×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Court of Appeal Reprimands Apple Over Mandated Samsung Statement

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the no-no-use-this-petard-instead dept.

Advertising 241

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

241 comments

Apples' response to the reprimand (5, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#41841827)

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.

Why d'you have to be so negative all the time? (3, Funny)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#41841879)

(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...

Re:Why d'you have to be so negative all the time? (5, Funny)

powerlord (28156) | about a year and a half ago | (#41841921)

Yes, I felt a little dirty writing that...

Not half as dirty as we felt reading it.

Re:Why d'you have to be so negative all the time? (4, Funny)

scot4875 (542869) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842541)

Because, you know that in any hipster's mind, the ultimate judge of "cool" is what some old white dudes in robes think.

--Jeremy

Re:Why d'you have to be so negative all the time? (1)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842661)

Hipsters don't have rules, only guidelines.

If Hipsters had consistent rules they'd be using Windows phones or else Kyocera PDQ smartphones from Palm.

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (4, Informative)

Dupple (1016592) | about a year and a half ago | (#41841931)

It appears the main objection is the statement is on a separate page and only linked from the hompage

The judge said that a link from the home page would be all that's needed. It is only now that the statement has to appear on the home page.

Paragraphs 85 and 86

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html [bailii.org] [bailii.org]

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (5, Informative)

EasyTarget (43516) | about a year and a half ago | (#41841973)

The fact that they were originally allowed to just put a link; abused this and are now required to put the text on the homepage, is what is known as a 'punishment'.

Fanbois unfamiliar with the concept should think of it as being 'unfriended' by the court.

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (4, Informative)

Dupple (1016592) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842023)

The fact that they were originally allowed to just put a link; abused this and are now required to put the text on the homepage, is what is known as a 'punishment'.

Fanbois unfamiliar with the concept should think of it as being 'unfriended' by the court.

I understand that, but the way the story is written, it makes it sound like Apple was wrong to only use a link, whereas they were actually implying. Just trying to clarify

The rest of your comment you can leave to the fanboys.

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (4, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842351)

It depends a bit on context, doesn't it?

Let's say the judge a judge orders me to place a link to their ruling in the page.

Now I'm going to comply. I'm going to add the following:
<-- <a href="ruling.html">link</a> -->

You see? There's a link, and it's in the page. I complied.

Oh, I'm not allowed to comment it out? Well okay.

<div id="footerwaydown"><a href="ruling.html">link</a><img src="1px.gif"/></div>

What do you mean I have to have a text link? Fine. Whatever.

<div id="footerwaydown"><a style="font-size=1px; color:#fff" href="ruling.html">court ruling</a></div>

What? I did everything you asked. I cannot possibly comply more with your demands. Oh you have new demands. It has to actually be visible? FINE.

<div id="footerwaydown"><a href="aboutus.html">about us</a> | <a href="support.html">support</a> | <a href="tos.html">terms of service</a> | <a href="ruling.html">court ruling</a> | <a href="copyright.html">copyright</a> | <a href="privacy.html">privacy policy</a></div>

WHAT!? It's visible. It's text. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT!? What do you mean it's still getting lost way down there in the footer along with all the other links nobody clicks? Ugh. Make up your mind, judge!

Of course, we all know what the court wanted - not the letter of the ruling, but the spirit. Maybe something like:
<h1 id="inyourfaceheadline">Welcome to QuasiSteve, Inc.</h1>
<div id="rightbelowtheheadline" style="background-color:#fcc;">On November 1st, 2012, QuasiSteve, Inc. was ordered by the court to apologize to PseudoJohn, Ltd. for making false claims. Read our full apology:<br />
<a href="apology.html">http://www.quasisteve.co.uk/apology.html</a></div>

The judge would have done well to not leave this is the hands of Apple's legal and marketing teams, and instead sit down with somebody with half a clue about editing an HTML page, get to the result he believes to be fair, get back to Apple with that, and barring any valid complaints from their side, order them to make it just so.

But you're right. They complied. They also probably knew very well that they were taking the piss.

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (5, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842137)

Indeed, but a key critera of a notice is that it be noticeable. Tucking it away in teenyfont among the nobody-reads-us links at the bottom of the page is an unreasonable interpretation of the modified order: "uncluttered" is not the same as "obscured".

Apple asked for and were gifted a reasonable compromise, and chose to take advantage of it. A sanction that simply restores the original order is appropriate.

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (4, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842241)

Good point. The way Apple complied earlier was prominently displaying the mandated notice"in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of The Leopard'.'"

This seems like a fitting case study in "When Companies Get All Passive-Aggressive".

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842217)

Don't worry; it will now "appear" on the bottom of the homepage. It will be in 11 point text as specified. It will also be set with the color the same color as the background of the page. You'll be able to see it if you highlight the text though.

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (3, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842543)

You basement dwelling nerds and your awesome legal strategies. How about writing it in Chinese, eh? As you're dragged off for contempt of court you'll be able to laugh at how you outwitted those bewigged old fossils yet again.

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842937)

No, write it in Korean. Samsung will be able to read the notice, isn't that the only thing that matters?

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (4, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842333)

No, the judge was explicitly clear about what he wanted. He wanted an honest answer.

He didn't say "please mislead with the statement and violate the spirit of the law."

see: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121101091853360 [groklaw.net]

Apple did not follow the letter of the law, and it's amazing they haven't fired the lawyers for informing them that they may be flouting the judge's decision. He did not just say a link from the home page .He said a link from the home page stating samsung did not copy apple.

He did not say "please include commentary", or "please cite additional judgements which have been invalidateD".

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842439)

What letter of the law did they not follow? They had a link, they had the statements required, in 14 pt font. That was the extent of what was required of them.

Did the judge say to not include commentary? Did the judge say to not quote me on what I said about Samsung?

Frankly, it comes down to the judge gave them too much leeway, and Apple abused it.

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (4, Informative)

Danious (202113) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842667)

Not, the judge gave them the wording required, and they added marketing fluff to it. The text was to be posted to rectify Apple's statements that the tablet infringed and inform consumers that it was safe to purchase a Samsung tablet. Instead Apple used the statement to continue to create the impression that the tablet infringed and it was just the English court that was wrong. That's called contempt of court and teh English courts do not tolerate it like the US courts seem to.

Worse, they quoted two court rulings that didn't apply, so in themselves those added statements were deliberately misleading. In the US case the jury found the tablet did not infringe, and the German ruling was incorrectly sought in the wrong court by Apple after the English court had already ruled on an EU wide basis. Apple had even told the English Appeal court they were wrong to bring the German case and would apply to have that interim judgement withdrawn.

The court gave Apple a reasonable amount of rope and they hung themselves with it. If they had simply printed the required text who would have noticed? Instead they now have a publicity problem on their hands.

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842801)

Did they use the wording required? yes, fully. It's the first two sentences in the statement.

Were they not allowed to use the judge's own words to clarify? No such restriction was placed upon them.

Were they not allowed to cite other judgments? No such restriction was placed upon them.

Were they not allowed to say ANYTHING other than the required wording? No such restriction was placed upon them.

You may not like what Apple did, but they complied with the letter of the law. And nothing you said contradicts that.

They 'may' have a publicity problem, but every time someone quotes Apple's statement quoting the judge saying Samsung wasn't as cool, Apple is probably ok with that.

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842875)

Since corporations think they're people, then they should be treated *like* people.. You or I, as plebes, give the finger to a judge, he cites you for contempt and you go into a cell for a certain period of time.. Its only fair (yeah I know.. there IS no "fair" in business) that these corporations that *want* to be "people" have the same thing happen to them... As far as I'm concerned, were it to happen to Apple, I'd be ecstatic. Never owned an Apple product, and no longer *use* any Apple product.. now that Amazon's MP3 store has as good a selection as iTunes.. Bottom line: F**K Apple....

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (0)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842577)

All Apple had to do was follow the law. That's it, the spirit does not enter into it. If the judges did not want Apple to wonder off the reservation then they needed to explicitly state what Apple can and cannot do. That's how the law works.

Frankly, Groklow has gone off the deep end with their conspiracy theories...

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (5, Insightful)

Macthorpe (960048) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842687)

An analogy (sorry, not a car analogy).

If you spoke to a misbehaving boy, and told him to write 100 lines saying "I will not call the other kids bad names", would you accept his response if he wrote his hundred lines followed by "BUT THOSE OTHER KIDS ARE STILL POOPYHEADS"? No, you would ask him to do more lines, or come up with a different punishment entirely.

The behaviour of Apple in this instance is equivalent to a petulant child, and they are the only ones to blame if the court has to treat them as such.

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842219)

You really won't be happy until the rule of law is gone and we all live under corporate rule...

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842665)

And then they stomped off to their rooms in a huff and slammed the door like the psychopathic children they are.

And so we see (4, Interesting)

samjam (256347) | about a year and a half ago | (#41841847)

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.

Hit em with a contempt charge - arrest the CEO. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41841857)

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.

Re:Hit em with a contempt charge - arrest the CEO. (0, Offtopic)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842605)

Really? Yeah Samsung never stole ideas from others, no that never happened *eye roll*

Apple complied - whose being a baby now..the court (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41841867)

Apple posted it's apology, using language from the court itself. This is preposterous. Samsung has done nothing but benefit from the extra publicity and sell more phones, so why is the court issues such a ridiculous order? Twisted.

Re:Apple complied - whose being a baby now..the co (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842039)

Celestial Warrior-Philosopher Jobs, is that you?!

Re:Apple complied - whose being a baby now..the co (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842151)

Apple posted it's apology, using language from the court itself. This is preposterous. Samsung has done nothing but benefit from the extra publicity and sell more phones, so why is the court issues such a ridiculous order? Twisted.

While I generally agree that Apple is wasting it's time with this lawsuit I don't think it is hurting them anywhere except a few nerds have not put them in the same bucket as Microsoft. From the fourth quarter of 2010 through the middle of 2012, Samsung sold 1.4 million Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets, in the third quarter of 2012 Apple sold 14 million iPads. Apple must be REALLY hurting... from trying to think of things to do with all that money.

Re:Apple complied - whose being a baby now..the co (5, Informative)

Applekid (993327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842455)

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".

I'm not an Apple fan so... (5, Funny)

telchine (719345) | about a year and a half ago | (#41841875)

...when reading this, my brain produces a level of gamma waves — those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory — never before reported in neuroscience!

Hilarious (4, Interesting)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | about a year and a half ago | (#41841877)

I can totally see Apple having to do this three or four times before they get it right.

Re:Hilarious (1)

EasyTarget (43516) | about a year and a half ago | (#41841941)

Yeah; I think /. needs a 'Petard Hoisted' icon!
(also note the byline on the article ;-) )

Re:Hilarious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842331)

The UK deserves to be mocked at this point. The entire EU for that fact. It's just outside the boundries of reasonability.

Re:Hilarious (2)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842499)

Happy to oblige:

Ha ha, stupid UK, for punishing a company for being a complete arsehole!

Re:Hilarious (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842511)

Should have also added: Ha ha, stupid EU for levying huge fines on a convicted monopolist! (MS of course).

Re:Hilarious (0)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842099)

and all the time Samsung are getting some great advertising out of this. I realise that Apple really do not want to comply but it is stupid to kick against the court now. They started this, they lost, they should bite the bullet and let the dust settle as quickly as possible.

Re:Hilarious (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842519)

How is this great advertising for Samsung?

How many extra times has all these legal machinations caused people to look at Apple's statement, or quotes thereof, where they quoted the judge saying Samsung's products were not as cool and understated?

Easy (4, Insightful)

lennier1 (264730) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842239)

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.

Re:Hilarious (1)

cristiroma (606375) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842249)

Probably too much time would have passed before becoming noticeable providing in the next iteration they would have displayed the link text only 0.025% larger.

Re:Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842651)

I'm guessing this is a joke alluding to the "Don't buy before v3.0" adage. How it could be marked "Interesting" rather than "Funny" blows my mind.

FWIW: I laughed.

Pissing off judges (5, Interesting)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#41841947)

I'm surprised the judges didn't throw the book at them when they tried this bit:

Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site

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.

Re:Pissing off judges (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842017)

Let's see: Beyond implementation you need UI design, UX testing, regression testing, focus group testing and the CEO's niece to check it out. Then you have to schedule a managed downtime with rolling updates across your cloud. I'm surprised they could do it in fourteen days.

Re:Pissing off judges (5, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842127)

Don't forget the userAgent detection settings to make sure it's only viewable on Apple devices.

Re:Pissing off judges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842521)

I'm surprised they could do it in fourteen days.

I don't see why not - they seem to have done this with Maps.

Re:Pissing off judges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842119)

Perjury? Nope, the judge should just have said OK at 100 mil per day to a child charity of my choosing you get your 14 days, which of course are added to the duration that notice has to stay up. Everybody's happy.

Re:Pissing off judges (1)

Afty0r (263037) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842141)

Perhaps they have a 14-day test and release cycle? And as such for any changes to the site to go through editorial and any content QA processes they might have, it might need 14 days (as a minimum) to go-live?

A bit like ordering someone to change something in a magazine and reprint a new version of it. Sure they could typeset it immediately after leaving court and pay a million bucks to have the printers' staff come in at midnight to set some plates and do a print run - but is it reasonable for the court to expect them to do that, rather than follow the normal publication process?

Re:Pissing off judges (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842297)

is it reasonable for the court to expect them to do that

It didn't take them 14 days to put up the first draft

Re:Pissing off judges (-1, Troll)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842939)

It didn't take them 14 days to put up the first draft

How long did it take? What is your source?

Oh, never mind, we all know you just made that up.

Re:Pissing off judges (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842865)

Except this isn't a printing press. It's just a webpage.

Yes, things can go horribly wrong with webpages if you start doing horrible things to them (such as massaging it so that it looks just the way you want it... in WebKit and screw the rest.).

But it's not exactly difficult to add the notice without anything breaking.
Go here:
http://www.apple.com/ [apple.com]
Find <nav id="globalheader" ...

Stick this below:
<div style="width:974px; position:relative; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; box-shadow: 0 1px 2px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3); background-color:#fdd; padding:0.25em; border:1px solid #800; border-radius:0.25em; text-align:center;">On October 18th, 2012, the England and Wales High Court ordered Apple, Inc. to formally apologize to Samsung Electronics Ltd. for making false statements.<br />Read our full apology to Samsung Electronics, Ltd. at <a style="color:#000;" href="http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/">http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/</a></div>

Works perfectly well on desktop, iPad 2, and smartphone (Android in my case).

If they want to further limit it to UK region, I'm sure they already have the server-side code for that.

If there's any horrible issues with it (maybe it blows up on iPod Touch or something), they can fix that along the way. There's no excuse, however, for suggesting that the simple statement included in the page with clear wording and visibility that I whipped up in 3 minutes would take them 14 days. No excuse whatsoever.

Re:Pissing off judges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842255)

Well to be fair they seem to be the only site on the internet that has to actually completely be taken offline for a couple of hours in order to add some new products to its web site and remove some old ones. So it is probably all written in AppleScript or something with no content management system.

Better than that (2)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842471)

The judge in question (I think Jacobs) commented that was ridiculous and invited Tim Cook to take the stand and justify it. Apple really hasn't understood that in this country judges are just as bolshy and independent as are federal US judges, and have absolutely no love for US corporations. And if they don't understand technology, their kids will explain it to them.

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.

Re:Pissing off judges (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842595)

I'm surprised the judges didn't throw the book at them when they tried this bit:

Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site

[h1][a href=http://www.apple.com/apology.html]Read our Court-Ordered Apology[/a][/h1]

put the right parens on it and paste it at the top of your page's code - was that so hard, Apfel?

How on earth did the person who argued that get away with not being charged with perjury?

Because corporations and their spokespeople are beholden to the law in a different, less severe way than we mere mortals, perhaps?

Re:Pissing off judges (1)

David Chappell (671429) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842727)

I'm surprised the judges didn't throw the book at them when they tried this bit:

Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site

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.

If you are talking about the technical aspects of altering the website, then you are right, 14 days is absurd. But put yourself in the position of Apple's lawyers. They have to take this order, study it, and write a new statement for the website. Their client will be very unhappy with this statement and ask for revisions. The lawyers will then have to explain to them why these revisions will get them in more trouble. They will go back and forth several times. Only when everyone has finally given in to the inevitable can the new text be given to the people who run the website. Then they will need time to reformat it, find something else to take off the homepage, put it in, push it out to the servers, and make sure that they do it soon enough that the old page will have expired in the judges' browser caches.

It is not pergury to ask for two weeks to do all this. It isn't even particularly unreasonable. On the other hand, I understand that the judges do not want to given them enough time to come out with another weaselly statement. By given them barely enough time to do it if they run, they may get the simple direct statement they demanded in the first case.

This pleases me. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41841971)

Couldn't have happened to a nicer company.

I have more respect for the entirety of Microsoft than I do even a single sub-section of any part of Apple. (iTunes is like the only thing I actually like them for since it is a pretty decent service overall)
That is saying something.

I wish more companies were punished like this. Too many get away with such bullshit. We ain't having that in our Great Britain. NONE OF IT!

Itunes makes me sick (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842019)

iTunes is like the only thing I actually like them for since it is a pretty decent service overall

That is an off-topic joke right! Ironically the legal agreements in the itunes EULA where part of a whole south park episode.

Re:This pleases me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842567)

"Such bullshit" like quoting the judge?

Uh.... no. (5, Funny)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41841995)

In the UK, Apple were previously ordered to add a statement to their website stating that Samsung did not copy their designs....

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.

Re:Uh.... no. (5, Insightful)

slim (1652) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842061)

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

<sarcasm> Yes, that would be the main reason for Apple's relucatance</sarcasm>

Re:Uh.... no. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842067)

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.

I see. So court orders can be blatantly ignored if following them would affect the way a marketing web site "balances visually".

Should the judges be required to take a marketing course before issuing their ruling so as not to upset the "visual balance" of the company they are reprimanding?

Maybe we need more marketing experts serving on judiciary panels. It's the only way to resolve such life-or-death issues.

I mean really.

Re:Uh.... no. (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842121)

Not as such.... but I can see it taking more than 48 hours to complete the page redesign that might be necessary to visually accommodate the notice without upsetting the aesthetic balance of their home page.

Re:Uh.... no. (2)

PARENA (413947) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842283)

If that's so, then perhaps they should've done it right the first time, when they had more time to do it. You know, instead of willingly mocking the court order.

Re:Uh.... no. (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842325)

And I supposed the hypothetical* high-dollar white-collar (criminal CxO, for instance) should be able to appeal a prison sentence because prison uniforms are unfashionable and machine-made. And uniform. And doesn't have the right brand labels.

*I say "hypothetical" because it seems pretty rare that a CxO actually ever goes to prison... but it does happen [wikipedia.org]

Re:Uh.... no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842335)

My I respectfully say

This is a court order, fuck the aesthetic balance of the home page

Re:Uh.... no. (3, Insightful)

rufty_tufty (888596) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842573)

In unrelated news, prisoners are suing the prison board because orange "isn't a flattering colour and really clashes with my tattoos"

Re:Uh.... no. (5, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842069)

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.

If sanctions didn't impact things that the sanctioned party cared about, they wouldn't be sanctions.

Re:Uh.... no. (4, Insightful)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842191)

It is because they have fools like you on their team that they are still suffering from this. It is not an American court that will waste time with arguments like that, it is a European court who will know that Apple understood exactly what was meant and that any failure to comply is contempt. They failed to comply, this has prolonged the great advertising that Samsung is getting from this. If Apple continue to treat the court with contempt the penalties are likely to increase.

Re:Uh.... no. (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842261)

I never suggested that Apple should be allowed to disobey the order entirely. My point behind the aesthetics of the site is that I can easily imaging it taking a lot longer than 48 hours to design a layout on their home page to accommodate the verbosity of what Apple is required to display, and that does not significantly detract from the aesthetic look that Apple may consider extremely important for their business.

Indeed, I think it's not unlikely that given the requirement that they have this up within 48 hours, Apple might even have legitimate grounds to protest the order on account of it creating an "ugly" home page.

Re:Uh.... no. (2)

Rich0 (548339) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842445)

They can protest all they want, but good luck with getting the 100k Euro/day fines lifted.

They could just change their homepage to a pretty 3 sentence announcement of the verdict until they have time to add back in all their marketing stuff. It would take 15 minutes to create such a homepage on a suitable hosting provider and call the DNS provider to redirect things there. The court order doesn't require them to make the page usable from a business standpoint - if they can comply while doing so that is fine, but if not it isn't the compliance that is expected to bend.

Re:Uh.... no. (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842925)

A sentencing isn't supposed to be pretty. You're arguing that a jail sentence verdict for a fashion designer could be appealed on grounds of the orange fatigues being damaging to their aesthetic image which they consider extremely important for their business.

I gave an example HTML chunk above. Yeah, it's ugly - it's also visible. But I'm sure Apple could polish it into their grey/glass/gloss look to make it prettier and still be perfectly clear and visible.

If their aim, however, is to make it as invisible as possible so as to not interfere with the rest of the page, then they're not quite getting the point of the verdict.

Re:Uh.... no. (5, Informative)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842221)

based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post

What they're required to post (as distinct from what they chose to add) is this:

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

Sorry for breaking your browsers, y'all!

Sometimes you wish for the TV-court kind of judge (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842035)

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."

Good-o (4, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842071)

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/ [apple.com]). 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.

Re:Good-o (2)

jhains (788860) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842215)

Given that Apple's entire marketing strategy is based on pretentiousness, I don't see why their court-ordered "apology" should be any different. The very idea that anyone is copying Apple's "designs" is ludicrous. With the vast amount of prior art available that predates both smartphones and tablets, it seems even Apple's legal strategy is pretentious.

Re:Good-o (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842655)

The problem is with patents. Claim all you want about prior art but if they still get a patent they can take people to court. That's the problem.

Re:Good-o (4, Informative)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842257)

They were ordered to make a statement that Samsung had not copied the iPad and on reading their statement, which ends with a summary that clearly says that Samsung had copied the iPad. That statement clearly does not comply with the order.

Lance Armstrong also won (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842073)

"... and also put next to references to a case Apple won" - yes, and Lance Armstrong also won the tour-de-france - 7 times!

Re:Lance Armstrong also won (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842361)

Well, yes, he in fact did win 7 times. Cheating to achieve that is what is in dispute.

One idea... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842175)

Put out a sincere apology on April 1st.

Duh (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842289)

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.

Exactly... (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842547)

What do you think Samsung are telling the channel right now? Despite its profitability, Apple is scared. Better not get stuck with too much Apple stock....and that mini iPad is pretty lame for the money...how about a nice promotion on the Note 2?

Call me a fanboi... (1)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842565)

...if you want, but I found Apple's notice frikkin' hilarious! You know the old saying about asking a stupid question, well this was a stupid order. Apple sarcastically followed the letter of the order to show their contempt, something I'm sure a lot of us have done in one way or another at some point. It's refreshing to see a company with a sense of humour!

I'm surprised the court has much of a leg to stand on in claiming parts of it were untrue. Most of it was direct quotes from the judges and the bit about the German ruling was true AFAIK.

Anyway none of this will have any impact, it's not like Apple will lose any sales over this, and both of the companies are getting brand exposure. Win-win.

Re:Call me a fanboi... (1, Troll)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842711)

Exactly. Kind of makes you wonder if Samsung and Apple hatched this idea together. They're both making reams of money from their legions of holy warriors that claim their product is better than the other. Samsung and Apple are laughing all the way to the bank....morons...

Lather rinse repeat (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842591)

Let this be a lesson to those of you who would defend Apple against all reason. In the discussion about their non-apology apology, there were many who claimed that they had obeyed the letter of the law and that should be good enough. What this case has done, besides underscore the idiocy of modern patent law, is demonstrate the difference between law in the US and law in the UK, and the EU, and so on. Corporations regularly get away with anything up to and including murder without so much as a handslap here in the US. In the UK, they seem to get the handslap. I wish I didn't have to be impressed by that.

UK Out of Line (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41842693)

The UK is a totalitarian regime that is completely out of line on this (and many other things). They have no business telling Apple to add things to their company web site. Apple met the letter of the demand and had a little fun with it.

What Apple should do from here is put the UK on the back burner. Apple should cease all sales of Apple products in the UK for one month. Then after that the UK is set as the last country to get Apple new products with each release. Let the fools in the UK suffer.

shame (1)

pswPhD (1528411) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842715)

It's a shame judge didn't rule in contempt of court

Although if they try issuing more fake apologies like the last one they are going the right way to achieve that.

Now I see why some people want to record cops.. (2)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842797)

Looking at the comments of the iMorons who say that Apple response should be to flip the court another bird.

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.

Bad move (1)

LodCrappo (705968) | about a year and a half ago | (#41842869)

A far greater number of people will hear about this story on the news than would ever have seen even a properly compliant notice on Apple's home page. The average joe will hear a soundbite and remember only "The court ruled Samsung did not copy Apple, and Apple had to apologize", which is actually much less positive for Apple than the truth, which probably wouldn't even have been known by the average joe anyway.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...