Judge Slaps Down Apple For Its Bogus Non-Apology Apology

from the try-again dept

Thu, Nov 1st 2012 10:51am — Mike Masnick

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.

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".

The full quote from the judge was, apparently:

“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

Filed Under: apology, uk
Companies: apple, samsung

79 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 10:44am

Apparently, the London appeals courts have some sort of antidote to the standard Apple reality distortion field.

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 thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 10:52am

What!?!
You mean "I'm sorry you feel that way" isn't an apology??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scote, 1 Nov 2012 @ 10:57am

Grade School Antics by Apple
It seems that as a corporation Apple hasn't graduated from grade school and thought the teacher wouldn't notice if it sassed back with its plainly contemptuous implementation of the court's order. Nice to see Apple get some comeuppance for their clear disregard.

/schadenfreude
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:05am

Hilarious. That's what Apple gets for listening to the online trolls that suggested they should do this.

As punishment, the judge should let Samsung write Apple's apology, and then force Apple to use that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:10am

Re: What!?!
The judge didn't order an apology. He 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.

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 thread ]
Forest_GS (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:15am

I can change a line of text on a website in less than a minute. That includes logging onto the FTP server and navigating to the file to edit. Ctrl+F, *type type type*, done.

Want fries with that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:15am

They should have specified which font type too. He should have said 32 point times new roman font.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Brand (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:21am

Re:
According to Groklaw, the judge specified "not less than 11-point font.".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:22am

Re: Re: What!?!
> The judge didn't order an apology. He
> 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 thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:26am

They also have to keep the revised apology up until Dec 14th. This means that Apple are advertising a competitor's products in the Christmas shopping period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:27am

Oops
Any takers for Apple having Streisanded itself here? By not posting the clarification properly first time round, they have inevitably brought more attention to the matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:27am

Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Except what Apple ended up saying was "The UK court says they didn't copy, but they totally did, and these other courts agree with us."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JWW (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:34am

Re:
Yeah, the could put the new apology up there in 11 point using Symbol font.

BTW: this whole apology remedy thing just screams. "Software patents are fucking bogus!!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kenichi tanaka, 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:38am

I told everyone, a few weeks ago, when Apple issued the statement they did, that the courts in the U.K. would slap Apple down and hold them in contempt. Apple made a big mistake if they thought they could pull the wool over the U.K.'s eyes.

Apple got SLAPped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scote, 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:45am

Don't take credit for guesses
"I told everyone, a few weeks ago, when Apple issued the statement they did, that the courts in the U.K. would slap Apple down and hold them in contempt."

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 thread ]
Release Manager, 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:49am

Not defending Apple, but...
If we wanted to get something out on our corporate home page (outside of a rotating content portal), 2 weeks is about right. To do it in 48 hours you'd have to break many internal rules about production content changes. You need a copywriter, a developer, an operations systems administrator, and a legal review.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:49am

Re: Re: Re: What!?!
I think you misunderstood me. The judge could have ordered Apple's corporate charter to be suspended in the UK for all I care.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:53am

Re: Don't take credit for guesses
The lottery is 50/50! You either win or you lose!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kenichi tanaka, 1 Nov 2012 @ 11:57am

No it wasn't. Apple's statement, their version of an apology, was a non-apology statement. Apple got slapped down for that. And it's about damned time. They're the worst Patent Troll ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 12:02pm

Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Exactly, the issue here isn't a really a legal one anymore, the issue here is that Apple has now pissed off a judge. I get the feeling the appeals courts judges think Apple's appeal was frivolous and are punishing them for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 1 Nov 2012 @ 12:10pm

He's dead, Jim
"Apparently, the London appeals courts have some sort of antidote to the standard Apple reality distortion field."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 12:19pm

Re:
Apple probably realizes if they do this, Samsung can then use Apple's own words against them in their appeal in the US case.

Samsung: see judge, even Apple says we didn't infringe!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 12:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Whatever Apple says can be used against it in a court of law. It's for sure a legal issue. The judge is trying to impose his ruling on the US case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 12:28pm

Ha Ha Ha Apple.You are a bully and you are a Patent Troll.And now you can get some of your own Medicine.
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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 12:52pm

Judge Jacob, let me introduce you to Apple
I figured a formal introduction was in order, since this quote

�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.�

clearly indicates that Judge Jacob has never really met Apple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kenichi tanaka, 1 Nov 2012 @ 12:58pm

Apple is the biggest Patent Troll on the face of the planet. Anybody who supports Apple in this fight is in favor of Patent Lawsuits and even more stronger Patent Laws.

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 thread ]
Dave Xanatos, 1 Nov 2012 @ 1:06pm

Re: He's dead, Jim
You can't "carry on" with something that is so endemic to a single individual

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 1:11pm

Judge: �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."

Apple: "That will take two weeks..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dirkmaster (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re:
but he didn't say which font. How much trouble do you think they'd get into if they used 11-point Dingbat?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 1:22pm

had the ruling gone the other way and Samsung had have written in the same way as Apple did, Cook and co would have gone ape shit! what Apple wrote was done purposefully to portray Samsung as the twats and Apple as the winner, even though they lost. what should be happening is Apple stopping all this law-suit crap and competing. if people like their products better, they will buy. if something else is preferred, people will buy that. trying to win more purchases by getting other competing products banned in certain countries shows me that Apple know there are products out there that are just as good, if not better (or their products are not as good as made out) and people want to be able to choose
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DCL, 1 Nov 2012 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re:
I heard (didn't confirm) that they used 11px font on the webpage.

11 pixels is smaller than 11 point font.

Has anybody else heard this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Graham J (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 2:00pm

Re:
They're not trying to "win more purchases" they're simply pointing out that Samsung ripped them off. And it's working.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kenichi tanaka, 1 Nov 2012 @ 2:29pm

Apple simply has become too much of a lawsuit bully or a thug.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 2:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> "The UK court says they didn't copy,
> 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 thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 2:35pm

Re:
> Apple's statement, their version of an
> 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 thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 2:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
And that's basically spitting in the face of the judge.

"But mommy (other courts) said that they were bad, daddy (UK court."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 3:05pm

We're studying this case at uni at the moment in our marketing course. He uses the Apple lie as an example of how
easy is it to win over and fool stupid people with marketing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 3:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> And that's basically spitting in
> 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 thread ]
JohnParry, 1 Nov 2012 @ 3:33pm

Bias
Author, your anti-Apple bias show up prominently in your article. Journalism 101: FAIL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 3:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
I realize that the UK has different notions of free speech than the US

US judges can and do issue rulings like this too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 3:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
How so? The judge issued a ruling on a UK case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 3:51pm

Re: Re:
Except that it's far from clear that Samsung ripped them off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 4:02pm

Does anyone know how long it took between court order and the original "apology" going up? It would be interesting indeed if that took less than two weeks...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2012 @ 4:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Except...in the US case, the Jury ruled that the Samsung Galaxy tab didn't infringe on Apple's design.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lucidrenegade (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 5:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Now we have Apple shills trolling here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lucidrenegade (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 5:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lucidrenegade (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 5:54pm

Re: Bias
Yeah, Mike hates Big Fruit. Must be his love of Big Search.

/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony, 1 Nov 2012 @ 7:18pm

14 days to re-write the apology?
In school, our English professor would assign a 1,000 word surprise essay at the start of our 50 minute class. We had 20 minutes for the rough draft, 20 minutes to polish it and it was to be turned in at the end of our 50 minute class. Apple saying it needs 14 days to rewrite it, is just playing around with the system more than they already have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 8:54pm

Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Absolutely wrong.

I hate repeating myself from other comments but here:

The actual statement from the Judge is found in the Judgement :
[87.] Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 judgement of the High court is available on the following link [link given].

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on �.. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link [�]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
[88.] In the result I would dismiss both appeals but vary the publicity order as indicated or in such other way as may be agreed or settled by further argument. I would hope that any such argument (and any other consequential) arguments can be resolved by written submissions.
Nowhere in those paragraphs were the rest of the petulant paragraphs that Apple included, nowhere was there the possibility of them being expanded upon by inserting paragraphs between them.

The only thing mentioned is that the publicity order may be varied "in such other way as may be agreed or settled by further argument". Guess what? No other agreement or settlement was undertaken nor approved by any parties (well other than Apple itself it seems) so therefore the publicity order they have published is contemptuous.

I also notice the link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." (found at 85) has NOT been changed further showing that Apple has acted with contemptuous intent on the publicity order
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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 8:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
No the Judge is imposing his ruling specifically on the issue before the court that Apple ITSELF appealed on within the UK.

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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 9:01pm

Re: Bias
Here have a banana
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 9:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
This is absolutely NOT about free speech, it's about misrepresentation, contempt of a legal court order, and absolute hypocrisy on Apple's behalf (might want to read the original Appeal Judgement about what Apple tried to do in Germany with the original UK order.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 10:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> US judges can and do issue rulings like this too.

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 thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 10:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> This is absolutely NOT about free speech, it's about misrepresentation

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 thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 10:19pm

Re:
> Does anyone know how long it took between court
> 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 thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 10:22pm

Re: 14 days to re-write the apology?
> 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 thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 1 Nov 2012 @ 10:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> Now we have Apple shills trolling here?

How does what I wrote make me either a shill or a troll? Please be specific.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2012 @ 12:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Ok, lets clear some things up.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2012 @ 3:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Maybe you should do some basic research on British law, and the powers that judges have in the UK before defending Apple's actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
halfway, 2 Nov 2012 @ 3:46am

Re: Re: 14 days to re-write the apology?
This is getting fun!

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 thread ]
Niall (profile), 2 Nov 2012 @ 4:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
I read the original 'link' on Apple's UK website and I must say, it really seemed to go against the spirit, if not only the letter of the order against them. It was basically "We've been told to say this but other courts say in our favour so yah boo sucks!"

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 thread ]
Donglebert the Needlessly Obtuse, 2 Nov 2012 @ 4:16am

I just checked the html on the Apple site.
UK court ignores everyone else

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 thread ]
Donglebert the Needlessly Obtuse, 2 Nov 2012 @ 4:17am

Re: I just checked the html on the Apple site.
bollocks - it stripped out the < sarcastic > tagging.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luke, 2 Nov 2012 @ 4:58am

Re: Re: Re: 14 days to re-write the apology?
apology
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TFP, 2 Nov 2012 @ 5:33am

'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?'

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 thread ]
DannyB (profile), 2 Nov 2012 @ 6:06am

Maybe Tim Cook could file an affidavit
Maybe Tim Cook could swear in an affidavit to the court that the strength of Apple's (patented) Reality Distortion� field makes it impossible to place a proper apology notice onto Apple's website without the field lines reshaping it into a snarky marketing non-apology

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 2 Nov 2012 @ 11:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
The UK judge did not make such an order either, so I'm still not sure of your point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Nov 2012 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> The UK judge did
> 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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 2 Nov 2012 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Even though this judge has his robes in a bunch over Apple's failure to act properly chastened by him,

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 2 Nov 2012 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re:
True. Apple was ordered to correct the lies they had been putting before the general public. Their statement failed to do that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Nov 2012 @ 12:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> It was basically "We've
> 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 thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Nov 2012 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
> The UK ruling stands and Apple was
> 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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 2 Nov 2012 @ 12:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Of course, because Apple failed to do what the order intended: to correct a lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 2 Nov 2012 @ 12:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Of course, because Apple failed to do what the order intended: to correct a lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 2 Nov 2012 @ 1:36pm

Re: Re: Re: What!?!
This is total rubbish. it's just Apple throwing the toys out of the buggy in a temper tantrum because they didn't get their own way and have been gently mocked by the courts for bringing this time-wasting case in the first place. The sooner they are put in their place, the better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AzureSky (profile), 2 Nov 2012 @ 4:36pm

Re: He's dead, Jim
I think the reality is, jobs RDF is running out of power trying to make the ipad3/ipad mini sell....as well as some of their other massively overpriced "form over function" products.

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 thread ]
AzureSky (profile), 2 Nov 2012 @ 4:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
anybody who talks like that idiot clearly dosnt know the history of apple or even know that jobs himself BRAGGED about stealing ideas....

"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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 4 Nov 2012 @ 10:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
Apple didn't even adhere to the letter of the order since the order was to specifically state two paragraphs with nowhere in that order the possibility of adding, changing, or anything else to the "written statement' the court wrote other than by agreement with opposing counsel and the court.

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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 4 Nov 2012 @ 11:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!
It's a misrepresentation based on the order they were given. Nowhere was the ability to add/change the statement the court ordered. Therefore they have misrepresented the order to the public at large.

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 thread ]