You can see some more details here, but basically this is a complete u-turn by the Government. Last week they published a report on this (which is still on my reading list) which, from what I gather, said that the experts, the government people, the majority of parents and the public thought this was a bad idea.
The Daily Mail (one of the more disreputable UK newspapers - and that's saying something) didn't like that, so kicked up a big fuss, so Cameron has had to give in, writing them an entire article on this.
Given that this is technically impossible and only the Daily Mail (and Claire Perry MP, the woman being put in charge of this) want this, I don't know whether or not it will actually happen, but it is rather depressing to see the Daily Mail completely running the Government.
Also, this doesn't just apply to pornography, but "sexual messages, violence, gambling, bullying, alcohol/drugs, abuse on social networks, self-harm, anorexia, grooming, radicalisation, suicide"; obviously all things that children shouldn't be able to get any information about... Oh, and according to the results, the second highest category (of those) people said their children had been exposed to online was "other." This is a mess...
Here's another fun set of numbers: of all the groups of respondents to their consultations the following thought (overwhelmingly) that there shouldn't be blocking: parents, businesses, academics, and "others". The only group that didn't were the "voluntary community organisations" (which I think includes religious groups).
I think this was more about pushing PPUk down specifically; our proxy was one of the most high-profile in the UK and was considered "trusted" by many (presumably due to the lack of adverts, trackers etc. - although if we'd had adverts on it we might have been able to afford the case). Plus I think we were also one of the more visible symbols of resistance to their evil schemes.
Of course, in the grand scheme of things it is fairly pointless, and I wonder how much the BPI spent on lawyers - particularly given all their money would otherwise be going to artists etc., and we're the ones supposedly stealing millions from artists...
I am not in a position to say what their instructions to their solicitors were, or what the content of the letter they sent was, only that the Party doesn't have separate legal personality, and cannot give undertakings, which are real things.
[Commenting in an entirely unofficial capacity here. I have very few more details than are public knowledge.]
"Our solicitors then wrote to PPUK’s National Executive seeking legal undertakings that they would remove the proxy. ‘Pirate Party UK’ as an entity cannot give undertakings – it has no form of legal personality and it isn’t incorporated – so the proper legal course is to write to the members of PPUK’s National Executive personally."
This is entirely true.
"The subsequent allegation made by Loz Kaye that BPI has "threatened" him or other party officers with ‘bankruptcy’ is completely untrue. BPI has not threatened Pirate Party UK officers with bankruptcy."
This is open to interpretation. The BPI have accused officers of the Party of acting illegally, and told them they were instructing solicitors to write to them. There is a clear implied threat of litigation there. Litigation in England is very expensive (£100,000+ for a first instance decision), and I imagine that is enough to bankrupt most of the people involved.
"Liversage further said that BPI first tried to resolve the matter amicably for a number of weeks."
My understanding is that they sent an email (which was leaked to the press before the Party had a chance to read it) asking that the proxy be taken down. The Party said no. They then emailed that they were sending in lawyers. Whether that is "trying to resolve the matter amicably for a number of weeks" or not is another arguable point.
My understanding is that FACT Ltd aren't just threatening to sue these people (which is far too expensive anyway) but to set the police on them (as with Vickerman; while it was private, it was still a criminal matter and all the initial arrests/seizures etc. were done by the police).
While I don't have any specific details of what FACT Ltd is saying, this is awfully reminiscent of what ACS:Law and similar law firms were doing a couple of years ago; scaring potential defendants into complying with demands by misrepresenting their legal position, or bullying.
A recent press release from them noted that there is now "no doubt that operating a website that provides access to pirated films and TV programmes will lead to criminal prosecution", which is the sort of argument I imagine they have been making to site operators. What they conveniently forget to mention is that a criminal prosecution (literally bought and paid for by FACT Ltd in some cases) is just the start - so far they have only managed 1 conviction at trial, with one acquittal and several abandoned cases.
The law in this area is far from clear, and that’s unlikely to improve before the Vickerman appeal or, possibly, the Pirate Party case (if those happen).
"Terrorists, rapists and paedophiles" (only 2 of whom are usually criminals, convicted or otherwise) are entitled to exactly the same protection under the law as anyone else, including O'Dwyer.
The difference is that people (including governments) tend to want to do significantly worse things to people in these categories, than to people merely accused of copyright infringement (the exception being the copyright enforcement lobby). As such, they need to rely on that protection to a greater extent, and far more often.
While this is undoubtedly a good thing for Richard O'Dwyer - assuming the US holds its end of the bargain - this is, once again, a very disappointing result for the rest of us. Settling the case (a "small sum" for millions in alleged losses?) means there is nothing stopping the US from starting this whole process up again, tomorrow, with someone else.
Despite a (mostly) positive outcome (for the US, at least), there was no High Court trial, which means no precedent on whether extradition is possible in these sorts of cases, or even on whether or not what O'Dwyer (allegedly or actually) did is criminally illegal. It also means those of us in the UK are still none the wiser as to whether we can legally link to things or stream things without a licence, whether linking sites can be seized/shut down legally, or how broad criminal copyright law actually is.
When 66% of the population admits that they are breaking a certain law then something is wrong.
Except they're not. Only 16% of the population admitted to it - although that's still quite high. That said, this is all self-reporting, and the study also found 44% of people weren't particularly (or at all) confident as to what was legal and what wasn't, so that 16% figure could be way off...
66% of people noted that they had downloaded, streamed or shared infringing content -- with 56% doing so in the last three months.
Not quite right... on page 15 of the report, they note that only 16% of respondents admitted getting stuff illegally (and only 4% entirely illegally). That's the key table for legality (Table 2.1.4a).
The 56%/66% figure comes from Table 2.2.1a on page 11 and covers *all* online consumption of content.
It's also worth noting that no individual category goes over 8% of any illegal activity (and that's music)... so people who pirate one thing doesn't seem to be pirating other types of stuff.
[Disclaimer: I haven't had a chance to read the full report yet - just skimming.]
There's some fun stuff in this story, but I have to be careful so as not to defame Lord McAlpine or his solicitors (who are apparently specialists in physical injury/compensation cases - the pejorative term for whom is "ambulance chasers").
However, this is what I think I can say:
First point. Twitter users had already named him as the suspect before Newsnight aired, which is why it is just about believable that the BBC could be liable (iirc I read something on Reddit about it that afternoon).
Second point. His Lordship has already recovered £185,000 plus costs from the BBC. At least one expert in defamation law reckons that was about double what they owed.
Third point. Under English defamation law, while each "publication" (so each tweet and retweet) counts, and each has its own maximum damage award of £275,000ish, the damages are meant to be compensatory (for his loss in reputation). Given his well-reported denial and the subsequent high-profile apologies, it is hard to imagine what his actual loss is.
Fourth point. Even if his reputation has been damaged (and not just for being brave/naive enough to try to sue 10,000 Twitter users, while not noticing Facebook, Reddit and anywhere else...), he can only recover that much in total, which means any damages award from those 10,000 can take into account the £185,000 he has already received (or the £500,000 he is rumoured to be getting from ITV).
Plus there's a general rule that the courts don't care about trivial/"de minimis" cases. Which is particularly relevant as there is a suggestion that he will be asking these 10,000 for a £5 donation to charity.
Sadly, he may well get that. Not because his case deserves it (which he may or may not), but because the threat of legal action (particularly defamation cases) and the associated massive costs, tend to be enough to scare people into conceding.
The cynic in me wonders if the reason the Republicans seem to be caring about copyright reform is that they're out of power (in terms of being able to pass legislation) for another couple of years, so they can reassure the Hollywood types that there's no risk of them actually following through with this, while trying to win over votes from the anti-SOPA and tech crowd.
Plus it makes the Democrats look out of touch and in Hollywood's pocket.
Well 2013 may go down as the year of the DEA but I would not be surprised if further delays made it slip into early 2014.
Last time I met with Ofcom, the initial obligations code part of the DEA (the letter-writing bit) was scheduled to start in early 2014. However, that is if nothing else goes wrong, and it already looks like they are behind. Plus some of the next stages are going to be quite tricky, and open to legal challenges.
If that does go through on schedule, the earliest that "technical measures" can come in force is 2015, but I find it unlikely that Ofcom will be able to get through the full reporting and consulting process in a year (particularly given that legal challenges are going to be even easier against the technical measures part).
I think the copyright enforcement lobby still want the technical measures stuff to come into force, but the Government doesn't really know what it's doing (plus there's been a reshuffle at DCMS, so no one quite knows what they're doing). At least, that's my impression.
I haven't read this judgment (it doesn't seem to be online yet; despite being handed down on Friday), but this is old news. The Court of Appeal made it clear that blanket Internet bans weren't allowed in these cases back in 2011. The Court has some really lovely things to say (emphasis added):
A blanket prohibition on computer use or internet access is impermissible. It is disproportionate because it restricts the defendant in the use of what is nowadays an essential part of everyday living for a large proportion of the public, as well as a requirement of much employment. Before the creation of the internet, if a defendant kept books of pictures of child pornography it would not have occurred to anyone to ban him from possession of all printed material. The internet is a modern equivalent.
Although the [alternative order] restricting internet use to job search, study, work, lawful recreation and purchases has its attractions, it seems to us on analysis to suffer from the same flaw, albeit less obviously. Even today, the legitimate use of the internet extends beyond these spheres of activity. Such a provision ... would, it seems, prevent a defendant from looking up the weather forecast, from planning a journey by accessing a map, from reading the news, from sending the electricity board his meter reading, from conducting his banking across the web unless paying charges for his account, and indeed from sending or receiving Email via the web, at least unless a strained meaning is given to 'lawful recreation'. The difficulties of defining the limits of that last expression seem to us another reason for avoiding this formulation. More, the speed of expansion of applications of the internet is such that it is simply impossible to predict what developments there will be within the foreseeable lifespan of a great many [Sexual Offences Prevention Orders], which would unexpectedly and unnecessarily, and therefore wrongly, be found to be prohibited.
The case concerned 4 separate appeals of these SOPOs, and the Court struck out all of them (although one due to it being unnecessary as the guy was under imprisonment for public protection), removing any reference to banning or limiting Internet or computer access, instead requiring that they only access the Internet on devices that recorded their history, made that history available to the police on request, and didn't delete it.
Ah, OK. That makes more sense (or rather less sense from his perspective). I could probably work out what odds he should have given (presumably ... his estimate + 1/2 all over two?), but can't be bothered now.
I was bored, so went through the list of senators. Out of 33, they got 2 wrong - one possibly due to underestimating a third party, the other due to inaccurate polls.
In Montana, they gave the Democrat a 34% chance of getting re-elected, putting him 48.4%/49.9% behind. He got 48.46%, but the Libertarian knocked his opponent down to 44.90%. So that may be an oversight (perhaps of the original polls as well, not taking the Libertarian into account.
In North Dakota, they gave the Democrat an 8% chance of winning, with 5% in the polls. Yet she won by 1%. There it seems that the polls were mostly out.
So that's 2/33 wrong, or about 6% error rate. This is one of those interesting situations where the mistake actually helps support the prediction.
Surely it does make sense (for Silver), as Silver is getting the better odds (from my limited understanding of gambling)?
Let's say Silver thinks Obama has a 3/4 chance of winning. Scarborough puts it at 1/2. They both bet $A.
So if Silver is right, he expects to get back 3/4 x $2A = $1.5A.
If Scarborough is right, Silver expects to get back 1/2 x $2A = $A.
Whereas Scarborough expects to get back $0.5A and $A respectively.
However certain Silver is that he is right, he expects to get his money back, or make a profit. Whereas even if Scarborough is right, he still only expects to break even.
So, what does this tell us? The Scarborough doesn't seem to understand probability. Which suggests that Silver's prediction is probably the more reliable.
[Disclaimer: I have no idea who Scarborough is (although I've been there, and apparently there's a fair), what the bet actually was (although I vaguely remember reading something about it late last night), and know very little about gambling.]
Predicting the whether or not it will rain is pretty difficult; lots of factors to consider, complex equations, often a huge mess. So how did people used to predict it? Based on past experience ("it usually rains this time of year"), anecdotal evidence ("someone said it rained nearby yesterday") and a bit of superstition ("the gods say it will rain"). Some of the predictions end up being right, some are wrong. Those who are right enough of the time (or are able to convince people they are) become "wisemen", revered and asked for their opinion increasingly often. But people still end up getting wet (or have to carry an umbrella with them all the time).
Then comes science, statistics and analysis, with a healthy dose of supercomputers. Now you get as much data as you can, use the best models you can, run it all through computer simulations and you end up with a set of probable outcomes; an 80% (+/- 5%) chance of rain tomorrow, and a 60% (+/- 15%) chance of rain next week. At first this new technology is distrusted, but after a few successful predictions (particularly when the "wisemen" get it spectacularly wrong at the same time). Now the "wisemen" are out of a job (or have to move to increasingly gullible groups of people), and bitter about it. But people can judge for themselves whether or not to take their umbrella, and most can stay dry.
Unfortunately, we seem to still be at the narrative-based "wisemen" stage of politics (both forecasting results, and policy-making/voting); where what matters is the story, the emotional appeal, the personality. It would be nice if we could move on to the evidence-/logic-based stage, but while we may get there with forecasting, I have a feeling that evidence-based voting and policy-making is still a long way away...
Re: The judge was right to order Apple to apologize
It is a different thing to file a patent lawsuit, go on a very public rampage, make very loud and repeated public statements to damage a competitor in the market, and then lose.
Technically in the English case Samsung sued Apple, seeking a declaratory judgment that they weren't infringing. This raised problems with whether or not the Court could impose this sort of order, and whether it should.
But yes, the reasoning is more or less the same:
In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing.
As loath as I am to defend Apple, the new site design may not be directly related with the English judgment.
According to this place, the site re-design happened a couple of days after the first Court of Appeal ruling, but before they put the first notice on it - and a couple of days before the latest iProduct was announced. A quick check of some of the other national sites seems to indicate that the same re-sizing is happening on all of them (aside from the raw .com/ version).
The effect of the change seems to be to bury all the general legal blurb and links below the bottom of the screen and, if there isn't room for everything, make sure the main advert takes up as much space as possible. It strikes me as a very "Apple" thing to do anyway (clean / minimalist etc., keeping the workings out of sight).
While the timing is suspicious/convenient, I'm not sure Apple's behaviour is quite as silly as some people are making out.
On the post: David Cameron Plans 'Radical' Child Protection Internet Measures
Re: Re: U-turn forced by the Daily Mail
... and the people (including parents); the majority of whom seem to be against these measures.
On the post: David Cameron Plans 'Radical' Child Protection Internet Measures
U-turn forced by the Daily Mail
The Daily Mail (one of the more disreputable UK newspapers - and that's saying something) didn't like that, so kicked up a big fuss, so Cameron has had to give in, writing them an entire article on this.
Given that this is technically impossible and only the Daily Mail (and Claire Perry MP, the woman being put in charge of this) want this, I don't know whether or not it will actually happen, but it is rather depressing to see the Daily Mail completely running the Government.
Also, this doesn't just apply to pornography, but "sexual messages, violence, gambling, bullying, alcohol/drugs, abuse on social networks, self-harm, anorexia, grooming, radicalisation, suicide"; obviously all things that children shouldn't be able to get any information about... Oh, and according to the results, the second highest category (of those) people said their children had been exposed to online was "other." This is a mess...
Here's another fun set of numbers: of all the groups of respondents to their consultations the following thought (overwhelmingly) that there shouldn't be blocking: parents, businesses, academics, and "others". The only group that didn't were the "voluntary community organisations" (which I think includes religious groups).
On the post: UK Pirate Party Pressured Into Taking Down Proxy... Leading To Other Proxies Opening Up
Of course, in the grand scheme of things it is fairly pointless, and I wonder how much the BPI spent on lawyers - particularly given all their money would otherwise be going to artists etc., and we're the ones supposedly stealing millions from artists...
On the post: BPI Threatens To Sue UK Pirate Party Leaders Personally Due To Internet Proxy
Re: Re:
"This is entirely true."
I am not in a position to say what their instructions to their solicitors were, or what the content of the letter they sent was, only that the Party doesn't have separate legal personality, and cannot give undertakings, which are real things.
On the post: BPI Threatens To Sue UK Pirate Party Leaders Personally Due To Internet Proxy
Re:
"Our solicitors then wrote to PPUK’s National Executive seeking legal undertakings that they would remove the proxy. ‘Pirate Party UK’ as an entity cannot give undertakings – it has no form of legal personality and it isn’t incorporated – so the proper legal course is to write to the members of PPUK’s National Executive personally."
This is entirely true.
"The subsequent allegation made by Loz Kaye that BPI has "threatened" him or other party officers with ‘bankruptcy’ is completely untrue. BPI has not threatened Pirate Party UK officers with bankruptcy."
This is open to interpretation. The BPI have accused officers of the Party of acting illegally, and told them they were instructing solicitors to write to them. There is a clear implied threat of litigation there. Litigation in England is very expensive (£100,000+ for a first instance decision), and I imagine that is enough to bankrupt most of the people involved.
"Liversage further said that BPI first tried to resolve the matter amicably for a number of weeks."
My understanding is that they sent an email (which was leaked to the press before the Party had a chance to read it) asking that the proxy be taken down. The Party said no. They then emailed that they were sending in lawyers. Whether that is "trying to resolve the matter amicably for a number of weeks" or not is another arguable point.
On the post: Anti-Piracy Group Demanding -- And Getting -- Domain Names From Torrent Sites
Possibly misrepresenting the law as well...
While I don't have any specific details of what FACT Ltd is saying, this is awfully reminiscent of what ACS:Law and similar law firms were doing a couple of years ago; scaring potential defendants into complying with demands by misrepresenting their legal position, or bullying.
A recent press release from them noted that there is now "no doubt that operating a website that provides access to pirated films and TV programmes will lead to criminal prosecution", which is the sort of argument I imagine they have been making to site operators. What they conveniently forget to mention is that a criminal prosecution (literally bought and paid for by FACT Ltd in some cases) is just the start - so far they have only managed 1 conviction at trial, with one acquittal and several abandoned cases.
The law in this area is far from clear, and that’s unlikely to improve before the Vickerman appeal or, possibly, the Pirate Party case (if those happen).
On the post: Richard O'Dwyer Cuts Deal To Avoid Extradition To The US
Re:
The difference is that people (including governments) tend to want to do significantly worse things to people in these categories, than to people merely accused of copyright infringement (the exception being the copyright enforcement lobby). As such, they need to rely on that protection to a greater extent, and far more often.
On the post: Richard O'Dwyer Cuts Deal To Avoid Extradition To The US
Good for O'Dwyer, bad for the rest of us
Despite a (mostly) positive outcome (for the US, at least), there was no High Court trial, which means no precedent on whether extradition is possible in these sorts of cases, or even on whether or not what O'Dwyer (allegedly or actually) did is criminally illegal. It also means those of us in the UK are still none the wiser as to whether we can legally link to things or stream things without a licence, whether linking sites can be seized/shut down legally, or how broad criminal copyright law actually is.
On the post: Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It.
Re:
On the post: Dear RIAA: Pirates Buy More. Full Stop. Deal With It.
Minor Correction
The 56%/66% figure comes from Table 2.2.1a on page 11 and covers *all* online consumption of content.
It's also worth noting that no individual category goes over 8% of any illegal activity (and that's music)... so people who pirate one thing doesn't seem to be pirating other types of stuff.
[Disclaimer: I haven't had a chance to read the full report yet - just skimming.]
On the post: Lord McAlpine, Wronged By BBC, Demands 10,000 People On Twitter Pay Up
A few points
However, this is what I think I can say:
First point. Twitter users had already named him as the suspect before Newsnight aired, which is why it is just about believable that the BBC could be liable (iirc I read something on Reddit about it that afternoon).
Second point. His Lordship has already recovered £185,000 plus costs from the BBC. At least one expert in defamation law reckons that was about double what they owed.
Third point. Under English defamation law, while each "publication" (so each tweet and retweet) counts, and each has its own maximum damage award of £275,000ish, the damages are meant to be compensatory (for his loss in reputation). Given his well-reported denial and the subsequent high-profile apologies, it is hard to imagine what his actual loss is.
Fourth point. Even if his reputation has been damaged (and not just for being brave/naive enough to try to sue 10,000 Twitter users, while not noticing Facebook, Reddit and anywhere else...), he can only recover that much in total, which means any damages award from those 10,000 can take into account the £185,000 he has already received (or the £500,000 he is rumoured to be getting from ITV).
Plus there's a general rule that the courts don't care about trivial/"de minimis" cases. Which is particularly relevant as there is a suggestion that he will be asking these 10,000 for a £5 donation to charity.
Sadly, he may well get that. Not because his case deserves it (which he may or may not), but because the threat of legal action (particularly defamation cases) and the associated massive costs, tend to be enough to scare people into conceding.
On the post: New Book Makes The Case For Why Copyright Needs To Be Reformed
Being cynical...
Plus it makes the Democrats look out of touch and in Hollywood's pocket.
On the post: Three Strikes Is Out? UK Judges Rule Internet Ban Is 'Unreasonable', Even For Sex Offenders
Re: D.E.A (D)
If that does go through on schedule, the earliest that "technical measures" can come in force is 2015, but I find it unlikely that Ofcom will be able to get through the full reporting and consulting process in a year (particularly given that legal challenges are going to be even easier against the technical measures part).
I think the copyright enforcement lobby still want the technical measures stuff to come into force, but the Government doesn't really know what it's doing (plus there's been a reshuffle at DCMS, so no one quite knows what they're doing). At least, that's my impression.
On the post: Three Strikes Is Out? UK Judges Rule Internet Ban Is 'Unreasonable', Even For Sex Offenders
Old News
The case concerned 4 separate appeals of these SOPOs, and the Court struck out all of them (although one due to it being unnecessary as the guy was under imprisonment for public protection), removing any reference to banning or limiting Internet or computer access, instead requiring that they only access the Internet on devices that recorded their history, made that history available to the police on request, and didn't delete it.
On the post: Why The Press Is Getting The Wrong Message Out Of The 'Nate Silver Walloped The Pundits' Story
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why The Press Is Getting The Wrong Message Out Of The 'Nate Silver Walloped The Pundits' Story
Re: A perfect Nate Silver example of the 90%
In Montana, they gave the Democrat a 34% chance of getting re-elected, putting him 48.4%/49.9% behind. He got 48.46%, but the Libertarian knocked his opponent down to 44.90%. So that may be an oversight (perhaps of the original polls as well, not taking the Libertarian into account.
In North Dakota, they gave the Democrat an 8% chance of winning, with 5% in the polls. Yet she won by 1%. There it seems that the polls were mostly out.
So that's 2/33 wrong, or about 6% error rate. This is one of those interesting situations where the mistake actually helps support the prediction.
On the post: Why The Press Is Getting The Wrong Message Out Of The 'Nate Silver Walloped The Pundits' Story
Re:
Let's say Silver thinks Obama has a 3/4 chance of winning. Scarborough puts it at 1/2. They both bet $A.
So if Silver is right, he expects to get back 3/4 x $2A = $1.5A.
If Scarborough is right, Silver expects to get back 1/2 x $2A = $A.
Whereas Scarborough expects to get back $0.5A and $A respectively.
However certain Silver is that he is right, he expects to get his money back, or make a profit. Whereas even if Scarborough is right, he still only expects to break even.
So, what does this tell us? The Scarborough doesn't seem to understand probability. Which suggests that Silver's prediction is probably the more reliable.
[Disclaimer: I have no idea who Scarborough is (although I've been there, and apparently there's a fair), what the bet actually was (although I vaguely remember reading something about it late last night), and know very little about gambling.]
On the post: Why The Press Is Getting The Wrong Message Out Of The 'Nate Silver Walloped The Pundits' Story
Like Predicting the Weather
Then comes science, statistics and analysis, with a healthy dose of supercomputers. Now you get as much data as you can, use the best models you can, run it all through computer simulations and you end up with a set of probable outcomes; an 80% (+/- 5%) chance of rain tomorrow, and a 60% (+/- 15%) chance of rain next week. At first this new technology is distrusted, but after a few successful predictions (particularly when the "wisemen" get it spectacularly wrong at the same time). Now the "wisemen" are out of a job (or have to move to increasingly gullible groups of people), and bitter about it. But people can judge for themselves whether or not to take their umbrella, and most can stay dry.
Unfortunately, we seem to still be at the narrative-based "wisemen" stage of politics (both forecasting results, and policy-making/voting); where what matters is the story, the emotional appeal, the personality. It would be nice if we could move on to the evidence-/logic-based stage, but while we may get there with forecasting, I have a feeling that evidence-based voting and policy-making is still a long way away...
On the post: Apple Changes Its UK Samsung 'Apology,' But Makes Sure You Have To Scroll To See It
Re: The judge was right to order Apple to apologize
But yes, the reasoning is more or less the same:
On the post: Apple Changes Its UK Samsung 'Apology,' But Makes Sure You Have To Scroll To See It
Defending Apple...
According to this place, the site re-design happened a couple of days after the first Court of Appeal ruling, but before they put the first notice on it - and a couple of days before the latest iProduct was announced. A quick check of some of the other national sites seems to indicate that the same re-sizing is happening on all of them (aside from the raw .com/ version).
The effect of the change seems to be to bury all the general legal blurb and links below the bottom of the screen and, if there isn't room for everything, make sure the main advert takes up as much space as possible. It strikes me as a very "Apple" thing to do anyway (clean / minimalist etc., keeping the workings out of sight).
While the timing is suspicious/convenient, I'm not sure Apple's behaviour is quite as silly as some people are making out.
Next >>