Judge Slaps Down Apple For Its Bogus Non-Apology Apology
from the try-again dept
Last week we noted that Apple had put up a rather petulant non-apology apology in response to the UK court order requiring it to advertise to the world that Samsung didn't copy Apple in making its devices. Many people wondered how the court would react to Apple's attempt... and the answer is that the court is not pleased (and is further displeased by Apple's claim that it needs two weeks to come up with something better):At a hearing in the court in London on Thursday morning, the judge told Apple that it had to change the wording of the statement within 48 hours, carry it on its home page, and use at least 11-point font.The full quote from the judge was, apparently:
Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that one judge said he "cannot believe".
“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. I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?”Another report shows that the judge reviewing this made his views of Apple's notice abundantly clear:
“I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.”Apparently, the London appeals courts have some sort of antidote to the standard Apple reality distortion field.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's not a distortion field, Apple is infested with worms!
Ahem. Good to see Apple being put where it should be. Even though the lawsuit should have been dismissed at the beginning due to "sheer stupidity" by the plaintiff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Samsung: see judge, even Apple says we didn't infringe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe Tim Cook could file an affidavit
Even if the reality distortion field were shut down, a cold start would then take 30 minutes to get it working again -- I canna' change the laws of physics Cap'n. I've got to have 30 minutes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What!?!
I say this not to disagree with you or the sentiment, only to clarify. A judge wouldn't order a non-living entity to feel remorse for its actions, and a forced apology isn't really an apology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What!?!
> ordered that they display a statement
> to the effect that Samsung did not infringe
> on their patents and that this statement
> link to the court order.
Exactly. And Apple complied with the order. Apple *did* acknowledge that the court ruled that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's patents. The fact that they did it by also quoting the court's own words regarding Samsung's lack of 'coolness' is hardly out of line.
Nor is mentioning that other courts around the world have reached different conclusions. The idea that some British court can order Apple as a corporation to never mention or talk about any other judicial rulings save the one in the UK is nonsense.
It seems to me that the UK judge *did* want to punish Apple by making them put up the statement, but realized he wasn't actually allowed to do that under British law, so he justified his order in terms of 'clearing up consumer confusion'. So now he's angry that Apple cleverly turned around what he intended as a punishment and used it to its advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> but they totally did, and these other
> courts agree with us."
So? That's true. Other courts *do* agree with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
"But mommy (other courts) said that they were bad, daddy (UK court."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> the face of the judge.
If the judge feels that the truth is 'spitting in his face', then he really needs to get over himself.
I realize that the UK has different notions of free speech than the US, but just from a moral perspective, as long as Apple isn't saying anything false, what business does any judge have regulating what information they can convey on their own website? (Especially when this statement was expressly *not* supposed to be a punishment.)
If Apple wants to point out to their customers that they've won similar cases over similar points of law in other countries, then they should be free to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
US judges can and do issue rulings like this too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
They might be able to require the posting of a statement for consumer education purposes, but they would not be able to order a corporation *not* to talk about other factual court rulings in their favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> not make such an
> order either, so
> I'm still not
> sure of your point.
He sure seems to have his robes in a snit over it, and has ordered them to rewrite it, leaving that bit out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
What did Apple misrepresent? They said they won similar cases in other jurisdictions. They have. That's true. It might have pissed off a judge, but it's not a misrepresentation.
> contempt of a legal court order
If it was contempt, they would have been charged with it. Even though this judge has his robes in a bunch over Apple's failure to act properly chastened by him, even he realizes that nothing they did rises to level of contempt.
> and absolute hypocrisy on Apple's behalf
Hypocrisy is not legally actionable. And name one corporation whose actions aren't hypocritical. If that was the standard, they'd all be in Apple's position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
It is very easy to see how this could be seen as contempt. Whether or not the original order is a good idea is one thing, but Apple appealed and lost. Now they have to actually do what they were told. If this had been Samsung pulling this stunt, would Apple have thought this was an appropriate response?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> been told to say this but
> other courts say in our
> favour so yah boo sucks!"
So there's something wrong with letting the public know the statement is the result of a court order? I don't recall anything in the court's original order that requires Apple to falsely pretend they're making the statement of their own volition.
> If this had been Samsung
> pulling this stunt, would
> Apple have thought this
> was an appropriate response?
Probably not, but in that case, I'd be defending Samsung, notwithstanding the idiots here who have called me an Apple shill merely because I haven't jumped on the "Hooray-- cuz Apple sucks!" bandwagon. And as I mentioned earlier, *all* corporations are hypocritical by nature, so if the positions were reversed, not only would Apple be crying foul, Samsung would be claiming they did nothing wrong, which would directly contradict their current 'outrage'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Now you're misrepresenting the judge's position.
Remember, the judge made the purpose of the order clear -- Apple deliberately misrepresented the situation to the general public all through the court case, which damaged Samsung. The judge's order was attempting to mitigate some of that damage.
What Apple did was adhere to the letter of the the order, but in a way that attempts to accomplish the exact opposite of the purpose of the order. That is certainly contempt -- at least in the layman's sense of the term if not the strict legal definition. That is why the judge is angry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
That agreement was never given, Apple took it upon themselves to change the text by adding to it and therefore are technically in contempt. This is what the court has now stated and if Apple do not comply fully (the court IMHO is being extremely lenient by warning first) they will be found in contempt with all that goes along with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
So Misrepresentation to the public, contempt to the court. Both apply. In fact the misrepresentation could find Apple running foul of Trade and Consumer law within both the UK itself and the EU.
They have been warned that if they do not comply they will be in contempt. The court has deemed that in this instance a warning is appropriate, though if Apple do not comply with the original order after this warning then YES contempt charges will absolutely occur.
Actually Hypocrisy is actionable if the court deems it contemptuous.. Remember contempt is very subjective (wrongfully in my opinion) also hypocrisy is very much about what the appeals court talked about in regards to Apple visa vis the German court and one of the specific reasons (since the appeal was conducted de novo) why the order was actually not just upheld but amended too. Which Apple in their egotism have tried to massage with puffery and unqualified opinion by adding to.
And hypocrisy is the nature of Business worldwide, though being Hypocritical to competitors and markets is one thing, being hypocritical to government and courts is an entirely dangerous and risky endeavour, as Apple are now finding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
How does what I wrote make me either a shill or a troll? Please be specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
The UK courts, most specifically the Court of Appeals have authority (some) across the entire EU. Apple's none apology read that Germany had ruled differently, they had. That makes no difference though, The UK ruling stands and Apple was acting like a petulant kid by trying to suggest otherwise.
Any judge would get annoyed by that..
I could say more but I wont bother. Apple supporters have obviously come out of the woodwork..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> acting like a petulant kid by
> trying to suggest otherwise.
They didn't suggest that the UK ruling doesn't stand. They merely pointed out that other courts have come to different conclusions.
> Any judge would get annoyed by that..
It's a good thing then that in a free society, we don't have to worry about whether government officials are annoyed or not. We only have to obey the law.
> Apple supporters have
> obviously come out of the
> woodwork.
Yeah, because unless I join everyone else here in a chorus of "Boo-yah! Apple got its ass kicked!", that means I'm an Apple supporter.
Or it could be that I just don't think Apple did anything wrong and cleverly turned a negative into a positive without violating the terms of the order.
If the positions were reversed and Samsung had lost and done the same thing with its published statement, I'd be defending them as well. I don't care if the company involved is Apple, Exxon, or Mrs. Butterworth's Tasty Maple Syrup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What!?!
My point was that the order wasn't for an apology, it was an order for them to issue a statement publicly stating they had made false claims against a rival.
The order itself seems to me to be perfectly in line with the UK's bizzaro defamation/libel/slander laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
The Judge goes out of his way to even make sure in the judgement that this in no way affects other court cases around the planet though takes note of the court case in Germany that Apple used specifically to try to affect the original UK Judgement which the Judge in this matter states is absolutely wrongful, and Apple agreed to change it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What!?!
I hate repeating myself from other comments but here:Also the idea that the UK court does not have jurisdiction over a website that Apple profess to ONLY apply to the UK (their UK site) is absolutely wrong on it's face as well.
The UK Judge HAS punished Apple, has enacted equitable judgement (it's called a court of equity for a reason) and WAS absolutely allowed to under UK statute law (especially in relation to Trade Practices - and also under EU law too).
If Apple don't like the order, appeal it... oh wait they did and lost and were ordered to specifically do something, if they want to talk about the other courts, fine, but do it somewhere else on their own site NOT on the order that the court made. Otherwise this is called contempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grade School Antics by Apple
/schadenfreude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As punishment, the judge should let Samsung write Apple's apology, and then force Apple to use that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Want fries with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
11 pixels is smaller than 11 point font.
Has anybody else heard this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BTW: this whole apology remedy thing just screams. "Software patents are fucking bogus!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple got SLAPped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't take credit for guesses
And I keep telling people that a tossed coin will come up heads. And when it comes true (half the time) I don't try to tell people I knew it all along and try to take credit for my brilliant prognostication. It was just a guess, with a 50/50 chance, which is essentially what your post was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't take credit for guesses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not defending Apple, but...
On the other hand, if a judge had ordered us to do it, I'm sure we could forego the production change authorization form and director signatures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> apology, was a non-apology statement.
Apple wasn't ordered to apologize so whether it was or wasn't an apology is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's dead, Jim
Jobs is dead. His reality-distortion field died with him. You can't "carry on" with something that is so endemic to a single individual and try to shift it to a broad corporate policy. It just doesnt work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's dead, Jim
I'm not so sure. I know a lot of Apple fans who could swear they still see five lights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's dead, Jim
since jobs died the fields been on borrowed time, only the profit prophit could keep that sucker running.
jobs was a tool, but I will give him credit for 1 thing, He was an amazing salesman, he could take a turd and find a way to sell it by the millions!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How's it feel Apple ?
I think you got off easy as the Judge should also have Fined you Money which is just what I would of done if possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge Jacob, let me introduce you to Apple
clearly indicates that Judge Jacob has never really met Apple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple deserved to get slapped down by the U.K. courts because they have turned into nothing than a bully, thinking they are entitled to the smartphone market. It's an insult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple: "That will take two weeks..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"good artists copy, great artists steal" was one of his favorite quotes for decades to justify apple stealing ideas from others and then calling it "innovation"
http://youtu.be/CW0DUg63lqU
flat out admits he and his company are thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
easy is it to win over and fool stupid people with marketing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bias
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> order and the original "apology" going up?
Why do people keep acting like the original statement should have been an apology? Apple wasn't ordered to apologize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
14 days to re-write the apology?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 14 days to re-write the apology?
Apple isn't rewriting any such thing. Apple wasn't ordered to apologize and its first statement wasn't an apology, nor was it intended as such, so whatever they're doing, they're not rewriting an apology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 14 days to re-write the apology?
If we use the word "apology" often enough then the Apple apologist (btr1701 - that's you) should suffer a scanners-style head explosion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 14 days to re-write the apology?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just checked the html on the Apple site.
We're required to post this even though the UK clearly doesn't know that we're always right.
Samsung didn't copy Apple's designs. ;) :p
and the judge smells of spam.
No idea why the court thought that might suggest contempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I just checked the html on the Apple site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erm, they brought their 'copy' bullshit before the judge to judge whether they were right, he made his judgement and judged against them.
Simples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]