4 ms·

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 b

by 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.
    - TheCapn 14y ago
      Slightly off topic, but I just want to point out that I think he was getting at in his analogy was that German courts were "the teacher". That is to say, it'll be a hard time getting Apple to believe they were in the wrong because a different court has already said their accusations are correct.
      - bstar77 14y ago
        yes, this is essentially what I meant. I guess I could have used better players in the analogy, but it was just a quick response. It's hard (unreasonable?) for someone to admit guilt when many others are shouting that they are in the right.
  - robotresearcher 14y ago
    The were not required to make an apology, but a statement of the facts found by the judge on behalf of consumers in England and Wales. Since Apple is quite happy to see judges' will be done when Apple wins, their statement in defeat was not at all classy.
DannyBee 14y ago
Yes, most companies would react differently, actually. The vast majority of companies are not stupid enough to think it's "cute" to piss off a judge in a non-banana republic.
- Camillo 14y ago
  The UK is not a republic at all.
  - enjo 14y ago
    "non-banana republic"
    - dan1234 14y ago
      I think Camillo is trying to point out that the UK is not a republic (banana or otherwise) but a Constitutional Monarchy.
  - anders0 14y ago
    "non-(banana republic)", not "(non-banana) republic".
    - Camillo 14y ago
      Then you have to write "non-banana-republic". "Non-banana republic" is not even ambiguous, it's just wrong.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    So then it does indeed fit into the non-(banana republic) category :P
    - Camillo 14y ago
      But that's not what you wrote. "Non-banana republic" can only be parsed as [non-banana] republic. You need to write "non-banana-republic" if you want to say non-[banana republix]. Better yet, use a less clumsy turn of phrase. Best of all: drop the remark entirely, it's pointless.
duiker101 14y ago
I think that the court's ruling is not childish. The problem with Apple is their attitude, they think they are over the rules, look at the Italian case of the warranties, the law requires 2 years but Apple would give only one. Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose, name a device and than pay if it breaks some trademark or whatever. I think the judge understood this and wanted to teach them a lesson of humility, which Apple didn't get and showed once again that they think they are more clever and over the rules. But the reality is that the judge has the power and is not a stupid, and I bet he doesn't like to be treated like one.
- count 14y ago
  Attitudes are not illegal.
  - duiker101 14y ago
    It is when your attitude makes you illegal things, see the warranties things.
  - cobrophy 14y ago
    It is when your attitude is a contempt towards a court ruling.
  - cobrophy 14y ago
    It is when your attitude is a contempt towards a court ruling.
  - walshemj 14y ago
    not if they are showing contempt of court they don't
- saurik 14y ago
  > Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose... Supposedly, in the UK, Apple pays a £50/day fine rather than posting the required no-smoking signs in the windows of their stores. (I mention this as another example.) http://blog.lewisking.net/post/318110435/apple-store-madness http://blog.lewisking.net/post/318110435/apple-store-madness
smackfu 14y ago
Honestly, I'm sure Apple's lawyers were very opposed to the text they posted, and were overruled by management. Most other companies listen to their lawyers.
xutopia 14y ago
There is a huge issue with just giving a fine. Profitable companies can choose to overlook the law if it makes financial sense for them to do so.
- Hontano 14y ago
  The obvious answer is to use progressive fines, making them proportional rather than a fixed amount. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
DanBC 14y ago
It is an elegant order. Rather that trying to collapse everything down to a dollar value (and thus have extended bickering between the parties) you have a simple "You accused them of copying. They did not copy. They say they are damaged by your claims. Retract your claims." The problem with money is that Apple has a lot of it, and thus making them pay for realistic (as oppose to punitive) damages is not a disincentive to further poor behaviour. It just becomes a cost of doing business.

by bstar77 14y ago

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.
  - TheCapn 14y ago
    Slightly off topic, but I just want to point out that I think he was getting at in his analogy was that German courts were "the teacher". That is to say, it'll be a hard time getting Apple to believe they were in the wrong because a different court has already said their accusations are correct.
    - bstar77 14y ago
      yes, this is essentially what I meant. I guess I could have used better players in the analogy, but it was just a quick response. It's hard (unreasonable?) for someone to admit guilt when many others are shouting that they are in the right.
- robotresearcher 14y ago
  The were not required to make an apology, but a statement of the facts found by the judge on behalf of consumers in England and Wales. Since Apple is quite happy to see judges' will be done when Apple wins, their statement in defeat was not at all classy.

DannyBee 14y ago

Yes, most companies would react differently, actually. The vast majority of companies are not stupid enough to think it's "cute" to piss off a judge in a non-banana republic.

Camillo 14y ago
The UK is not a republic at all.
- enjo 14y ago
  "non-banana republic"
  - dan1234 14y ago
    I think Camillo is trying to point out that the UK is not a republic (banana or otherwise) but a Constitutional Monarchy.
- anders0 14y ago
  "non-(banana republic)", not "(non-banana) republic".
  - Camillo 14y ago
    Then you have to write "non-banana-republic". "Non-banana republic" is not even ambiguous, it's just wrong.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  So then it does indeed fit into the non-(banana republic) category :P
  - Camillo 14y ago
    But that's not what you wrote. "Non-banana republic" can only be parsed as [non-banana] republic. You need to write "non-banana-republic" if you want to say non-[banana republix]. Better yet, use a less clumsy turn of phrase. Best of all: drop the remark entirely, it's pointless.

duiker101 14y ago

I think that the court's ruling is not childish. The problem with Apple is their attitude, they think they are over the rules, look at the Italian case of the warranties, the law requires 2 years but Apple would give only one. Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose, name a device and than pay if it breaks some trademark or whatever. I think the judge understood this and wanted to teach them a lesson of humility, which Apple didn't get and showed once again that they think they are more clever and over the rules. But the reality is that the judge has the power and is not a stupid, and I bet he doesn't like to be treated like one.

count 14y ago
Attitudes are not illegal.
- duiker101 14y ago
  It is when your attitude makes you illegal things, see the warranties things.
- cobrophy 14y ago
  It is when your attitude is a contempt towards a court ruling.
- cobrophy 14y ago
  It is when your attitude is a contempt towards a court ruling.
- walshemj 14y ago
  not if they are showing contempt of court they don't
saurik 14y ago
> Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose... Supposedly, in the UK, Apple pays a £50/day fine rather than posting the required no-smoking signs in the windows of their stores. (I mention this as another example.) http://blog.lewisking.net/post/318110435/apple-store-madness http://blog.lewisking.net/post/318110435/apple-store-madness

smackfu 14y ago

Honestly, I'm sure Apple's lawyers were very opposed to the text they posted, and were overruled by management. Most other companies listen to their lawyers.

xutopia 14y ago

There is a huge issue with just giving a fine. Profitable companies can choose to overlook the law if it makes financial sense for them to do so.

Hontano 14y ago
The obvious answer is to use progressive fines, making them proportional rather than a fixed amount. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

DanBC 14y ago

It is an elegant order. Rather that trying to collapse everything down to a dollar value (and thus have extended bickering between the parties) you have a simple "You accused them of copying. They did not copy. They say they are damaged by your claims. Retract your claims." The problem with money is that Apple has a lot of it, and thus making them pay for realistic (as oppose to punitive) damages is not a disincentive to further poor behaviour. It just becomes a cost of doing business.