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.'"

21 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. The UK judge by santax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The UK judge by cheesybagel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would just order the Apple UK domain name to be redirected to a government server webpage explicitly stating what I wanted to say with a link at the bottom to the actual Apple server.

    2. Re:The UK judge by GumphMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      That probably would be perfect indeed.

      ... but only if the link to Apple at the bottom of the page had accompanying ECMAScript to ensure it started off life just outside the user's visible page area.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  2. Apple and their lawyers were lucky by speardane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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? -
    1. Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    2. Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky by TWX · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have an idea. How about the court holds the lawyers and the titular head of Apple Computer in the United Kingdom in jail on contempt charges until the apology is properly worded and displayed? Call it, "Third Time's The Charm"...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky by thebjorn · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    5. Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the intent is clearly to undermine that latest ruling. It's almost like being contemptuous, if you will, of the court. Maybe there ought to be rules against that...

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky by FromWithin · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky by pnot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seriously, if I were the judge I'd just up the stakes at this point. Something along the lines of

      "You have proven yourselves incapable of modifying the front page of your website in compliance with the court order. To avoid any further misunderstandings or evasions, we are providing this 800x1200px PNG containing the exact text we wish you to display. Your site shall serve this up as the only content of the front page for the next week, or we'll begin seizing assets.

      ... oh, and it's in Comic Sans."

  3. Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yah, it sounds like he would make the smart choice.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  4. Re:Enlighten me by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:Enlighten me by dave562 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."

  6. Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    On a more serious note, I agree with the judge. This kind of change could have been implemented in less than one day

    Bullshit.

    Their web design team is forced to use iPads.

  7. Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wouldn't mind apple at all, if apple conducted itself in a manner that wasn't synonymous with being contrite cock gobblers.

    Apple's ENTIRE business structure revolves around continual invocation of "The dick move". (We are apple. You want our shiny products! But---- If you want the shiny products, you have to do everything we say! If you dont, we'll break your, or rather, OUR, shiny product to stop your defiance.) [essentially. That and a whole lot more.]

    If apple just made products and sold them like any other company, instead of trying to create a bullshit mystique and bullying every other product manufacturer and their own potential user base while lieing through their teeth about being innovative, I wouldnt have any problem with them, much like I dont have any problem with the dozens of other handset makers out there.

    I dont have a boner for Google, or Motorola, or HTC, or Samsung, or any of the others. (and, contrary to your seemingly diametrically polarized world view, I actually DISLIKE google for a large number of reasons.)

    I just dont like Apple, because Apple conducts itself like a total douche.

    It bothers me greatly that such a large number of people are so beholden to Apple, that they would attempt to justify any action it takes, regardless of how horrendous it is, rather than make the personal admission that perhaps their devotion wasnt justified.

    I was simply sarcastically pointing out that stories like this draw them out of the woodwork without fail to cast apologetic rhetoric in favor of their preferred tech company.

    Companies don't deserve loyalty. They show us absolutely none. They deserve none of ours.

    It is as simple as that.

  8. Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... by yacc143 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You sure? My Apple-logic(tm) that would make super productive, as the iPad is clearly superior to a mere PC for any use, ....

  9. Re:Enlighten me by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was absolutely nothing false

    As per TFA

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... by kodekn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I agree with you completely. I used to be a mac user for over 15 years, but in the end I just couldn't bring myself to give anymore of my money to Apple or for Jobs for the arrogance and the overall assholeness. It was very liberating to finally to move first to Ubuntu and then to Windows 7 (I use software that's only Windows and Mac) and find that Windows 7 is a great OS. OS X feels in someways suffocating, and perhaps partly it's because of the strict guidelines of the GUI, but probably much more because of the attitude of Apple and of its rabid fanbase.

    Using Apple's products is like being in jail all the time, where other inmates are constantly telling with bright eyes how lucky they are to be there. Granted, I still think OS X is in some ways better (e.g. multitasking), but after few years of using Windows 7 I don't miss OS X at all. And I haven't been interested to buy any other Apple's products either. Of course Apple is now with iphones and ipads much bigger, and its userbase is much much larger than only with macs, and probably overall the userbase is not that brand faithful anymore. Apple itself is just getting worse.

  11. Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    On a more serious note, I agree with the judge. This kind of change could have been implemented in less than one day

    Bullshit.

    Their web design team is forced to use iPads.

    That it suck a lie. Their wouldn't be Amy difference in time coating a new home pave on a iPod.

    Sent from my iPad

  12. Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that the sentiment spreads so now when people ask me about new computers, they inevitably mention that theyre thinking about going apple-- and as they are not really up to speed on specs, I can only assume its because some apple enthusaist has told them how it will solve all of their problems and balance their budget to boot. I have to stop myself from getting into an argument when a friend who otherwise knows nothing about computers gushes about how much better apples are.

    My problem is the culture that the apple products represent, I suppose. If someone tells me they have a linux / unix background and have grown tired of mucking around with breakage every 6 months so they went apple, wonderful. When someone tells me how they had 8 zillion viruses before and theyre so happy that they now have a machine that is inherently immune to viruses, i start to loathe apple because of the mistruths its culture and advertising have sold to the public.