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.'"
Cue the apple fanbois and their out of control apologetics.
This story just wouldnt be complete without their sqealing.
On a more serious note, I agree with the judge. This kind of change could have been implemented in less than one day. Apple probably just wanted more time to try to wrangle some legal way out of putting the directed message on their website in the manner proscribed.
You know what they say-- Tell a lie enough times, and you will begin to believe it yourself. That's the danger of using an RDF.
Should force Apple to remove it's homepage with one the Judge himself sees fit. I imagine scaled fonts up to size 340 that tell everyone: HI WE ARE BASTARDS AND LIED AND LOST ABOUT IT IN COURT. SAMSUNG PRODUCTS ACTUALLY ARE MORE VALUE FOR THE MONEY. Something like that. Just to make an example that you don't fuck with a court-ruling. Because what Apple did and still is doing (scrolling to see the court-ruling) is pissing on our all. Our laws, fairness, and rights. Apple is pissing on them and no-one in their right mind should accept that. Especially not a judge. Now fanbois, go ahead. Mod me down, but you know it won't make the truth go away.
not too be in more serious trouble for contempt of court
if "Faith" could be proved with facts - would it still be faith? So why does "Faith" try to present beliefs as fact? -
When companies get big, they become a type of clique. Since so many people have to be on-board for any one thing to get done, the company controls them with a kind of dogma or culture.
This reinforces an us-them mentality even where it doesn't need to exist.
As a result, the companies get arrogant not so much from their CEOs, but from the rank and file. That then spreads upward. They have become victims of their own propaganda.
This is why these "too big to fail" companies tend to blow out on obvious issues like this. Did they really just defy a sitting court? How stupid do you have to be to do that?
Their lawyers must be apoplectic. Or just carefully filling out their bills.
Futurist Traditionalism
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
It essentially boils down to Apple trying to "superficially" comply, while actually completely disregarding the purpose behind the order.
For an example, there was recently a sting operation set up to catch a major traffic offender, who routinely drove on the sidewalk to evade stopped traffic from a routine school bus stop that made the news this last week.
As part of her punishment, she has to wear a sign declaring that she is an idiot, and that only an idiot would try to pass a school bus while driving a car, by driving on the sidewalk.
The intent behind the order is very clear, and directly tied to the heart of the infraction it was proscribed for.
If the woman had followed after Apple's example, she would have worn the sign alright, but it would have given counter examples as to why driving on the sidewalk like that was perfectly justifiable, and made allusions that the judge that made her wear the sign was mistaken in his judgement, and that 2 other judges in similar cases (which were improperly conducted for different reasons, or later invalidated in their rulings) concurred with her point of view.
The heart of the issue is that the judge told Apple to "clarify" any misconceptions that Samsung had violated the specific patent in question. The judge was concerned that consumers would be confused about whether or not buying a non-Apple device would lead to problems down the road.
What Apple did is glossed over the apology, and then went on to mention all of their other litigation against Samsung in other country and touted the positive (for Apple) verdicts in those countries. It was basically a marketing piece that said in short, "The judge is wrong, Samsung really is stealing our ideas, look at all of these other countries who think so."
The judge called them out on their BS and told them to comply with the court order to "clarify" the misconceptions. Apple spouted some BS about how it was going to take 14 days to change the message. The judge told them that was a load of crap. Apple then changed the message, but made it much less prominent than the first one they posted. Again, the judge called them out on it.
In short, Apple's legal team is the same as legal teams all over the place. They are a bunch of assholes who think they are smarter than everyone else and will do whatever they think they can get away with.
I dislike lawyers intensely. I really do. I never realized how bad they are until I worked with them. We provide services to them. We are on their side. They still treat us like crap, like we are the adversary. They are constantly trying to trip us up over the slightest things. It's like their brains are hard wired to press any perceived advantage and exploit even the slightest gap. They want systems with five nines up time, yet they are the cheapest, tightest, penny pinching bastards on the planet. I really think they demand the insane SLA so that they have something to dispute with the intention of extracting concessions on the monthly fees. It is to the point where I will not get on the call with a client unless a member of our legal team is on the call. When I do get on the call, I give short, brief and extremely limited answers. I do not explain in detail. I do not think outside the box. I take everything literally. It sucks because I have to become a different person when I deal with them. I cannot even offer constructive solutions because then it turns into a game of, "Why are you only thinking about this now? Why did you not predict this need of ours a year ago? That sounds negligent to me."
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.
Apple has always treated the world, including its own customers, from a superiority position. Apple is all knowing. Apple doesn't follow standards or rules. Apple always knows best and can do no wrong.
So why did anyone expect for Apple to behave differently this time? Arogance is a core value of their corporate culture and its only got stronger since their cash flow surged.
I will be enormously happy when this tumor of a company will die off.
I admit I am ignorant in this case beyond the headlines. Did the judge order the exact wording of the apology? Did the judge order the exact location on a web site that the apology must appear? Did the judge order the exact page of newspapers the apology must appear? Also, we're the quotes attributed to the judge not accurate?
The thing with judges is that they believe in their own authority. And they don't like it when someone fucks with them. (**Suddenly a mis-quote from "Pulp Fiction" is running through my head...**)
When a judge tells you to do something, they are telling you to follow their intent not to find an alternative interpretation of their words. If you interpret their directives in a way other than what they intended for you to do, they can punish you for it.
Sure, you can appeal that punishment, but then it goes to another judge (or judges) to decide if you were being treated unfairly -and all judges believe that their authority as a judge is sacrosanct: anything that challenges the authority of a judge is a potential challenge to the authority of all judges. Even when a judge disagrees with the decision handed down by another judge, they dislike being forced to admit that any judge may have been wrong as it creates an implied challenge to their own authority.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
Oh crap.. this decision is cutting edge and it was brilliant. This ought to be a new template. The standard in the corporate world these days is to NEVER admit they are wrong and act as arrogant as possible. This is one of the few ways this can that can actually make it on the public record that the corporations actually broke the law and that consumers ought to know about it.
I didn't write my submission nearly so elegantly, nor with proper inline links. Now that is what I call editing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There was absolutely nothing false
As per TFA
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
More information on what you said: apparently the notices will be in the newspapers on November 16th. The court was a little surprised that, given that the order was made on October 18th, it took that long to get an advert into the newspapers.
(1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
I admit the mistake. It is however, one that is hard for me to break. :(
When I read "Prescribe", I see it as a compound of the prefix "Pre", meaning "comes before", and "Scribe", meaning "to write or mark."
So, "prescribe" means "Written in advance". (Such as with a doctor's script. He writes down the course of your treatment in advance of your receiving it. A prescription.)
When I see "Proscribe", I see the prefix "Pro", (antonym of "Con") meaning "In favor of / supporting". (Nevermind that 'conscribe' is not a word, or at least not a proper word.)
So, "proscribe" means "Written in support of." (Like with an editorial, citing a proposed course of action; a proscribed action.)
I accept that this is not conserved by actual definition of those words. It is simply a malfunction in my ability to parse language I guess.
As the site linked to points out, this is a very common mistake, for pretty much exactly the reasoning I pointed out. I understand that English has many special exceptions, but "proscribe" is particularly cumbersome in that respect.
I will however, endeavor to correct my usage.
If you are going to apologise, apologise with dignity, damn it!
Dear Apple, learn a lesson from Michael McCain, the CEO of the Canadian food company Maple Leaf Food.
In 2008, there was an outbreak [1] of Listeriosis, which was linked to Maple Leaf products.
What did Mccain do? To quote [2] from The Globe and Mail (a Canadian newspaper of record):
First, it admitted it was the company's fault. It admitted it was responsible. It said, in essence, "it's our fault and we're going to fix it."
Second, Maple Leaf apologized. It wasn't "wordsmithed" or spin-doctored to deny culpability. The company didn't dodge the issue. It apologized up front in every possible media.
Third, it didn't hire a celebrity to deliver the apology, or a blonde actress with very white teeth wearing a lab coat. CEO Michael McCain was the voice and the face of the crisis, and of the apology.
Fourth, once Maple Leaf realized the problem was the company's fault, it acted decisively, and transparently. It recalled more than 200 packaged meat brands (amounting to tens of thousands of individual packages) that were manufactured or packaged at the affected plant.
Which brings me to one of the best quotes about using (or not using) lawyers. CEO Michael McCain said in his apology on TV and on YouTube[3]: "Going through the crisis there are two advisers I've paid no attention to. The first are the lawyers, and the second are the accountants. It's not about money or legal liability; this is about our being accountable for providing consumers with safe food. This is a terrible tragedy. To those people who have become ill, and to the families who have lost loved ones, I want to express my deepest and most sincere sympathies. Words cannot begin to express our sadness for your pain."
(bolded by me)
I am not saying this let's MLF off the hook, but darn it, when it came to apologising, they didn't mince their words.
Dear Apple, just shut and apologise, and get over it already. MLF did it and got over it, so can you.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_Leaf_Foods#Canadian_Food_Inspection_Agency_recall
[2]: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-growth/the-best-legal-advice-is-often-an-apology/article626797/
[3]: (original link in article wasn't working, here is an alternative) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSrazdNo55U
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
You seem to be suggesting that mere consumer popularity should permit that corporations can act effectively above the law, and that they can behave as illegally as they please. There are very obvious reasons why this can not be permitted! The law is the law, and Apple were found to be a pack of liars who are continuing to bring baseless legal action against their competitors. They have been hoisted on their own petard by their legal actions here, given that all of this is self-inflicted, and they are acting like a spoiled, petulant child.
While kind of offtopic, if Apple were to be banned from trading in the UK, I think you'd find that it would hurt Apple Inc much more than it would British citizens. There are plenty of other computer and gadget manufacturers out there who would pick up the slack. Apple just manufacture shiny, but limited, gadgets. The world does not revolve around them.
I dislike lawyers intensely. I really do. I never realized how bad they are until I worked with them. We provide services to them. We are on their side. They still treat us like crap, like we are the adversary. They are constantly trying to trip us up over the slightest things. It's like their brains are hard wired to press any perceived advantage and exploit even the slightest gap.
Years ago my brother found what he thought was a niche opportunity. He noticed a lawyers district downtown had very few computer shops and, figuring lawyers need notebooks, backup services and the like, opened a small shop near there advertising specifically to them, with things like special discounts to members of the bar association, monthly maintenance contracts, repair services and the like. Just guess what the result was after a few months. Yes, that! Exactly what's just crossed your mind!
In a related note, once I and a few friends, one of which is a lawyer (a very nice one, not your usual villainous kind), were dinning together, and during the conversation we asked him who was right in a case that was receiving some attention in the news, and even he couldn't contain himself. His reply: "Depends. I'm the lawyer for which side?" We all laughed and all, but yeah.
To those how haven't read Gulliver Travels, download a copy from Project Gutenberg and do a search for "lawyers" and similar terms. At one point Johnathan Swift provides one of the best descriptions I've ever seen of the profession. Read (or reread) it. It's well worth the effort, both for the laughs and for the awful realization that everything he says is absolutely true.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.