Slashdot Mirror
UK Court of Appeal Reprimands Apple Over Mandated Samsung Statement
Macthorpe writes "In the UK, Apple were previously ordered to add a statement to their website stating that Samsung did not copy their designs, following a previous case where this was ruled by the UK courts. However, today the same court revealed that Apple's statement is not good enough. From the article: 'The acknowledgement put up last week, linked from the home page by a tiny link, was deemed to be "non-compliant" with the order that the court had made in October. The court has now ordered it to correct the statement – and the judges, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob, indicated that they were not pleased with Apple's failure to put a simpler statement on the site.' It appears the main objection is the statement is on a separate page and only linked from the hompage — and that the statement is buried in marketing blurb, and also put next to references to a case Apple won."
In response the the recent reprimand from the esteemed, and in no way senile, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob--we at Apple would like to apologize for pointing out the superiority of our products over our lame-ass competitors on our website acknowledgement. In the future, we will attempt to better comply with the court's orders, not matter how stupid they may be. And tempting as it may be to point out how much Samsung products blow compared to ours, we will refrain from taking snarky potshots at our retarded South Korean friends in the future. Thank you, and thanks to all of the non-lameasses out there who appreciate that Apple products rule.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
...when reading this, my brain produces a level of gamma waves — those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory — never before reported in neuroscience!
(subject line with apologies to Donald Sutherland)
Since the judge ruled on cool factor, the entire public comment can be based around how cool Apple's products are compared to its competitors, and how its competitors have not copied Apple's coolness, and how the court even ruled that Apple's devices are the coolest.
Yes, I felt a little dirty writing that...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
On a chalk board 100 times.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Apparently, Apple was ordered to do no such thing.
There were only ordered to acknowledge that the court had ruled it so... not to acknowledge that they were actually wrong about anything.
And to be fair, based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post, I can understand their reluctance at putting it on their home page, since it could substantially alter how the page balances visually on a full screen browser.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Let's see: Beyond implementation you need UI design, UX testing, regression testing, focus group testing and the CEO's niece to check it out. Then you have to schedule a managed downtime with rolling updates across your cloud. I'm surprised they could do it in fourteen days.
who goes all "You're fined 1%of your net worth per hour until I find you did comply. BTW in 30 minutes I'll go on vacation."
Don't forget the userAgent detection settings to make sure it's only viewable on Apple devices.
The ad was written fine. You're just reading it wrong.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.