19 ms·

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]

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.
  - rrouse 14y ago
    They don't have to. I believe it's done for two reasons. 1). Suspense during their events 2). To keep people from buying the older devices that they are about to discontinue. No reason to have to field support calls for people wanting to cancel/return their newly purchased items.
    - deong 14y ago
      I was going for snarky there. :)
jivatmanx 14y ago
The last part is really the kicker. It's really not a good idea to question Judge's authority by citing a ruling from another country. That's also the part where they essentially say "This ruling is false"
cageface 14y ago
This episode is the childish and vindictive zenith of an amazing year of childish and vindictive behavior from Apple. Frankly I just don't get it. They make fantastic hardware and their software is usually at least good. Why do they have to lash out like a schoolyard bully at anybody that threatens to put the tiniest dent in their giant pile of cash money? Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves? If the incumbents at the time had behaved the way Apple is behaving now when Apple was in its infancy there would be no Apple today and we would all be the worse for it. Only a few years ago I had a lot of respect for them as a company but they've pretty much burned it all away.
- eta_carinae 14y ago
  > Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves? Because of Android. The rise of Android is clearly showing that Apple products can no longer "speak for themselves" and Apple is feeling the pressure on all fronts, some that they used to have a 90% monopoly on (phones and 10' tablets) and some that they are joining late (7' tablets). I see the proactive litigation as a move to delay the inevitable (iOS devices being relegated to sub 15% market share across the board, which they are on their way to).
  - smsm42 14y ago
    What is strange here is that Apple seems to be perfectly able to compete on merits - take MacBooks. Granted, they aren't dominating the market like iPhone used to, but they have a sizable niche and when some years ago I didn't see any Macs around on conferences now almost everybody has MacBooks. But they don't seem to be that eager to sue everybody else on that market. The merits of the platform are enough for them to be successful. Why can't they do the same for the phone market?
- jivatmanx 14y ago
  Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab. I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
This is true, but I don't think I've ever seen a ruling quite like this one, so the lawyers probably don't know how far they can push it. I expect them to do 'better' but still get it wrong, its a delay of game tactic that makes the judge look like he is being picky. I would agree though that Apple is coming off looking badly (to me at least, and I think I am part of their target market).

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.
- rrouse 14y ago
  They don't have to. I believe it's done for two reasons. 1). Suspense during their events 2). To keep people from buying the older devices that they are about to discontinue. No reason to have to field support calls for people wanting to cancel/return their newly purchased items.
  - deong 14y ago
    I was going for snarky there. :)

jivatmanx 14y ago

The last part is really the kicker. It's really not a good idea to question Judge's authority by citing a ruling from another country. That's also the part where they essentially say "This ruling is false"

cageface 14y ago

This episode is the childish and vindictive zenith of an amazing year of childish and vindictive behavior from Apple. Frankly I just don't get it. They make fantastic hardware and their software is usually at least good. Why do they have to lash out like a schoolyard bully at anybody that threatens to put the tiniest dent in their giant pile of cash money? Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves? If the incumbents at the time had behaved the way Apple is behaving now when Apple was in its infancy there would be no Apple today and we would all be the worse for it. Only a few years ago I had a lot of respect for them as a company but they've pretty much burned it all away.

eta_carinae 14y ago
> Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves? Because of Android. The rise of Android is clearly showing that Apple products can no longer "speak for themselves" and Apple is feeling the pressure on all fronts, some that they used to have a 90% monopoly on (phones and 10' tablets) and some that they are joining late (7' tablets). I see the proactive litigation as a move to delay the inevitable (iOS devices being relegated to sub 15% market share across the board, which they are on their way to).
- smsm42 14y ago
  What is strange here is that Apple seems to be perfectly able to compete on merits - take MacBooks. Granted, they aren't dominating the market like iPhone used to, but they have a sizable niche and when some years ago I didn't see any Macs around on conferences now almost everybody has MacBooks. But they don't seem to be that eager to sue everybody else on that market. The merits of the platform are enough for them to be successful. Why can't they do the same for the phone market?
jivatmanx 14y ago
Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab. I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

This is true, but I don't think I've ever seen a ruling quite like this one, so the lawyers probably don't know how far they can push it. I expect them to do 'better' but still get it wrong, its a delay of game tactic that makes the judge look like he is being picky. I would agree though that Apple is coming off looking badly (to me at least, and I think I am part of their target market).