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!

Apple's Samsung statement reprimanded by UK court of appeal

Macthorpe (960048) writes | about 2 years ago

The Courts 6

Macthorpe (960048) 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."
Link to Original Source

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not quite right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41841345)

"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."

Yet the ruling of the court said that a link would be sufficient. The link on Apples page even says what the judge said it should say.

85. I turn to the form of the publicity order. No more than that which is proportionate is necessary. As regards the newspaper publicity we had no complaint about the detail of that and, subject to the wording, I would affirm Judge Birss's order. As regards publicity on the Apple home web page, Mr Carr realistically recognised that Apple had a genuine interest in keeping it uncluttered. He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate.

86 As regards the period for which the link should appear, Mr Carr recognised that a one month period would probably suffice. So I think it should be required for a month from the date the order of this Court is made. But for the fact that Apple have agreed to obtain discharge of the order of the Oberlandesgericht I would have considered a longer period necessary. []

absolutely wrong, anon (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#41841625)

wrong, anon.

Why don't you link to some truth, such as []

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue

Re:absolutely wrong, anon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41842161)

Sorry mate, but that is the truth

Don't rely on groklaw too much. The above text is from the court proceedings. A link was sufficient. Only now does it have to change because of what apple out on the linked page. []

Read about bailii. What these people post is actually what happened.

As for what apple posted, that's what the Judges are annoyed with, not with them using a link on their home page. Now apple has to put on their home page to comply with this new order from the court

Re:absolutely wrong, anon (1)

Dupple (1016592) | about 2 years ago | (#41842193)

Wrong poetmatt. The Judge originally said a link would be sufficient. Now apple have to change what's posted and where it's posted

That my friend, is the truth

Boycott Apple (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#41841747)

Apple do not want my money. The fact that they think they are above the law. Just adds to the numerous other Ethical; Legal; Financial reasons for having nothing to do with Apple.

Its not that I care about the right or wrong. Its that Apple did wiped their c**ks on the Judges faces. I personally find this level of contempt quite frightening from a corporation, as I as a potential consumer [and past one], think how well they might treat me. I think I know the answer.

UK Courts (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about 2 years ago | (#41841799)

While the UK Court has ever right to slap Apple back into compliance (as they see it), some of the blame should be on them for their rulings specificity or lack there of. "Here write this", OK we did, "No that's not what I meant!".

You can argue that Apple only obeyed the letter of the law and not the spirit or you could also argue that the original ruling wasn't specific enough. The judges chose the former.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>