right? If Apple had replaced their entire home page with
[SIZE=72px]"WE'RE SO SORRY, SAMSUNG. WE COPIED YOU, YOU DIDN'T COPY US. WE SUCK AND YOU HAVE CREATED EVERYTHING IN THE INDUSTRY." [/SIZE]
they still would have complained the font was too small. You can't hope to understand the mental processes of someone stupid enough to support the innovation equivalent of a serial murderer, caught red handed dozens of times.
Comments
Although I went further and suggested they list the US verdict as well, but that doesn't relate much to the Galaxy.
Do you have any evidence that this sort of judgement has unstated rules and previous cases where the judge forced the plaintiffs to rewrite an apology letter despite having followed the judgement to the letter of the law? If the Judge wanted it to be more precise and not to include any additional info then he should have specified.
I wonder how the print ads are going to turn out. The small tiny link on the front page of the website was the obvious thing to do and I'm sure lots of people expected the same. It is the print ads that I am curious about.
And why the f aren't these trolls happy that Apple has put this in? They have complied right? Why these calls of contempt of court and multi-billion pound fines?
I thought the statement would be alot worse than what it actually is. Its not that bad, seemed more like a pitch for the iPad than 'we did not copy them'.
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret
I wonder how the print ads are going to turn out. The small tiny link on the front page of the website was the obvious thing to do and I'm sure lots of people expected the same. It is the print ads that I am curious about.
They could put it in the real estate section.
"Samsung, ssry. No cp iPa, iPo, iPh. 2 bd. 3 bh. View of city. Uncool."
And why the f aren't these trolls happy that Apple has put this in? They have complied right? Why these calls of contempt of court and multi-billion pound fines?
You're joking, right? If Apple had replaced their entire home page with
"WE'RE SO SORRY, SAMSUNG. WE COPIED YOU, YOU DIDN'T COPY US. WE SUCK AND YOU HAVE CREATED EVERYTHING IN THE INDUSTRY."
they still would have complained the font was too small. You can't hope to understand the mental processes of someone stupid enough to support the innovation equivalent of a serial murderer, caught red handed dozens of times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret
I wonder how the print ads are going to turn out. The small tiny link on the front page of the website was the obvious thing to do and I'm sure lots of people expected the same. It is the print ads that I am curious about.
And why the f aren't these trolls happy that Apple has put this in? They have complied right? Why these calls of contempt of court and multi-billion pound fines?
And these same people are equally concerned that Samsung should comply with their US court case, right? Oh wait, they're not. They're saying the case should be thrown out and Samsung shouldn't pay a dime, even though they lost and the judgement was passed down. Fucking hypocrites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Sounds good to me....do you really think a UK judge is going to buy that pitch though???
I fear this will end very badly for Apple. They were already given a reprieve during the appeal to only include a PROMINENT link on the homepage instead of the actual apology. However, a link in the last section of a page scanned in the English language (lower right), in the smallest font used on the page, is the exact opposite of prominent. And good luck convincing any judge that this "apology", taken in its entirety (which is how a court will evaluate it), meets the criteria of this court ruling.
If the judge didn't want additional "commentary", he should have stated that explicitly. Apple is allowed to put up any commentary they want on their website as long as it's truthful and it is.
Nice how they repeatedly embedded the words "copied" and "infringed" in their post.
I would like this for the print ads:
"While many have have accused Samsung of copying their products over the years, according to the UK courts, they have not copied us. We are so sorry for thinking they did. How could we have been so confused? Not sure what we were thinking"
"Not copied at all"
Again, so sorry Samsung for thinking you copied. Obviously we were wrong. No copying."
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Agreed. This has contempt of court written all over it.
That will be the day when a judge cites a plaintiff with contempt of court for quoting verbatim from the judge's own verdict. The judge might as well cite himself for contempt. I'm not clear if the judge actually ordered Apple to actually apologize for accusing Samsung of patent violation or just to publicly admit that Samsung did not violate their patents. If it's the latter, I don't see why explaining why the judge declared that the patents were not violated would be in contempt of the judge's order.
If English law is the same as U.S. law in that judicial verdicts are case law and part of the law of the land, then the judge has just established as a legal finding that Samsung's product is not as "cool" as Apple's. Ridiculous.
But I'm no lawyer, just pretending (poorly) to sound like one, so what do I know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Basically it says Samsung was found not guilty by this court, but guilty by these other courts. By tacking on the commentary they are undermining the intent of the court.
The intent of the court was for Apple to be forced to say "Samsung did not copy us" which is clearly a lie, and that very court, and anyone who looks at this case, knows it.
Its a disgusting and pathetic attempt from a judge who in his own words acknowledges the copying, however doesn't consider it enough to award judgement to them.
I'm pretty sure Apple will just pay any fine out rather than lie and bag themselves out, but I'd be quite certain Apple's lawyers went over every word of the judge's demands to ensure that Apple followed the letter.
If the court doesn't like it, the court should have been clearer what bullshit they wanted Apple to publish.
Originally Posted by tundraboy
If English law is the same as U.S. law in that judicial verdicts are case law and part of the law of the land, then the judge has just established as a legal truth that Samsung is not as cool as Apple. Ridiculous.
If English law were the same as US law, they'd have come to the right conclusion in the first place…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
No doubt Apple's leagal team reviewed every single word of this before it was posted. I doubt they would allow Apple to post something that would get them in contempt of court.
Is this the same legal team that carefully reviewed Apple's previous comments that were found guilty of libel???
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
That will be the day when a judge cites a plaintiff with contempt of court for quoting verbatim from the judge's own verdict. The judge might as well cite himself for contempt. I'm not clear if the judge actually ordered Apple to actually apologize for accusing Samsung of patent violation or just to publicly admit that Samsung did not violate their patents. If it's the latter, I don't see why explaining why the judge declared that the patents were not violated would be in contempt of the judge's order.
If English law is the same as U.S. law in that judicial verdicts are case law and part of the law of the land, then the judge has just established as a legal finding that Samsung's product is not as "cool" as Apple's. Ridiculous.
But I'm no lawyer, just pretending (poorly) to sound like one, so what do I know?
It is not the aspect of quoting the judge's own verdict which is the contempt of court. It is the fact that they were found guilty of libel by saying that "Samsung was a slavish copycat", but then in the very same apology that was ordered to rectify the defamation, they repeat the exact same violation. At the end of the apology, they suggest the very same libelous statement with their remarks on a German case that was dropped on appeal, and a US case where the Galaxy Tab was in fact found to not infringe...
While myself and others here may appreciate the humor in this, this is really going to piss off some UK judges....
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Is this the same legal team that carefully reviewed Apple's previous comments that were found guilty of libel???
what case is that? I'm not familiar with any libel case against Apple.
That's pretty childish coming from Apple. Why not write :
"this is what the UK court forces us to write, but we strongly disagree
TEXT
remember that we only publish this because we have to"
It doesn't work like that. I had imagined that they would do something like this, but never thought they'd actually do it. It's funny, but will turn against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
It is not the aspect of quoting the judge's own verdict which is the contempt of court. It is the fact that they were found guilty of libel by saying that "Samsung was a slavish copycat", but then in the very same apology that was ordered to rectify the defamation, they repeat the exact same violation. At the end of the apology, they suggest the very same libelous statement with their remarks on a German case that was dropped on appeal, and a US case where the Galaxy Tab was in fact found to not infringe...
While myself and others here may appreciate the humor in this, this is really going to piss off some UK judges....
There is a reason the Samsung and HTC chose the UK to sue Apple. Their judges seem to be clowns. In what other country could Samsung sue Apple, win and then demand an apology from Apple for Samsung suing them?
Does anyone have a copy of the court order? I've read the decision but have not found the order online. I would be interested in exactly what was ordered. Was it an order to apologize or an order to publish a notice of the court ruling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX
That's pretty childish coming from Apple. Why not write :
"this is what the UK court forces us to write, but we strongly disagree
TEXT
remember that we only publish this because we have to"
It doesn't work like that. I had imagined that they would do something like this, but never thought they'd actually do it. It's funny, but will turn against them.
No more childish than a petty requirement for them to post the notices to begin with. It was a petty order and it deserves a petty implementation.
Sorry.
Just couldn't help myself.
Had to reply to this.
(>_<)