Slashdot Mirror
UK Court Sanctions Apple For Non-Compliance
drinkypoo writes "We've been following the story that Apple was ordered by a UK court to post an apology to Samsung both in newspapers and on Apple's UK website. After originally posting a non-apology and then hiding a real one, Apple finally complied. Now, PJ over at Groklaw reports on the ruling from the UK court itself, which condemns Apple's conduct in this matter. 'Since Apple did not comply with the order in its estimation, adding materials that were not ordered and in addition were "false," the judges ordered Apple to pay Samsung's lawyers' fees on an indemnity basis, and they add some public humiliation.' The judge wrote, 'Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. ... I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.'"
You didn't read the whole article, did you? Apple's response was "lackadaisical" because they were ordered to put the notice in each newspaper as early as possible, but they dragged their heels for weeks before doing it.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
They arguably did the job the first time as I don't believe there was anything that said they couldn't mention the other stuff.
When a judge tells you to do something, you do it. No more, no less. Apple and their lawyers were trying to be cute, and in the end still got off a lot easier than they deserved. Turn off the reality distortion field and get some fresh air.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
OK, no doubt this will be modded to oblivion as a pedantic post by an AC. So be it.
You use the word "proscribed". I do not think you actually meant that. I suspect that you meant "prescribed".
To save you all the google time, here is an explanation:
http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/prescribe_proscribe.htm
The meanings are different. Really. Almost opposites.
Yes, I know language changes, and so forth. This, however, is an example of the way meanings can be completely missed.
It's called "malapropism".
Another example would be "uninterested" versus "disinterested" - but I've pretty much given up on that one.
Actual impoverishment of the language is not the same as shifting meaning.
According to the judge, what they added was false, misleading, and did not convey the intent of the order -- and he analyzes each added statement in depth. In addition they used too much time to comply when it came to newspapers, where the judge expected "earliest possible time" to mean the next couple of days and not a month. As a punishment they now have to pay _all_ of Samsung's legal expenses (i.e. not only legal fees), they have to keep the notice up for much longer, and they have to put on their home page that they lied in their previous attempt. You don't have to agree with a judge's order, but you do have to follow it. Judges tend to get pissed off if you try to worm yourself around an order -- not something that should be news for Apple's capable legal team.
I would wager you are very wrong. Mos certainly US courts have ordered similar sanctions and most certainly defying the court order would lead to increasing sanctions. When you lose a case, civil or criminal, you lose a good many protections as they pertain to the case. That is the underlying notion of due process.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There was absolutely nothing false
As per TFA
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I won't go into a long discussion on this, but in criminal cases you are correct but incorrect in civil cases. A judge cannot issue an order preventing you from stating that another court somewhere else disagrees with that court.
I am fairly certain you are wrong in this context. If you read the judgement, the other cases either did not pertain to the same thing Apple suggested or the case had been reversed/dropped. Blatantly misrepresenting the order would certainly fall under contempt in a U.S. court, along with most courts.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Did you even read the on this, Mr. Ignorance?
Apple lied. I shall quote the ruling here:
21. I turn to the last paragraph. I do not think the order as made precluded any addition to the required notice if that addition had been true and did not undermine the effect of the required notice. But I do consider that adding false and misleading material was illegitimate. For by adding such material the context of the required notice is altered so that it will be understood differently.
22. Here what Apple added was false and misleading. I turn to analyse it. The first sentence reads:
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design.
That is false in the following ways:
(a) "Regarding the same patent." No patent of any kind has been involved in Germany or here, still less "the same patent."
(b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published.
(c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the 10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law. But the statement is likely to be read as of more general application.
23. The second sentence reads:
A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc.
That is misleading by omission. For the US jury specifically rejected Apple's claim that the US design patent corresponding to the Community Design in issue here was infringed. The average reader would think that the UK decision was at odds with that in the US. Far from that being so, it was in accordance with it.
24. The third sentence reads:
So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung wilfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
This is calculated to produce huge confusion. The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying, which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying. There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true.
25. The reality is that wherever Apple has sued on this registered design or its counterpart, it has ultimately failed. It may or may not have other intellectual property rights which are infringed. Indeed the same may be true the other way round for in some countries Samsung are suing Apple. But none of that has got anything to do with the registered design asserted by Apple in Europe. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it.