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.
And the judge basically called out Tim Cook on it:
"I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on [its site]. I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given."
I can only assume Apple overruled or ignored rather lawyers, who most certainly would tell them that playing this kind of game was only going to lead to more severe sanctions.
I sense the limp wrist of Tim Cook pulling these strings. By the way, Apple has lost $150 billion of market value in the eight weeks since the iPhone 5 introduction.
There is no way in the US that a judge could gag you from mentioning *other* court cases or for that matter prevent you from stating your own opinion contrary to the judge's.
I've got a good idea, why don't you get involved in a court case and try just that. While you're at it, dance a little jig in the courtroom. Let us know how that works out for you.
Somebody writes as it it's ok to be vulnerable to 15% of the malware on the internet. That's roughly the same as being vulnerable to 100%. Let me try to get this straight... 15% is the new 0%?
Because reversals almost never occur at the trial court level. This type of thing is usually the province of the appellate courts.
However this is a good chance for the perhaps-not-so-honorable Lucy Koh to dig herself a little deeper into judicial doo-doo by failing to attempt any remedial action for the jury foreman's rather obvious transgressions.
IBM is a big stupid grizzly bear. Sometimes friendly, sometimes even dances. But still has big teeth and claws and may still bite your head off, even if it does like Linux.
The question in the selection transcript was: "have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? "..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.
A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.
Apple spinmods are out in force, as is typical each time Apple gets caught
The question in the selection transcript was: "have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? "..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.
A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.
I will repost what a well informed anonymous coward posted later in the thread...
The fanbois usually shout down anyone who brings it up, but I will (and will get shouted down):
Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO. Some of the actions of the 'honorable' Koh were pretty nonsensical when you think the point is to uncover the truth: disallowing evidence of Samsung designs that predate the iPhone, injunctions against Samsung products right out of the gate. The injunctions themselves are pretty clear indications of bias as they were almost immediately overturned (reversed and remanded, which shows pretty bad on Koh IMO). And then the situation of all other cases in other countries' courts ruled Samsung did not infringe and, well, you know Occam's Razor, right?
I have a problem with Stallman's (aka RMS) model, which says charge for hardware and give the software with source away for free.
Richard Stallman's model says such thing. It says "if you want to save costs by using this source code then you must make your changes available to whoever uses it."
Actually, he says nothing about costs. His whole jihad is about the liberation of software, which he euphamistically calls 'Software Freedom'. If you think I'm smearing him, read his essay 'Why software should not have owners'. That's way beyond talking about whether source code should always accompany binaries or not.
Did you actually read it yourself, or just the title? He says: "What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate." By gosh, he's right. That's the thing about RMS, if you actually bother to read what he writes it's nearly always impeccably logical. Notice, nothing in that essay about "charge for the hardware, give away the software". You're putting words in his mouth, and by the way, hyperbole like "jihad" does your argument no good at all. He says "should be free" and argues the point well. And he has proved his point, by giving the world GCC and many other valuable tools that made the world a better place. He did not say that you should not earn a living or sell proprietary software. He says software should be free, and he is right. Just like food should be inexpensive and nutritious, not that it always is. And sometimes there are perfectly valid reasons for that.
Even though they removed the Javascript, It is still effectively hidden on most monitors.
Just like Slashdot has hidden your comment, because I have to scroll down to see it?
I don't think he was ordered to post his comment by a judge.
I don't really see how that is relevant to the question of whether having to scroll a webpage -- a perfectly standard activity for anyone who uses a web browser -- constitutes "hiding" information below the first page. It's either hiding the information or it's not, regardless of the reason why the information the information is there.
You should get a job working in Apple's spin department.
The removed the resizing script that forced the size of the top ad to ensure the apology would be outside the screen, regardless of the resolution and size of your screen. Instead they just set the top ad to the maximum size the resize script had it at. Aka a "big ass ad".
So, to "defiant" and "contemptuous" we can add the adjective "sneaky" to describe the spirit of Apple's compliance with the court order.
The main advantage of LLVM is that it will provide much needed competition for GCC which for the last decade has only had VCC to spur it on. Note that LLVM code can be freely transplanted into GCC while the reverse is not allowed, probably enough in itself to ensure GCC's continued preeminence even with Apple's fat checkbook backing LLVM.
So gcc is to Samsung as LLVM is to Apple? One creates, one copies?
They both create and they both copy, it's called "open source" and that is the way it is supposed to work. Your simile is horrible. Being able to literally copy BSD licensed code into a GPL program is exactly what the BSD guys want, or they would have used the GPL license. Going the other way is exactly what the GPL guys don't want, and you won't hear BSD guys whining about that. Bear in mind that in many cases, it's the same guys, it's not a big war as you seem to hope.
You're probably right about that, Sharp TVs have a good rep though I never bought one because there always seemed to be a better deal around (LG last time). It seems Sharp's difficulties are on the production side. A one-two whammy with higher production costs than the Korean competition and a plummeting TV market. So let's revise this comment: how much sense does it make to buy a flat panel manufacturer that isn't competitive?
However you slice it, Apple burning its bridges with Samsung is one of the more dubious of Apple's recent string of dubious business decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
I even see sysops calling themselves engineers. They aren't.
see how pissed off brits get if apple just says "fuck you, we're taking our ball and going home."
See how fired Tim Cook would be.
The bottom line is that the UK (through consumer demand) needs Apple far more than Apple needs the UK market.
You need some Prozac. If Apple followed your fanciful prescription its stock would be worth $100 billion less the next day, for starters.
By the way, it is clear to everyone but you that consumers like Samsung's products more than Apple's.
It's more like a crack house.
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.
And the judge basically called out Tim Cook on it:
"I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on [its site]. I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given."
Ouch.
Apple doesn't think they're in the wrong.
Al Capone didn't think he was in the wrong.
I can only assume Apple overruled or ignored rather lawyers, who most certainly would tell them that playing this kind of game was only going to lead to more severe sanctions.
I sense the limp wrist of Tim Cook pulling these strings. By the way, Apple has lost $150 billion of market value in the eight weeks since the iPhone 5 introduction.
There is no way in the US that a judge could gag you from mentioning *other* court cases or for that matter prevent you from stating your own opinion contrary to the judge's.
I've got a good idea, why don't you get involved in a court case and try just that. While you're at it, dance a little jig in the courtroom. Let us know how that works out for you.
Somebody writes as it it's ok to be vulnerable to 15% of the malware on the internet. That's roughly the same as being vulnerable to 100%. Let me try to get this straight... 15% is the new 0%?
Because reversals almost never occur at the trial court level. This type of thing is usually the province of the appellate courts.
However this is a good chance for the perhaps-not-so-honorable Lucy Koh to dig herself a little deeper into judicial doo-doo by failing to attempt any remedial action for the jury foreman's rather obvious transgressions.
A few ridiculous abuses don't prove the whole system is broken.
No, the whole system being broken and acting as a brake on technogical evolution proves the whole system is broken.
IBM is a big stupid grizzly bear. Sometimes friendly, sometimes even dances. But still has big teeth and claws and may still bite your head off, even if it does like Linux.
It is a complex issue to be sure.
Not really. Software patents used to be illegal, then they were legal. That was a simple boner.
It benefits all of the big ones by keeping the small and fast innovators out of the game.
Well, is it really benefitting Apple as it tears its reputation to shreds and bleeds karma like a stuck pig?
The question in the selection transcript was: "have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.
A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.
Apple spinmods are out in force, as is typical each time Apple gets caught
The question in the selection transcript was: "have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.
A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.
Samsung is much more likely to prevail at the appellate level.
Because the appellate court might not be on the take?
I will repost what a well informed anonymous coward posted later in the thread...
The fanbois usually shout down anyone who brings it up, but I will (and will get shouted down):
Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO. Some of the actions of the 'honorable' Koh were pretty nonsensical when you think the point is to uncover the truth: disallowing evidence of Samsung designs that predate the iPhone, injunctions against Samsung products right out of the gate. The injunctions themselves are pretty clear indications of bias as they were almost immediately overturned (reversed and remanded, which shows pretty bad on Koh IMO). And then the situation of all other cases in other countries' courts ruled Samsung did not infringe and, well, you know Occam's Razor, right?
I have a problem with Stallman's (aka RMS) model, which says charge for hardware and give the software with source away for free.
Richard Stallman's model says such thing. It says "if you want to save costs by using this source code then you must make your changes available to whoever uses it."
Actually, he says nothing about costs. His whole jihad is about the liberation of software, which he euphamistically calls 'Software Freedom'. If you think I'm smearing him, read his essay 'Why software should not have owners'. That's way beyond talking about whether source code should always accompany binaries or not.
Did you actually read it yourself, or just the title? He says: "What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate." By gosh, he's right. That's the thing about RMS, if you actually bother to read what he writes it's nearly always impeccably logical. Notice, nothing in that essay about "charge for the hardware, give away the software". You're putting words in his mouth, and by the way, hyperbole like "jihad" does your argument no good at all. He says "should be free" and argues the point well. And he has proved his point, by giving the world GCC and many other valuable tools that made the world a better place. He did not say that you should not earn a living or sell proprietary software. He says software should be free, and he is right. Just like food should be inexpensive and nutritious, not that it always is. And sometimes there are perfectly valid reasons for that.
Even though they removed the Javascript, It is still effectively hidden on most monitors.
Just like Slashdot has hidden your comment, because I have to scroll down to see it?
I don't think he was ordered to post his comment by a judge.
I don't really see how that is relevant to the question of whether having to scroll a webpage -- a perfectly standard activity for anyone who uses a web browser -- constitutes "hiding" information below the first page. It's either hiding the information or it's not, regardless of the reason why the information the information is there.
You should get a job working in Apple's spin department.
Even though they removed the Javascript, It is still effectively hidden on most monitors.
Just like Slashdot has hidden your comment, because I have to scroll down to see it?
I don't think he was ordered to post his comment by a judge.
You know the math. If the profit of doing something illegal is less than the fine then you do the illegal thing.
Provided of course that "you" are morally and ethically challenged, as Apple seems to be doing its level best to prove to the world.
The removed the resizing script that forced the size of the top ad to ensure the apology would be outside the screen, regardless of the resolution and size of your screen. Instead they just set the top ad to the maximum size the resize script had it at. Aka a "big ass ad".
So, to "defiant" and "contemptuous" we can add the adjective "sneaky" to describe the spirit of Apple's compliance with the court order.
The main advantage of LLVM is that it will provide much needed competition for GCC which for the last decade has only had VCC to spur it on. Note that LLVM code can be freely transplanted into GCC while the reverse is not allowed, probably enough in itself to ensure GCC's continued preeminence even with Apple's fat checkbook backing LLVM.
So gcc is to Samsung as LLVM is to Apple? One creates, one copies?
They both create and they both copy, it's called "open source" and that is the way it is supposed to work. Your simile is horrible. Being able to literally copy BSD licensed code into a GPL program is exactly what the BSD guys want, or they would have used the GPL license. Going the other way is exactly what the GPL guys don't want, and you won't hear BSD guys whining about that. Bear in mind that in many cases, it's the same guys, it's not a big war as you seem to hope.
You're probably right about that, Sharp TVs have a good rep though I never bought one because there always seemed to be a better deal around (LG last time). It seems Sharp's difficulties are on the production side. A one-two whammy with higher production costs than the Korean competition and a plummeting TV market. So let's revise this comment: how much sense does it make to buy a flat panel manufacturer that isn't competitive?
However you slice it, Apple burning its bridges with Samsung is one of the more dubious of Apple's recent string of dubious business decisions.