8 ms·
Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung
- sparkinson 14y agoI think it does everything but apologise.
- dakrisht 14y agoAgreed. Lol. Aren't they [Apple] supposed to prominently display the judge's order on the homepage?!
- joahua 14y agoIt's in the footer… on the homepage, but only scarcely. http://www.apple.com/uk/ http://www.apple.com/uk/
- barbs 14y agoWow. That's pathetic.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoThat's definitely not a 14pt font.
- AUTOMAGIC 14y agoThey do have the link on the homepage.. but I wouldn't call it prominently. :)
- danbee 14y agoFrom the judgement text: "The following notice shall be posted and displayed upon the Defendant's Websites currently at..." Doesn't specifically say homepage. The text is 14px, which arguably isn't 14pt at anything other than 72 dpi.
- bruceboughton 14y agoThe judgement does not mention an apology, only a statement.
- sparkinson 14y agoMust admit I haven't read the judgement. But still, if that is the case, this statement does everything it can to devalue the ruling.
- macmac 14y agoDoes anyone have a link to the actual order? If this is compliant, then the order is a joke.
- shedside 14y agoHere you go: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/samsung-apple.pdf http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment... [Edit: sorry, that's the initial judgement. This, I believe, is the order regarding the apology: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- DougBTX 14y agoIt looks like Schedule 1 is what Samsung requested, ie, " post ... the notice ... on the home pages of its EU websites", but what they were granted is what paragraph 57 says, ie, "I will require the statement to be on the United Kingdom website of Apple corporation". It doesn't explicitly say that the notice should appear on the home page of the Apple UK site, but I guess these legalistic things are quite fuzzy, so who knows what it means.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- macmac 14y agoHere is a link to the Appeals Court decision, which modifies the original order. It only requires a link from the UK homepage (www.apple.com/uk). http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
- duiker101 14y ago"A judge said we must apology because we are cooler and so Samsung didn't copy because they aren't cool. But other judges said that we are cooler and Samsung still copied us! So we must be right!" Sincerely: a 6 year old.
- shanelja 14y agoI couldn't agree more, Apples response here is childish and to be quite frank doesn't do much in the way of apologizing to Samsung. I for one hope that they get found in contempt of court for this, I doubt very much it's what the presiding judge had in mind.
- mtrimpe 14y agoI hope I will be forgiven a me-too comment for once; but this is a really, really childish response. When your big advantage is that you and your products exude class where others don't, gloating about it like a little kid just feels very wrong.
- bruceboughton 14y agoThe people who will read this statement will have already made up their minds. Casual visitors to apple.com/uk are not going to read this.
- amvp 14y agoDidn't the order require the statement to be: 1. Made on the home page itself 2. In a 14pt font which (according to http://www.getallfix.com/2011/11/convert-empxpt-and-in-css/) should be some 19px high. Instead this is a link to the statement (in a div with the class sosume - little gag there) in a 11px font size... not to mention the fact that the additional paragraphs after the statement itself somewhat go against the spirit of the order.
- jofo25 14y agoI thought they were required to in some way make the apology visible on their home page?
- jakobe 14y agoIf you visit Apple's UK website at www.apple.co.uk, there's a link in the footer.
- pluies 14y agoThere is actually a minuscule link to the document at the very bottom of the http://apple.co.uk/ http://apple.co.uk/ homepage, as "Samsung/Apple UK judgement" next to "Privacy Policy" and "Use of Cookies".
- theallan 14y agoIt is on the Apple UK homepage - right at the bottom: http://www.apple.com/uk/ http://www.apple.com/uk/ ("Samsung/Apple UK judgement" link). Wonderfully its in a 'div' with a class 'sosumi'.
- kidsat 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
- tallanvor 14y agoBased on the wording of the order, it would seem that the statement should be on their homepage, not a link to it. Of course, I'm sure Apple's legal counsel has decided their actions are within the scope of the ruling, so we'll have to see if Samsung asks a judge to declare them not in compliance with the order.
- arn 14y agoCourt said However, they added that the move need not "clutter" Apple's homepage as it would only have to add a link entitled "Samsung/Apple judgement" for a one-month period. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- klrr 14y agoApple is a scam. :)
- k-mcgrady 14y agoIs there a reason the OP thinks this is the apology? It isn't named as such, the URL doesn't help, and they don't apologise at all. It's just a summary of their legal battles with Samsung. How has the OP come to the conclusion this is the apology (am I missing something)?
- mrud 14y agohttp://www.apple.com/uk/ http://www.apple.com/uk/ links to it (at the bottom, the link title is Samsung/Apple UK judgement)
- k-mcgrady 14y agoThanks. Still no obvious signal that is meant to be the apology. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the apology but titling it as such on HN when Apple makes no mention of apology seems like link bait.
- epo 14y agoYou are correct, it just the whiny entitletard fandroids who have imagined an apology was forthcoming. They are as wrong about this as they are in their fantasy that Samsung does not steal product designs wholesale from Apple.
- Nursie 14y ago<strike>This does not say 'Samsung do not infringe on our patent', which I had thought it was supposed to. It says 'this judge who think s our stuff is cool also thinks Samsung do not infringe'</strike> Either way the whole thing's ridiculous in the extreme. A flat panel with a screen isn't a novel design whoever made it, the magic is getting all the bits small and low-power and high resolution and bright and powerful enough for it to work. -EDIT- The actual text as specified by the judge forms the first part of the page, the rest is Apple giving it a little PR spin and casting doubt on the whole thing. Using the 1 billion US judgement as an example of how ou've been wronged is a bit of a stretch though, that thing's leakier than a colander.
- smegel 14y agoI don't really get why everyone is so down on Apple on HN (I am a Google/Android user FWIW). Sure they have pursued some questionable patent cases - but it is hard to deny they are one of the pre-eminent creators and makers in the world today - they have been truly innovative and brought massive change to multiple technology streams. They are about as far from being a hoarding patent troll as one could imagine yet that is how they seem to be portrayed in some parts of social media. Even if you strongly disagree with their approach to suing competitors, I would have thought the real innovation and change Apple has brought to the scene would count for something and result in some more balanced coverage. I think some of the specific patent cases Apple is pursuing against Samsung are a bit ridiculous (rounded corners), but I also think when you look at what Samsung has done as a whole, it is pretty clear they were ripping off Apple designs for a while (try and play spot the difference between a Apple 3GS and a Galaxy S1). Maybe Apple had to pursue the more silly specific patent cases because there was no way to patent the overall look-and-feel of a device (no lawyer here). Anyway just my 2c
- zevyoura 14y agoI think in this case, the story is more about Apple's disregard for the spirit of the court order than being down on Apple in general. I'm generally an Apple fan, but this seems kind of petty and oddly antagonistic towards the court.
- bruceboughton 14y agoReally? It seems about in line with what any corporation would write if ordered to give such a statement. It ackowledges the judgement in the UK but also mentions conflicting judgements elsewhere in the world. Seems pretty balanced to me.
- nagrom 14y agoIf they were truly told to write an apology, then people are down on them because this isn't one. You cannot really apologise for anything without using the words 'sorry' or 'apologise'.
- lunchladydoris 14y agoI wonder if the US office had any say in how this is written. As someone who has been a guest in the UK for nearly a decade, to me this reads like someone, as the British say, taking the piss.
- russgray 14y agoAs someone who was born in the UK and has lived here for all of his 35 years, I can confirm that this is someone taking the piss.
- hellweaver666 14y agoFellow Brit, definitely someone taking the piss.
- chris_wot 14y agoAre you sure you aren't taking the piss over someone taking the piss about Apple taking the piss? Sorry, can't help but take the piss about someone taking the piss over someone else taking the piss about Apple taking the piss.
- zeru 14y agoIm pretty sure they will have to post an actual apology which will be compliant with the court order. Because this has less than nothing to do with that. Try again, Apple.
- semibored 14y agoTo: legal@samsung.com Cc: legal@apple.com http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ http://www.webcitation.org/6BhNrGeHJ http://www.webcitation.org/6BhNrGeHJ http://www.apple.com/uk/ http://www.apple.com/uk/ http://www.webcitation.org/6BhO1wX0o http://www.webcitation.org/6BhO1wX0o http://www.apple.com http://www.apple.com http://www.webcitation.org/6BhO36WTz http://www.webcitation.org/6BhO36WTz
- dutchbrit 14y agoNot at all an apology, but I assume you were being sarcastic? :)
- chrisacky 14y agoThis isn't even an apology in the slightest. It's only on the UK site as well. (I've checked .de .com .fr and it's no where to be seen, which makes sense if you are Apple). However, if they are going to display it only in UK, then they should have at least spelt "judgment" correctly. They use "/uk/legal-judgement/" (Over in UK there is only a single "e" not two). Anyway, totally not an apology. It looks more like an accusation and a reassertion how bitter they feel about the verdict, by cherry picking quotes to suite them. ------ (Edit: In the interest of setting the point straight since this is the top comment and it seems to be getting wrongfully upvoted, Apple didn't legally have to "make an apology". They just had to make it clear that Samsung did not infringe Apples registered design [1]. However, I do think that in spite of quoting the judgment extract verbatim, they still fall short of this requirement, since they continue for 3 more paragraph drilling out other points that supported Apple). [1] : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html#para87 Sincerity at it's most "righteous": So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
- arctangent 14y agoActually, "judgment" is the correct spelling in this context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_(law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_(law)
- Vivtek 14y agoThat's what he said - albeit a little unclearly.
- coob 14y agoIs a forced apology ever really an apology? I don't see the point in forcing it. Edit: Apparently apple were never ordered to make an 'apology'. They were ordered to make a 'publicity order'. They used the EXACT wording[1] as ordered by the court, as well as quotes from a judge in the matter. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html#para87 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html#para8...
- zerostar07 14y agoApology or not, the fact that we 've come to judge technology products by whether they're cool or not is sad.
- nicholassmith 14y agoThis is pretty much what I expected they'd do, but with the over obvious humour turned down and the sarcasm turned up to 11. It's definitely not an apology, and they did cherry pick the judges quotes very nicely. Did anyone seriously expect Apple to be contrite?
- Tinned_Tuna 14y agoWell. That left a bad taste in my mouth. It was low and base, sounded like Apple clutching at strings -- trying to make the convince the public through almost-smear tactics.
- jrmg 14y agoThe statement is - down to the word and link placement - as specified in the appeal ruling (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html, paragraphs 84-87). Apple has added its own extra paragraphs though, which do change the tone.