14 ms·

Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

308 points by cskau 14y ago

benologist 14y ago
AOL "journalist" told to reword "The Guardian's article": http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsu...
- polshaw 14y ago
  To be fair i don't think they ever claim to be journalists-- the source link is always in their posts. If there is any wrong doing, it is the people who post links to one aggregator (like engadget) on another (like HN). I guess in the HN case it is likely because of the url dupe filter.
  - benologist 14y ago
    Aggregators don't replace the original source they point you to it. Engadget (and similar sites) are just parasites that extract every ounce of value from someone else's work, stuff it full of SEO spam and hope they do it fast enough to usurp the traffic too. I do agree that they shouldn't be submitted though!
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    They tend to claim to be journalists the minute they want the protections that go with it.
coob 14y ago
How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.
- Jabbles 14y ago
  "The following is not true:<exact wording in the judgment>" Context counts for a lot.
- Hontano 14y ago
  Beats me. Apple complied with a sloppy judgment. I'm no great fan of Apple in this, but the appeal judges fucked up by not clearly specifying what Apple needed to do and could not do.
  - macmac 14y ago
    It is only sloppy if you are ignorant of / choose to ignore the law that applies to it.
  - makomk 14y ago
    The courts don't work like this, largely because it's a waste of the court's time to figure out every single way some slimy bastard could try and weasel out of their rulings. This is pretty clear-cut too - the court ordered Apple to post a notice saying that Samsung's products had been found not to infringe, and Apple decided to instead post one that argued the court had got it wrong and Samsung were a bunch of evil copycats, which also misrepresented court rulings in other juristictions to make them seem more favourable to Apple in the process.
    - Hontano 14y ago
      The judgement specified where, when, and how to publish the notice down to which website and publications, the typeface, and point size. It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication. Apple complied with the letter of the judgment and arguably the spirit of the judgment which was "not designed to punish" but rather "to dispel commercial uncertainty". It clearly states that Samsung's products were found not to infringe in England and Wales. Unambiguously. Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way? Going on to provide nuance by quoting the original judge and including rulings from other jurisdictions doesn't negate that. Apple have been foolish in getting the court's dander up, but they're not wrong.
bitdiffusion 14y ago
This attempt at being "clever" has definitely backfired on apple. If they had just done what was asked the first time, that would have been the end of it. Now it has to be dredged up and people will be reminded (again) that they lost the case. I find it hard to believe that their lawyers advised them that they would get away with something like this.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  They're also in the situation where had they got on with it it would have been done and dusted by mid November. Instead they're going to have it on their home page for most of the Christmas shopping period.
- antidoh 14y ago
  I'd never heard of this until this. It only confirms my casual (don't own anything Apple) view of Apple as a corporate two year old that makes great products (I've heard), all the while employing armies of lawyers to shout "No fair! No fair!" Best if they'd just relax back into the big chair and be the adult.
levesque 14y ago
This is silly.
StavrosK 14y ago
Here's the original page: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ It's basically "The UK court found Samsung non infringing, but said our products are great, and other courts found them infringing.". Far from an apology.
- imglorp 14y ago
  Mom told me I had to say I was sorry, but you deserved it anyway.
  - dsirijus 14y ago
    This. This is exactly what happened here.
- dan1234 14y ago
  No court judgment ever said it had to be an apology. It was supposed to "to dispel commercial uncertainty". Looks as if Apple have exploited a loophole by adding to the judgment instead of simply posting it.
  - eli 14y ago
    Well the judge who issued the order seems to feel pretty strongly that they did not comply.
    - dan1234 14y ago
      The judge could be taking quite a bit of heat from Samsung… Surely Apple's lawyer division (and it must be a division by now) went through that judgment with a fine tooth comb before posting the statement. I wonder if the judge could have added a clause requiring Apple to submit the statement to him for review first.
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    Embrace, extend, extinguish?
  - 14y ago
metatronscube 14y ago
The UK legal system is a complete joke. Apple should consider using its considerable resources to take legal action with this demand and simply post " X is not as cool as Y" and leave it at that. I can not fathom why this has been pulled up, and would challenge the appeals court to explain why the original passage is non-compliant and if they cant give a reasonable answer I would be meeting them in court.
- blibble 14y ago
  fighting an institution that makes the law probably isn't the best of ideas
  - BCM43 14y ago
    They're not (they're fighting the institution charged with penalizing), and it happens all the time.
    - pyre 14y ago
      The parent was seemingly promoting the idea of Apple personally suing the judge because they don't like his ruling. If this was possible most legal systems would crumble.
- michaelhoffman 14y ago
  Apple already is meeting them in court. Apple lost.
- vidarh 14y ago
  In this case the UK legal system is pretty much exactly like any other civilized legal system. The judge in this case is the court, and when he says the original passage doesn't comply with his order, by definition it does not comply with his order. If they choose to continue to fail to comply with this order, the people responsible finds themselves at risk of being found in contempt of court and jailed.
  - 14y ago
chrisacky 14y ago
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".[1] Clearly the judge hasn't ever submitted an iOS app for review? And to people who don't understand why Apple are held to be in "non-compliance" despite copying verbatim the extract from the judgment: it was because of how "snarky" Apple were. - Saying their device is much more popular. - Signing off by disregarding the purpose of the statement: "Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad." - Saying that Samsung's device is "not as cool". - Not using the correct font size. (Although, I don't care about this point) - Dedicating 80%~ of the statement to supporting their claims in other jurisdictions... and brushing past the verbatim copied statement. Apple were ordered to factually represent the judgment in a statement issued on their website. They cherry picked quotes, out of context and attempted to create confusion in any readers, with the intention of misleading them as to the judges present ruling. [1] : http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement
- greyboy 14y ago
  That caught my eye as an excuse of the super enterprise-y. I don't recall the page they put up after Steve Jobs passed away taking quite near that long.
  - myko 14y ago
    To be fair the Steve Jobs memorial was probably designed and created well in advance of his passing. But yeah this is some Grade-A bullshit. Either that or Apple is worse at the web than I thought (which is pretty bad considering iTunes Connect).
  - deong 14y ago
    Well, they are the only retailer I can think of that has to take their entire site down for several hours to add a new sku.
    - greyboy 14y ago
      That's true. I guess the ridiculousness of this excuse is that the page already exists and would simply (I would think) be a matter of changing the page text. I wouldn't think this would require intensive site-wide testing, but I've been wrong on these thigns before.
macmac 14y ago
“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.”
bstar77 14y ago
Did the court seriously think ANY COMPANY would have reacted differently than Apple did? This is a childish and completely unproductive order. Fine Apple and be over with it if you think they did something wrong.
- adaml_623 14y ago
  So you think a monetary fine is appropriate punishment for any type of corporate misbehaviour? EDIT: The court case counted as negative publicity for Samsung and I don't think the court thought that a fine would counteract that publicity.
  - bstar77 14y ago
    For the issue of patent wrangling, which is very much a gray area, yes, I do think monetary fines are the most appropriate. The court cannot make Apple be sincere in an apology if Apple believes they are in the right. Just the same way Sally's Mother cannot make little Jimmy sincerely apologize for tattling on her daughter when she copied his homework, especially after the teacher already praised him for bringing it to her attention.
    - nagrom 14y ago
      As others have noted: it is difficult to counteract the effect of negative publicity brought against Samsung by Apple's accusations. Having Apple publicly retract those accusations is the court's way of trying to mitigate that. Your analogy is deeply flawed. Apple had a choice as to whether to bring this matter before the courts and UK judge has no vested interest in protecting Samsung. There is no 'teacher' figure in this case; no more objective person involved in the case than the UK judge. If Apple had no respect for the court's opinion, they should not have brought the lawsuit. In bringing the suit against Samsung into that court, they have effectively asked the court to pass judgement and agreed to respect and abide by the decision. The entire problem is that whoever is in charge at Apple believes they are in the right and that the court is wrong; the statement shows a lack of respect for the court and therefore is, in a way, a challenge to the court's authority. This is the judge's way of reminding them that they should respect the verdict and comply with it. The only resolutions to this are Apple complies fully, or stops operating in the UK. The UK court system woud much rather get rid of Apple from the UK than allow a challenge to their authority to stand, and Apple would rather continue to operate in the UK than flounce out over a matter like this and lose the UK (and potentially the EU) market. Apple should have folded before, and should definitely fold now. The longer this silly game goes on, the more they have to lose.
napierzaza 14y ago
This is the most annoying thing ever. So they get to write their own apology without a oversight but what they put up can be appealed against? It's usually not worthwhile to watch these sorts of legal wranglings. Just a bunch of lawyers going back and forth
duiker101 14y ago
Act like a 6 year old and you will be treated like one from someone with a little brain. Don't take the judge for a stupid. You'll regret it.
masnick 14y ago
Here's what Apple wrote -- somehow I'm guessing this isn't what the court had in mind. From http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/: Samsung / Apple UK judgment On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, 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 judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html. In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products: "The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design." "The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool." That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe. However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. 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.
- michaelfeathers 14y ago
  They presented the facts and they should be allowed to mention that other jurisdictions have other views of the matter. Does anyone think that they shouldn't be able to?
nagrom 14y ago
A lot of the posts that are saying something like "The judge didn't say that they couldn't do it like this!" are deliberately missing the point. In the UK, you are expected to comply with the spirit of such a court order, not just the letter of it. Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens. It's entirely possible to be punished for contempt of court to a much greater extent than the lesser offence. Deliberately choosing to behave in a childish manner and annoy a judge is a dangerous game to play and can be self-defeating. Apple's lawyers should have known this and should have advised them against it. It would have cost them nothing to comply with the ruling properly in the first place; they are now cutting their nose off to spite their face.
- belorn 14y ago
  Annoying a judge is a really bad idea. The court system is normally quite free from corruption, but all that goes out off the window when it become personal and political. See the pirate bay court case, or just any of the police brutality cases. If Apple is going all out with lawyers and legal prowness, instead of competiting with products, they need to get better at it.
  - thomseddon 14y ago
    Is this specifically in reference to the UK legal system or just a blanket statement about practice around the world? If it is the former, I really must disagree with the notion that the legal system in the UK is in any way corrupt. Quite far from it, I think it is one of the things that we can be most proud of. If it is the latter, may I suggest you either be more specific or more correct.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      How often does something like the recent extradition of the operator of a site the UK deemed not worth prosecuting happen?
      - bigfudge2 14y ago
denzil_correa 14y ago
Judge Robin Jacob's comments on On Apple's legal notice posted “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.” On Technical Difficulties to take 14 days to change the notice “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” their website, Jacob said. “I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-ch...
- ashray 14y ago
  I'm really impressed that he asked for an affidavit from the head of apple. That would've really put apple in deep trouble had they gone that route. Good job on calling their bluff on the 'it will take us 14 days to update the site'. =/ Apple just seems so slimy these days. I absolutely love many of their products but lately they seem quite meh.
  - smackfu 14y ago
    Yeah, there's a world of difference between "we would like 14 days to update it" and "we need 14 days to update it".
    - bitcartel 14y ago
      If what Apple claims is true, that it takes 14 days to update a few sentences on its website, how long to fix Maps?!
kybernetikos 14y ago
Did you notice that the css class that controls the link size on the uk home page is called 'sosumi'?
- thisone 14y ago
  That's normal for apple's legalish sections on the web and dates back to their fight with the Beatles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
- meaty 14y ago
  Well spotted. Someone needs to draw attention to that.
  - codeulike 14y ago
    Although its applied to all the links in the footer, not just that one. Still, interesting.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 14y ago
Apple needs to be a bit careful. Patent claims are civil, and have fines or other gentle punishments attached. Contempt of court is criminal, and people do get sent to jail for it.
ortusdux 14y ago
My first thought when I read the Samsung letter: http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sneaky-restaurant-fail.jpg http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sneaky-restauran...
js2 14y ago
The engadget link adds nothing to the original reporting - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsu...
clarky07 14y ago
This seems like BS to me. They put the judgement on their site, and then they put other things on THEIR site. As long as the put the piece they wanted them to put, they should be able to do anything else they want. If they think the statements made make for good marketing pieces, why shouldn't they be able to put them on their website. All this is besides the point that the UK is in the minority in their ruling, and the US case did a pretty good job of showing that Samsung did in fact copy Apple, and said so many times in internal communications.
- smackfu 14y ago
  The goal of the publicity order was to "dispel commercial uncertainty," not as punishment. If Apple publishes the required statement, but obscures it in a way that it doesn't meet the original goals, should the court really stand idly by?
michaelfeathers 14y ago
The article said that the judge ordered Apple to say that "Samsung did not copy their design." Apple, essentially, said that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy its design. That is factually correct. I don't see how anyone can be compelled to make the former statement rather than the latter one.
- ksec 14y ago
  Exactly.
- deong 14y ago
  Isn't that the whole purpose of a court system? If you insist on calling OJ Simpson a murderer who got away with it, he can sue you for libel. He is, as a point of fact, not legally a murderer, and you would be lying to defame him. Legal truth isn't some abstract concept. It is defined by the court's opinion. The factual statement in UK law is now "Samsung did not copy their design." End of story. You don't get to flout a court ruling by continuing to behave the same way, only with a disclaimer that says, "Well, the judge said we're wrong, but screw him."
- codeulike 14y ago
  They added 4 paragraphs to the 2 paragraphs that they were asked to publish. See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html point 87
michaelfeathers 14y ago
Do US Courts ever make judgements like this? It's akin to compelling speech.
- ksec 14y ago
  Exactly. Again i have difficulty understanding the notion behind it. You can rule, and fine, or what ever you want. But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in.
  - codeulike 14y ago
    They weren't asked to apologise or say they believed anything. They were asked to publish a certain statement, giving the facts of the outcome of the case. Along the lines of "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that ....". So they were asked to publish a statement of fact on their own site and in several newspapers. But they added extra stuff to the end, thus changing the tone and context. I'm trying to find out what they were originally asked to print so we can compare to what they actually did. edit: Point 87 of the judgement here says what they were supposed to publish: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html "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 judgment 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."
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    > But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in. This is not an apology. It's a publication of the facts, as determined by a court of law. In the US, slander and libel are both illegal, as is defamation, etc. Part of the judicial process is to determine the facts of the case. After the facts are determined and the defendant is acquitted, the plaintiff can't keep publicly affirming the defendant's guilt without risking consequences. This is completely precedented. Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them. In this case, Apple acted as if they had already won by prematurely advertising a victory ('Samsung copied us!'), so they're being required to retract that. (Typical disclaimers of UK vs US law and IANAL apply, though my point is that this would not be unusual or unreasonable if it had happened in the US).
drizzo4shizzo 14y ago
They'll probably put Ironic Hipster quotes around "copy"
pfortuny 14y ago
To those saying that Apple "complied"... Do you think Apple would have complied if the text were in #FEFEFE over #FFFFFF in a page including, say "buy iPhone and be happy!" in clear #000000 and a Photo of Steve? It would be literally complying: The text would be there to be read, anyway.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mokash 14y ago
I saw this coming. Their 'apology' was just another thinly veiled stab at Samsung. They're simply coming off as childish and immature now. They're not exactly getting into the good-books of that judge which would have worked in their favour if they ever encountered him again which judging by their history and mantra of 'sue everything' is highly likely.
spullara 14y ago
Kind of ridiculous. Samsung obviously did copy, the court just ruled that it didn't merit an infringement ruling. I mean, does anyone think, really, that Samsung didn't set out to copy all of Apple's products? Wouldn't it be better for all (except Apple) if it was spelled out that Samsung copied them but it is ok?
- YokoZar 14y ago
  Not even the American jury thought that Samsung violated Apple's patent on the product in question.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
codeulike 14y ago
Its important to understand that they weren't asked to publish an 'apology' or state any beliefs. They were asked to publish a specifically worded statement of fact about the outcome of the case. What they were asked to publish is roughly the first and fifth paragraphs of what they actually published. They added four other paragraphs. Points 87 and 88 of the appeal judgement here say what they should have published: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html Which is: 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 judgment 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 (date). A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link [link given]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe. Contrast with what they actually published: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/
jusben1369 14y ago
People. Top post? For hours? 165 comments and counting? For a legal spat in the UK? For every post that claims the top spot there's one that fails to get noticed. These articles are our "Brad and Angelina" equivalents.
- moron 14y ago
  It's amazing how flabbergasted people are acting at the statement Apple wrote. Jeez, is your mother the judge or something?! They got clever and got rapped on the knuckles for it. Let's move on.
grellas 14y ago
In July, 2012, Samsung had won a judgment in the UK to the effect that its Galaxy Tab computers did not infringe Apple's registered design. In spite of this, Apple continued to assert, broadly and widely, that Samsung's tablet computers did in fact constitute blatant copying of Apple's design and was therefore wrongful. Therefore, Samsung went to the court trying to get an injunction barring Apple from making such claims because the claims were causing commercial harm to Samsung within the UK and thereby were negating the effect of the judgment won by Samsung. Alternatively, Samsung sought a publication order requiring Apple to publicize the fact of the judgment on a long list of Apple websites as well as in certain financial publications. The idea of this order was to clear the confusion created by Apple's continued claims of illegal copying notwithstanding that it had lost on this issue in the UK courts. The judge hearing the follow-up proceeding issued a very thoughtful ruling (found here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html) that in fact denied Samsung's request for an injunction against Apple's being able to claim illegal copying. The judge acknowledged the inherent unfairness of barring a party that had lost in a court proceeding from contesting the ruling and from publicly claiming that the ruling was wrong. It thus agreed with Apple that Apple should not be muzzled in asserting its legal right to speak. The judge then turned to the more limited request made by Samsung for the publication order and described it as follows: "Samsung say that, notwithstanding the fact that Apple have lost this case, they continue to assert that Samsung infringes and that the damage that was caused and has been described there continues to apply. Accordingly, Samsung seek orders that I should require Apple to put on their websites and to put in certain newspapers references to this judgment and a statement that the court has found that the Samsung Galaxy tablets do not infringe." The judge went on to say that he believed "there is a useful purpose in a clear public statement that a product alleged by a rights holder to infringe those rights does not infringe," reasoning that "[t]he more frequently and the more loudly a rights holder has asserted infringement, the more useful it is to have a clear public statement to the contrary." So, the whole point of the order was to ensure that Apple made a clear public statement to the effect that a UK court had ruled that the Galaxy Tab did not infringe Apple's registered design. Nothing in the order prevented Apple from continuing to assert that it was right and that the UK decision was wrong. Apple had full scope to make these assertions as and when it wanted and has obviously been making them freely. At the same time, Apple was required to make the clear public statement called for by the follow-on order. Apple appealed this follow-on order and lost. It therefore had exhausted its remedies within the relevant court system and was left with the requirement that it comply. That is when it purportedly complied by placing a teeny link buried at the bottom of its UK home page that linked to a text that, within the disclosure itself, bombarded the reader with all the reasons why Samsung really did infringe notwithstanding the UK judgment that had been rendered against Apple. A few thoughts: 1. This conduct by Apple did not merely violate the "spirit" of the order. It clearly violated the order itself. Where Apple had been ordered to make a clear public statement publicizing the fact of the UK judgment, Apple had in fact offered up an obscure link to a statement full of argumentative statements aimed at creating obvious doubt about the question of non-infringement. 2. Apple did this in a context where the order had given it free scope to argue all it liked about its free speech rights to contest the original judgment and to continue claiming infringement on grounds that it disagreed with that judgment. Instead of accepting the order on its terms, Apple went way out of its way to undercut the limited disclosure that it had been required to make. 3. Lawyers say, "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered," meaning that when a litigant gets too greedy, it risks having its legal proceeding go badly wrong. Apple had been given a reasonable accommodation by the court addressing its legitimate concerns but it was not content to settle for that. It wanted to do nothing that might acknowledge that Samsung had legitimate issues as well - issues that had been found valid by a UK court and affirmed on appeal. Therefore, Apple decided to respond in a way it deemed clever, in effect defying the judicial authorities who had ruled against it. 4. We can each judge for ourselves whether this was smart or not. My view is that it is conduct unbecoming of lawyers (and of Apple as the principal in the case) and, indeed, is an outrageous affront to judicial authority. Courts and judges are not always right but, when they rule against you and you exhaust your appeals, you had better comply. If you think you are above the law in the sense that you need not comply, you will regret it. Those of us who are mere mortals need to live by these rules. So too does Apple.
confluence 14y ago
It's not like it even matters. Apple is dead, and these are just their final gasps of air. Apple is pulling the Edison maneuver to protect their rapidly dwindling monopoly on mobile consumer hardware - and they will lose because Tesla (aka Android) is better for both the industry and consumers. Android is open, Android is iOS equivalent, Android is cheap, Android is backed by the rest of the world's electronic mobile manufacturers. Apple can't win - the world is now chasing their profits with ravenous rage and hundreds of billions of dollars in invested capital. They will be commoditized because all they sell, and all they have ever sold, was glass with a grey backs. The only thing that protected Apple - really protected them was iOS. Those apps made Apple. And the openness of Android will commoditize them. Apple can shock elephants (ban tablets) and write false accusations about the merits of AC (Samsung sucks) all they want - it doesn't change the fact that their monopoly in mobile hardware is in a terminal and rapid death spiral. Samsung made Apple. And Samsung will destroy them for the fundamental reason that style can and will be copied vociferously for the betterment of the consumer, but the substance behind it cannot. Glass with grey backs are commodity. Market saturation is imminent. Competitive equivalence has occured.
stock_toaster 14y ago
Ugh. Apple stories really bring out the worst in HackerNews. makes a note to avoid reading such threads in the future

308 points by cskau 14y ago

AOL "journalist" told to reword "The Guardian's article": http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsu...

polshaw 14y ago
To be fair i don't think they ever claim to be journalists-- the source link is always in their posts. If there is any wrong doing, it is the people who post links to one aggregator (like engadget) on another (like HN). I guess in the HN case it is likely because of the url dupe filter.
- benologist 14y ago
  Aggregators don't replace the original source they point you to it. Engadget (and similar sites) are just parasites that extract every ounce of value from someone else's work, stuff it full of SEO spam and hope they do it fast enough to usurp the traffic too. I do agree that they shouldn't be submitted though!
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  They tend to claim to be journalists the minute they want the protections that go with it.

coob 14y ago

How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.

Jabbles 14y ago
"The following is not true:<exact wording in the judgment>" Context counts for a lot.
Hontano 14y ago
Beats me. Apple complied with a sloppy judgment. I'm no great fan of Apple in this, but the appeal judges fucked up by not clearly specifying what Apple needed to do and could not do.
- macmac 14y ago
  It is only sloppy if you are ignorant of / choose to ignore the law that applies to it.
- makomk 14y ago
  The courts don't work like this, largely because it's a waste of the court's time to figure out every single way some slimy bastard could try and weasel out of their rulings. This is pretty clear-cut too - the court ordered Apple to post a notice saying that Samsung's products had been found not to infringe, and Apple decided to instead post one that argued the court had got it wrong and Samsung were a bunch of evil copycats, which also misrepresented court rulings in other juristictions to make them seem more favourable to Apple in the process.
  - Hontano 14y ago
    The judgement specified where, when, and how to publish the notice down to which website and publications, the typeface, and point size. It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication. Apple complied with the letter of the judgment and arguably the spirit of the judgment which was "not designed to punish" but rather "to dispel commercial uncertainty". It clearly states that Samsung's products were found not to infringe in England and Wales. Unambiguously. Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way? Going on to provide nuance by quoting the original judge and including rulings from other jurisdictions doesn't negate that. Apple have been foolish in getting the court's dander up, but they're not wrong.

bitdiffusion 14y ago

This attempt at being "clever" has definitely backfired on apple. If they had just done what was asked the first time, that would have been the end of it. Now it has to be dredged up and people will be reminded (again) that they lost the case. I find it hard to believe that their lawyers advised them that they would get away with something like this.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
They're also in the situation where had they got on with it it would have been done and dusted by mid November. Instead they're going to have it on their home page for most of the Christmas shopping period.
antidoh 14y ago
I'd never heard of this until this. It only confirms my casual (don't own anything Apple) view of Apple as a corporate two year old that makes great products (I've heard), all the while employing armies of lawyers to shout "No fair! No fair!" Best if they'd just relax back into the big chair and be the adult.

levesque 14y ago

This is silly.

StavrosK 14y ago

Here's the original page: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ It's basically "The UK court found Samsung non infringing, but said our products are great, and other courts found them infringing.". Far from an apology.

imglorp 14y ago
Mom told me I had to say I was sorry, but you deserved it anyway.
- dsirijus 14y ago
  This. This is exactly what happened here.
dan1234 14y ago
No court judgment ever said it had to be an apology. It was supposed to "to dispel commercial uncertainty". Looks as if Apple have exploited a loophole by adding to the judgment instead of simply posting it.
- eli 14y ago
  Well the judge who issued the order seems to feel pretty strongly that they did not comply.
  - dan1234 14y ago
    The judge could be taking quite a bit of heat from Samsung… Surely Apple's lawyer division (and it must be a division by now) went through that judgment with a fine tooth comb before posting the statement. I wonder if the judge could have added a clause requiring Apple to submit the statement to him for review first.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Embrace, extend, extinguish?
- 14y ago

metatronscube 14y ago

The UK legal system is a complete joke. Apple should consider using its considerable resources to take legal action with this demand and simply post " X is not as cool as Y" and leave it at that. I can not fathom why this has been pulled up, and would challenge the appeals court to explain why the original passage is non-compliant and if they cant give a reasonable answer I would be meeting them in court.

blibble 14y ago
fighting an institution that makes the law probably isn't the best of ideas
- BCM43 14y ago
  They're not (they're fighting the institution charged with penalizing), and it happens all the time.
  - pyre 14y ago
    The parent was seemingly promoting the idea of Apple personally suing the judge because they don't like his ruling. If this was possible most legal systems would crumble.
michaelhoffman 14y ago
Apple already is meeting them in court. Apple lost.
vidarh 14y ago
In this case the UK legal system is pretty much exactly like any other civilized legal system. The judge in this case is the court, and when he says the original passage doesn't comply with his order, by definition it does not comply with his order. If they choose to continue to fail to comply with this order, the people responsible finds themselves at risk of being found in contempt of court and jailed.
- 14y ago

chrisacky 14y ago

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".[1] Clearly the judge hasn't ever submitted an iOS app for review? And to people who don't understand why Apple are held to be in "non-compliance" despite copying verbatim the extract from the judgment: it was because of how "snarky" Apple were. - Saying their device is much more popular. - Signing off by disregarding the purpose of the statement: "Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad." - Saying that Samsung's device is "not as cool". - Not using the correct font size. (Although, I don't care about this point) - Dedicating 80%~ of the statement to supporting their claims in other jurisdictions... and brushing past the verbatim copied statement. Apple were ordered to factually represent the judgment in a statement issued on their website. They cherry picked quotes, out of context and attempted to create confusion in any readers, with the intention of misleading them as to the judges present ruling. [1] : http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement

greyboy 14y ago
That caught my eye as an excuse of the super enterprise-y. I don't recall the page they put up after Steve Jobs passed away taking quite near that long.
- myko 14y ago
  To be fair the Steve Jobs memorial was probably designed and created well in advance of his passing. But yeah this is some Grade-A bullshit. Either that or Apple is worse at the web than I thought (which is pretty bad considering iTunes Connect).
- deong 14y ago
  Well, they are the only retailer I can think of that has to take their entire site down for several hours to add a new sku.
  - greyboy 14y ago
    That's true. I guess the ridiculousness of this excuse is that the page already exists and would simply (I would think) be a matter of changing the page text. I wouldn't think this would require intensive site-wide testing, but I've been wrong on these thigns before.

macmac 14y ago

“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.”

bstar77 14y ago

Did the court seriously think ANY COMPANY would have reacted differently than Apple did? This is a childish and completely unproductive order. Fine Apple and be over with it if you think they did something wrong.

adaml_623 14y ago
So you think a monetary fine is appropriate punishment for any type of corporate misbehaviour? EDIT: The court case counted as negative publicity for Samsung and I don't think the court thought that a fine would counteract that publicity.
- bstar77 14y ago
  For the issue of patent wrangling, which is very much a gray area, yes, I do think monetary fines are the most appropriate. The court cannot make Apple be sincere in an apology if Apple believes they are in the right. Just the same way Sally's Mother cannot make little Jimmy sincerely apologize for tattling on her daughter when she copied his homework, especially after the teacher already praised him for bringing it to her attention.
  - nagrom 14y ago
    As others have noted: it is difficult to counteract the effect of negative publicity brought against Samsung by Apple's accusations. Having Apple publicly retract those accusations is the court's way of trying to mitigate that. Your analogy is deeply flawed. Apple had a choice as to whether to bring this matter before the courts and UK judge has no vested interest in protecting Samsung. There is no 'teacher' figure in this case; no more objective person involved in the case than the UK judge. If Apple had no respect for the court's opinion, they should not have brought the lawsuit. In bringing the suit against Samsung into that court, they have effectively asked the court to pass judgement and agreed to respect and abide by the decision. The entire problem is that whoever is in charge at Apple believes they are in the right and that the court is wrong; the statement shows a lack of respect for the court and therefore is, in a way, a challenge to the court's authority. This is the judge's way of reminding them that they should respect the verdict and comply with it. The only resolutions to this are Apple complies fully, or stops operating in the UK. The UK court system woud much rather get rid of Apple from the UK than allow a challenge to their authority to stand, and Apple would rather continue to operate in the UK than flounce out over a matter like this and lose the UK (and potentially the EU) market. Apple should have folded before, and should definitely fold now. The longer this silly game goes on, the more they have to lose.

napierzaza 14y ago

This is the most annoying thing ever. So they get to write their own apology without a oversight but what they put up can be appealed against? It's usually not worthwhile to watch these sorts of legal wranglings. Just a bunch of lawyers going back and forth

duiker101 14y ago

Act like a 6 year old and you will be treated like one from someone with a little brain. Don't take the judge for a stupid. You'll regret it.

masnick 14y ago

Here's what Apple wrote -- somehow I'm guessing this isn't what the court had in mind. From http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/: Samsung / Apple UK judgment On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, 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 judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html. In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products: "The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design." "The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool." That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe. However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. 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.

michaelfeathers 14y ago
They presented the facts and they should be allowed to mention that other jurisdictions have other views of the matter. Does anyone think that they shouldn't be able to?

nagrom 14y ago

A lot of the posts that are saying something like "The judge didn't say that they couldn't do it like this!" are deliberately missing the point. In the UK, you are expected to comply with the spirit of such a court order, not just the letter of it. Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens. It's entirely possible to be punished for contempt of court to a much greater extent than the lesser offence. Deliberately choosing to behave in a childish manner and annoy a judge is a dangerous game to play and can be self-defeating. Apple's lawyers should have known this and should have advised them against it. It would have cost them nothing to comply with the ruling properly in the first place; they are now cutting their nose off to spite their face.

belorn 14y ago
Annoying a judge is a really bad idea. The court system is normally quite free from corruption, but all that goes out off the window when it become personal and political. See the pirate bay court case, or just any of the police brutality cases. If Apple is going all out with lawyers and legal prowness, instead of competiting with products, they need to get better at it.
- thomseddon 14y ago
  Is this specifically in reference to the UK legal system or just a blanket statement about practice around the world? If it is the former, I really must disagree with the notion that the legal system in the UK is in any way corrupt. Quite far from it, I think it is one of the things that we can be most proud of. If it is the latter, may I suggest you either be more specific or more correct.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    How often does something like the recent extradition of the operator of a site the UK deemed not worth prosecuting happen?
    - bigfudge2 14y ago

denzil_correa 14y ago

Judge Robin Jacob's comments on On Apple's legal notice posted “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.” On Technical Difficulties to take 14 days to change the notice “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” their website, Jacob said. “I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-ch...

ashray 14y ago
I'm really impressed that he asked for an affidavit from the head of apple. That would've really put apple in deep trouble had they gone that route. Good job on calling their bluff on the 'it will take us 14 days to update the site'. =/ Apple just seems so slimy these days. I absolutely love many of their products but lately they seem quite meh.
- smackfu 14y ago
  Yeah, there's a world of difference between "we would like 14 days to update it" and "we need 14 days to update it".
  - bitcartel 14y ago
    If what Apple claims is true, that it takes 14 days to update a few sentences on its website, how long to fix Maps?!

kybernetikos 14y ago

Did you notice that the css class that controls the link size on the uk home page is called 'sosumi'?

thisone 14y ago
That's normal for apple's legalish sections on the web and dates back to their fight with the Beatles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
meaty 14y ago
Well spotted. Someone needs to draw attention to that.
- codeulike 14y ago
  Although its applied to all the links in the footer, not just that one. Still, interesting.
ceejayoz 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

DanBC 14y ago

Apple needs to be a bit careful. Patent claims are civil, and have fines or other gentle punishments attached. Contempt of court is criminal, and people do get sent to jail for it.

ortusdux 14y ago

My first thought when I read the Samsung letter: http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sneaky-restaurant-fail.jpg http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sneaky-restauran...

js2 14y ago

The engadget link adds nothing to the original reporting - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsu...

clarky07 14y ago

This seems like BS to me. They put the judgement on their site, and then they put other things on THEIR site. As long as the put the piece they wanted them to put, they should be able to do anything else they want. If they think the statements made make for good marketing pieces, why shouldn't they be able to put them on their website. All this is besides the point that the UK is in the minority in their ruling, and the US case did a pretty good job of showing that Samsung did in fact copy Apple, and said so many times in internal communications.

smackfu 14y ago
The goal of the publicity order was to "dispel commercial uncertainty," not as punishment. If Apple publishes the required statement, but obscures it in a way that it doesn't meet the original goals, should the court really stand idly by?

michaelfeathers 14y ago

The article said that the judge ordered Apple to say that "Samsung did not copy their design." Apple, essentially, said that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy its design. That is factually correct. I don't see how anyone can be compelled to make the former statement rather than the latter one.

ksec 14y ago
Exactly.
deong 14y ago
Isn't that the whole purpose of a court system? If you insist on calling OJ Simpson a murderer who got away with it, he can sue you for libel. He is, as a point of fact, not legally a murderer, and you would be lying to defame him. Legal truth isn't some abstract concept. It is defined by the court's opinion. The factual statement in UK law is now "Samsung did not copy their design." End of story. You don't get to flout a court ruling by continuing to behave the same way, only with a disclaimer that says, "Well, the judge said we're wrong, but screw him."
codeulike 14y ago
They added 4 paragraphs to the 2 paragraphs that they were asked to publish. See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html point 87

michaelfeathers 14y ago

Do US Courts ever make judgements like this? It's akin to compelling speech.

ksec 14y ago
Exactly. Again i have difficulty understanding the notion behind it. You can rule, and fine, or what ever you want. But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in.
- codeulike 14y ago
  They weren't asked to apologise or say they believed anything. They were asked to publish a certain statement, giving the facts of the outcome of the case. Along the lines of "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that ....". So they were asked to publish a statement of fact on their own site and in several newspapers. But they added extra stuff to the end, thus changing the tone and context. I'm trying to find out what they were originally asked to print so we can compare to what they actually did. edit: Point 87 of the judgement here says what they were supposed to publish: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html "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 judgment 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."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  > But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in. This is not an apology. It's a publication of the facts, as determined by a court of law. In the US, slander and libel are both illegal, as is defamation, etc. Part of the judicial process is to determine the facts of the case. After the facts are determined and the defendant is acquitted, the plaintiff can't keep publicly affirming the defendant's guilt without risking consequences. This is completely precedented. Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them. In this case, Apple acted as if they had already won by prematurely advertising a victory ('Samsung copied us!'), so they're being required to retract that. (Typical disclaimers of UK vs US law and IANAL apply, though my point is that this would not be unusual or unreasonable if it had happened in the US).

drizzo4shizzo 14y ago

They'll probably put Ironic Hipster quotes around "copy"

pfortuny 14y ago

To those saying that Apple "complied"... Do you think Apple would have complied if the text were in #FEFEFE over #FFFFFF in a page including, say "buy iPhone and be happy!" in clear #000000 and a Photo of Steve? It would be literally complying: The text would be there to be read, anyway.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

mokash 14y ago

I saw this coming. Their 'apology' was just another thinly veiled stab at Samsung. They're simply coming off as childish and immature now. They're not exactly getting into the good-books of that judge which would have worked in their favour if they ever encountered him again which judging by their history and mantra of 'sue everything' is highly likely.

spullara 14y ago

Kind of ridiculous. Samsung obviously did copy, the court just ruled that it didn't merit an infringement ruling. I mean, does anyone think, really, that Samsung didn't set out to copy all of Apple's products? Wouldn't it be better for all (except Apple) if it was spelled out that Samsung copied them but it is ok?

YokoZar 14y ago
Not even the American jury thought that Samsung violated Apple's patent on the product in question.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

codeulike 14y ago

Its important to understand that they weren't asked to publish an 'apology' or state any beliefs. They were asked to publish a specifically worded statement of fact about the outcome of the case. What they were asked to publish is roughly the first and fifth paragraphs of what they actually published. They added four other paragraphs. Points 87 and 88 of the appeal judgement here say what they should have published: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html Which is: 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 judgment 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 (date). A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link [link given]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe. Contrast with what they actually published: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

jusben1369 14y ago

People. Top post? For hours? 165 comments and counting? For a legal spat in the UK? For every post that claims the top spot there's one that fails to get noticed. These articles are our "Brad and Angelina" equivalents.

moron 14y ago
It's amazing how flabbergasted people are acting at the statement Apple wrote. Jeez, is your mother the judge or something?! They got clever and got rapped on the knuckles for it. Let's move on.

grellas 14y ago

In July, 2012, Samsung had won a judgment in the UK to the effect that its Galaxy Tab computers did not infringe Apple's registered design. In spite of this, Apple continued to assert, broadly and widely, that Samsung's tablet computers did in fact constitute blatant copying of Apple's design and was therefore wrongful. Therefore, Samsung went to the court trying to get an injunction barring Apple from making such claims because the claims were causing commercial harm to Samsung within the UK and thereby were negating the effect of the judgment won by Samsung. Alternatively, Samsung sought a publication order requiring Apple to publicize the fact of the judgment on a long list of Apple websites as well as in certain financial publications. The idea of this order was to clear the confusion created by Apple's continued claims of illegal copying notwithstanding that it had lost on this issue in the UK courts. The judge hearing the follow-up proceeding issued a very thoughtful ruling (found here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html) that in fact denied Samsung's request for an injunction against Apple's being able to claim illegal copying. The judge acknowledged the inherent unfairness of barring a party that had lost in a court proceeding from contesting the ruling and from publicly claiming that the ruling was wrong. It thus agreed with Apple that Apple should not be muzzled in asserting its legal right to speak. The judge then turned to the more limited request made by Samsung for the publication order and described it as follows: "Samsung say that, notwithstanding the fact that Apple have lost this case, they continue to assert that Samsung infringes and that the damage that was caused and has been described there continues to apply. Accordingly, Samsung seek orders that I should require Apple to put on their websites and to put in certain newspapers references to this judgment and a statement that the court has found that the Samsung Galaxy tablets do not infringe." The judge went on to say that he believed "there is a useful purpose in a clear public statement that a product alleged by a rights holder to infringe those rights does not infringe," reasoning that "[t]he more frequently and the more loudly a rights holder has asserted infringement, the more useful it is to have a clear public statement to the contrary." So, the whole point of the order was to ensure that Apple made a clear public statement to the effect that a UK court had ruled that the Galaxy Tab did not infringe Apple's registered design. Nothing in the order prevented Apple from continuing to assert that it was right and that the UK decision was wrong. Apple had full scope to make these assertions as and when it wanted and has obviously been making them freely. At the same time, Apple was required to make the clear public statement called for by the follow-on order. Apple appealed this follow-on order and lost. It therefore had exhausted its remedies within the relevant court system and was left with the requirement that it comply. That is when it purportedly complied by placing a teeny link buried at the bottom of its UK home page that linked to a text that, within the disclosure itself, bombarded the reader with all the reasons why Samsung really did infringe notwithstanding the UK judgment that had been rendered against Apple. A few thoughts: 1. This conduct by Apple did not merely violate the "spirit" of the order. It clearly violated the order itself. Where Apple had been ordered to make a clear public statement publicizing the fact of the UK judgment, Apple had in fact offered up an obscure link to a statement full of argumentative statements aimed at creating obvious doubt about the question of non-infringement. 2. Apple did this in a context where the order had given it free scope to argue all it liked about its free speech rights to contest the original judgment and to continue claiming infringement on grounds that it disagreed with that judgment. Instead of accepting the order on its terms, Apple went way out of its way to undercut the limited disclosure that it had been required to make. 3. Lawyers say, "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered," meaning that when a litigant gets too greedy, it risks having its legal proceeding go badly wrong. Apple had been given a reasonable accommodation by the court addressing its legitimate concerns but it was not content to settle for that. It wanted to do nothing that might acknowledge that Samsung had legitimate issues as well - issues that had been found valid by a UK court and affirmed on appeal. Therefore, Apple decided to respond in a way it deemed clever, in effect defying the judicial authorities who had ruled against it. 4. We can each judge for ourselves whether this was smart or not. My view is that it is conduct unbecoming of lawyers (and of Apple as the principal in the case) and, indeed, is an outrageous affront to judicial authority. Courts and judges are not always right but, when they rule against you and you exhaust your appeals, you had better comply. If you think you are above the law in the sense that you need not comply, you will regret it. Those of us who are mere mortals need to live by these rules. So too does Apple.

confluence 14y ago

It's not like it even matters. Apple is dead, and these are just their final gasps of air. Apple is pulling the Edison maneuver to protect their rapidly dwindling monopoly on mobile consumer hardware - and they will lose because Tesla (aka Android) is better for both the industry and consumers. Android is open, Android is iOS equivalent, Android is cheap, Android is backed by the rest of the world's electronic mobile manufacturers. Apple can't win - the world is now chasing their profits with ravenous rage and hundreds of billions of dollars in invested capital. They will be commoditized because all they sell, and all they have ever sold, was glass with a grey backs. The only thing that protected Apple - really protected them was iOS. Those apps made Apple. And the openness of Android will commoditize them. Apple can shock elephants (ban tablets) and write false accusations about the merits of AC (Samsung sucks) all they want - it doesn't change the fact that their monopoly in mobile hardware is in a terminal and rapid death spiral. Samsung made Apple. And Samsung will destroy them for the fundamental reason that style can and will be copied vociferously for the betterment of the consumer, but the substance behind it cannot. Glass with grey backs are commodity. Market saturation is imminent. Competitive equivalence has occured.

stock_toaster 14y ago

Ugh. Apple stories really bring out the worst in HackerNews. makes a note to avoid reading such threads in the future