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?
That the virtuous Apple only appears so when it can bend the law to cover itself.
And when it can't it appears as dirty as those it condemns.
Thus Apple's virtue is merely an accident of timing.
And in this case the clock starts ticking only when the judges are content. So draw it out, Apple, draw it out, and show the world the difference between Apple and Samsung.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
That might do the trick, plus the added benefit of putting at least one crook where he belongs after decades of *stealing* ideas from everyone else.
...when reading this, my brain produces a level of gamma waves — those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory — never before reported in neuroscience!
I can totally see Apple having to do this three or four times before they get it right.
This signature intentionally left blank.
(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.
I'm surprised the judges didn't throw the book at them when they tried this bit:
How on earth did the person who argued that get away with not being charged with perjury? To be perfectly frank, I'm absolutely amazed that they got away with a simple reprimand. I would imagine that if Apple pulls another stunt that they will face much more than a reprimand.
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'
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."
Because I read the statement originally and thought it was unnecessarily pretentious and liable to land them in more trouble than if they'd just played ball.
UK courts don't take lightly to humour or parody aimed at themselves. Undermining the same court that found you guilty in the factual legal statement you were ordered by that court to publish is literally just sticking two fingers up.
And the statement itself? I read it when it first came out and couldn't make head nor tail of it (you can find it here: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/). Even just the comparison to the German court - that was unnecessarily snarky and there's a reason that corporate legal statements all sound the same and don't try to be humorous or clever.
If they'd just done as ordered and stated the bit that other courts had disagreed, fair enough. But they word it in "smart-arse" and that was always liable to make more fuss. And now, for their efforts to minimise customer damage, they are now in the news again for failing to comply with the original court order.
Well done, Apple. Keep it up. Because though you probably don't, I'd be quite interested to see just how far a UK court would go to drill you into the ground if you kept it up.
Just convict them to forfeit all revenue generated in the UK until they comply with the order. You'll be surprised how fast Apple will get it right.
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.
All the non-fanboys called it out. Apple would pull a childish prank and the Judge would not find it remotely funny and give a tougher sentence.
The only question is how long it takes Apple to grow up.
All they achieved is to drag it out and now they got to display it on the front page. Go ahead, make another mess out of it. Judges LOVE to laugh. Because they always get to have the last one.
The funny thing is that if they had just complied, nobody would have cared. Now they get another round of articles all over the world to point how petty Apple is and how afraid they are of Samsung products.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Did you read the apology? It consisted of more than just the language of the court. It added an editorial pointing out how other courts found in their favor.
Right up there with your mother telling you to apologize, and when you go up to do so, you say you're sorry and then follow it up with an 80's "NOT".
More Twoson than Cupertino
I'm delighted about this outcome because I thought that the Appeal Court would be very pissed off with Apple and my lawyer kid said no, business as usual. First time in a long time I've been proven right on a commercial legal matter.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Looks like Apple is falling out of favor with the courts.
People like this need the protection of cameras for when they give the middle finger to a guy carrying a taser and a gun. While it's what they need, I can't help but feel they deserve a Darwin award.
I think there are circumstances where an over-literal interpretation of a court order would constitute contempt of court.
Say I've written an obscene message on my neighbour's door in marker pen. The court orders me to pay a fine, and to clean off the graffiti. I clean the message off with wire wool, and in so doing, I deliberately scratch the obscene message into the door more permanently than the original pen ink.
There are two ways to see this:
- yours - I complied precisely with the court order. If the court wanted the door returned to its original condition, it should have worded the court order more precisely.
- a reasonable person's - I took the piss, I did not comply with the spirit of the court order, I am in contempt of court.
Look, let's face it: Apple bagged this one. Not only did they bury the link at the bottom of the page, but the "apology" wasn't even a football field close to what the judges mandated. I'm not an Apple fan, but neither am I a detractor; I use them if I need to (in studio) or not (at home). This bullshit, however, regarding their wording and their Samsung bashing, is at the least a middle-finger-up at the justices that deemed it useful and fair, and at the most a whole boot-up-the-ass to everyone involved, including the public at large.
If they had thought to not monkey around with the decision, play fair by the ruling mandated at them, and kept the marketing dweebs out of the mix, none of this would have happened. They'd have a tiny little banner at the bottom of their page leading to a fair and impartial relation of the facts... a banner that, in almost all cases, no one would bother clicking on in the first place.
Looks good on you, Apple, I've got to say. Nice way to screw up an almost meaningless ruling.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
See shipped vs sold numbers arguments
From Apples own SEC filing http://investor.apple.com/sec.cfm " The Company recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an
arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is probable.
Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been
transferred. For most of the Company’s product sales, these criteria are met at the time the product is shipped."
There is no shipped vs sales argument. There maybe Shipped [Apple] vs Activated [Google], but Apple call shipments, sales.
Oh it was funny, but so's telling the judge he should suck your balls. With a megaphone.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
FWIW, I have more respect for Apple. They are about equally evil, but Apple at least attempts to make products that are technically good.
OTOH, I say that as someone who hasn't used an Apple product for around 10 years now due to EULA incompatibilities. But they got that EULA language from Microsoft, so there again, I have to rate MS as worse than Apple. Except that MS put the EULA on the installation of the product, and Apple slipped it into a security upgrade. Whoops! Maybe Apple is worse after all.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The ruling was to cover all of the EU. I don't think Apple would be too happy losing business from all of the EU.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Ok. You're a fanboi.
Either that, or you have poor reading comprehension skills. But given Bayes theorum being a fanboi would be enough that your priors would make your position reasonable.
N.B.: Given Bayes reasoning there is no such thing as objective reasoning. Everyone has priors, and when two sets of priors are sufficiently different it can be the case that no amount of objective information can cause them to agree on what is implied, this with perfect reasoning on both sides. This isn't that kind of extreme case, but I don't think most non-committed people would come to the same conclusion that you did, but most fanbois would, because fanboi-ism requires a set of priors that differs from those of most people.
FWIW, a "prior" is essentially a pre-existing belief that's used in evaluating new information. And you have a large set of priors before you ever learn to speak. S.a. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The full name for this particular court is "Her Majesty's Court of Appeal". This judgement did not in any way approach the bounds of their powers.
-Lod
Nobody made them King but the do work for the Queen so that's close enough