4 ms·
Apple posts revised Samsung statement
- chris_wot 14y agoAll I see is an iPad mini.
- andrewcooke 14y agoscroll down - it's the text in the footer, and the corresponding link. it's simple, reasonable and, as far as i can tell, accurate. i have no idea why they did anything else earlier. well, that's not true. i actually do have an idea. and it's related to wider issues i see in the us elections, and here on this site. it seems that, more and more, it is acceptable to simply shout one side of an opinion. that's no longer the preserve of "attack groups" in presidential campaigns. everyone is doing it. everyone from presidential candidates to web site commentators. it's like being a spin doctor is the new cool. people don't want to argue with nuance, or to balance opinions. they want to say something extreme to give "balance" to whatever the "other side" is saying (which is obviously a self-reinforcing spiral downwards). public discussion, accomodation and compromise are completely out of fashion. we're left with polarised, unthinking shouting matches. it's a fucking mess.
- anonymouz 14y agoGray-on-white on the very bottom of the page, just below the copyright information, ToS, privacy policy and all the other things people instinctively ignore unless they are specifically looking for such information. They did put it in a decent font-size, but I doubt many people not looking for it will notice it.
- shanelja 14y agoTo be fair to Apple, at least they made some form of effort this time, though it should really have been done this way first time around.
- devcpp 14y agoI didn't see it until I checked in the comments on HN...
- kbuck 14y agoThe court required that they use 11 point font[1]. They didn't before, and the court made them change it. It had previously been hidden as a item in that tiny bottom navigation bar. [1]: http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/01/apple-told-to-rewrite-samsung-did-not-copy-statement-post-it/ http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/01/apple-told-to-rewrite-sam...
- dan1234 14y ago"Judgement" in the URL and link text, "Judgment" in the actual statement - does anybody proofread these changes?
- recursive 14y agoThey're both valid spellings.
- dan1234 14y agoYes, but you'd think a company with such a reputation for attention to detail would just pick one and stick with it.
- stordoff 14y ago"Judgement" is the common spelling in the UK in a non-legal context. "Judgment" is the correct spelling for a court order.
- tisme 14y agoIncredible how bad a loser Apple is. If you're ordered to do something like this make it plain that you got the message. So: Above the fold, in a font no lighter or smaller than the rest of the page. No tricks or gimmicks (resizing the ipad mini image? Popup links??) to hide the text. All they're doing is to risk yet another do-over which will hit them in the middle of Christmas shopping.
- mtgx 14y agoThey even made the iPad mini bigger, so people can't notice the statement at the bottom of the page: http://i.imgur.com/MRmAx.jpg http://i.imgur.com/MRmAx.jpg
- iamben 14y agoAs noted below, the iPad resizes so it's always off the screen...
- michaelfeathers 14y agoAnother difference. Before the statement link was only on the UK site.
- dsirijus 14y agoThank you for the illustration, it makes it pretty obvious.
- kzrdude 14y agoHitting fullscreen in firefox is hilarious, watch the IPad grow to cover it up. :-)
- 6ren 14y agoIt dynamically enlarges, so the statement is always below the fold, no matter your screen size. That's why it aligns so nicely. To be fair, maybe they did they before too. But if they changed it just to hide this clear statement they've been ordered to make... BTW: The statement text is verbatim what the court suggested in http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html (para 87) The judgement says it's a final determination which I assume means it can't be appealed. But I don't get that impression from the statement, I guess because I'm not familiar with the appeals hierarchy of the EU. It seems the UK Court of Appeal superior to German courts.
- Nux 14y agoThat's a lot of legalese mumbo-jumbo. They should have written in plain English: Samsung kicked our sorry arses. :-)
- vidarh 14y agoThat's the text they were provided by the court that they got slapped for meddling with the first time.
- pja 14y agoIf they keep playing these games, the judge is eventually going to mandate that the homepage contains nothing but a statement about the judgment and a link to the rest of the Apple site.
- sigzero 14y agoNo, the judge cannot do anything at this point. The exact notice is on the page. So what if you have to scroll to see it.
- mmariani 14y agoThey might have kicked in the courtroom, not in the design department, as written in the ruling. ;) For that matter, I don't know why Apple just doesn't say something along these lines "We're sorry our lawyers are design challenged, too", and move on. All this legalese mumbo jumbo is plain lame!
- Osmium 14y agoI don't have an opinion on the ruling itself (i.e. that Apple lost, which could've been the correct decision as far as I know), but I think a court being able to dictate what goes on a company's website is a little perverse. I wonder how they decided the notice must be in an 11 pt font? Why not dictate it be "above the fold" too? It's equally arbitrary. I also think it shows how out of touch the system is. Apple were also compelled to publish a newspaper ad. This is a photo of the ad they ran: https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=9115A524920CFD6F&id=9115A524920CFD6F%218355 https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=9115A524920CFD6F&id=9115A... [via The Next Web] You have to ask what this actually achieves in practice. The court said the judgement was "not designed to punish" but rather "to dispel commercial uncertainty."[1] In practice, I think it achieves the former (by public humiliation) but does nothing for the latter, thereby precisely doing the opposite of what was intended. That said, I think Apple could've handled this whole thing a lot more gracefully. [1] in the words of one of Apple's lawyers, 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...
- dsirijus 14y agoThough I agree with you on the assessment of the practical results of the judgment, I think that court ruling "damages" in such a way is far from perverse, and actually proper way of dealing with corporate entities. Everyone needs to be reminded once in a while that a corporation is a legal _person_.
- zalew 14y ago> a court being able to dictate what goes on a company's website is a little perverse. I wonder how they decided the notice must be in an 11 pt font? I guess it's somehow derived from deflamation dementis in newspapers. depending on the case courts also order it be in a certain size, on a certain page. it's not that ridiculous counting the fact that everybody reads and talks about the frontpage sensation, but nobody gives a crap about a dementi in the corner of page 18. the accusation itself is usually a great PR damage which is rarely fixed even by a successful verdict.
- Osmium 14y ago
- mrich 14y agoIt is amazing how they use complicated language in the statement to hide the real message as far as possible. Kind of different from the simple, on point communication they normally employ. I wonder why :)
- nilsbunger 14y agoThe language was dictated by the court, wasn't it?
- stordoff 14y agoWhat I find interesting is that the iPad Mini resizes, meaning that the footer (and the statement) are never visible unless you scroll. The US Apple site doesn't do this. Does anyone know if this is new behaviour?
- iamben 14y agoBrilliant spot. You have to use a massive resolution or zoom right out to get it on the screen.
- dsirijus 14y agoIf this is added newly, I can't believe they're still trying to pull judge by the nose. This is bordering pure effrontery, beyond any common sense damage control.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- kinofcain 14y agoMost of the other international sites have the same behavior. The US site, actually, appears to be the exception. If Apple is being a "petulant" "childish" "immature" company and flipping the bird at the UK judge, then they've gone to elaborate multi-national lengths to provide plausible deniability. It's also not the first time they've had dynamically adjusting product pages.
- Zoophy 14y agoI am amazed at how they are - I can't seem to think of another accurate description - trolling the same legal system which they were trying to use for blocking the competition.
- chucknelson 14y agoThe comments in this thread are a bit strange and another example of how Apple is held to ridiculous standards on everything. What company would not try to meet this in a way that does minimum damage to their business? They comply and move on. Have we also forgotten that the company that "won" in this issue has thrived on some blatant ripoff products?
- lighthazard 14y agoWhen a company is so adamant about not losing, being a sore loser is not expected. Everyone rips off everyone else, no one has any unique products all the time. Apple just markets really well.
- michaelhoffman 14y agoIn my experience, most reputable companies take complying with both the spirit and the letter of court orders very seriously.
- pja 14y agoCongratulations to Apple for managing to behave like the corporate equivalent of a spoiled teenager. I mean, seriously: resizing the images on the homepage so that the link to the statement is always off-screen when the page is first viewed? If Apple continues to behave in this fashion, then that's going to become a story all by itself (it already is on HN after all).
- vvhn 14y agoIt is going to be on Hackernews, Reddit etc. anyway unless the notice is the only thing on web page and reads - "we are evil and we beg the forgiveness of Samsung and anybody who comments on any web forum" :-)
- chollida1 14y agoWow, how childish is apple. They made the link a pop up so that browswers like IE will ask the user if they really want to open it. Most people are trained by now to say no, so most people won't actually see the statement.
- arrrg 14y agoSigh. I don’t get this. Why do people care about this and why do they complain? This seems completely meaningless to me. Why are some people so angry about this I don’t get it. Apple obviously disagrees with the ruling, so they try everything to do as little as possible – they just screwed up the first time. That’s all. It doesn’t matter and there is no reason to be so angry about this. Who cares?
- Jare 14y agoThey are openly mocking the legal system when it doesn't go their way. I care.
- sbuk 14y agoNo. The Judge is making a mockery of the jurisprudence by giving such a vacuous and pointless ruling.
- arrrg 14y agoOf course they do. Is that really so strange? I can believe that the legal system in general is a good idea but gets it wrong in some case. Anyway, this is irrelevant. Who cares? It doesn’t affect anything.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- michaelhoffman 14y agoHow was it that Apple was able to change their web page in less than the two weeks they originally claimed was necessary? I look forward to reading the tales of their heroic web designers and developers trying to finish by the deadline against impossible odds.
- TechNewb 14y agoCan someone please explain how the judgement has effect throughout the EU if other courts in the EU judge differently?
- jimrandomh 14y agoSo, the corrected notice is up. You have to scroll down to see it. Resize your browser window to any size at all, and you still have to scroll down to see it. And no matter what size you choose, the big product icons at the "bottom" will neatly align with the bottom of the window, to make it as non-obvious as possible that there's more below the fold. Scroll down slightly, and the first thing you see is a fairly standard looking page footer - which for many people will make them stop scrolling. Looking at the page more closely, I found that it references http://images.apple.com/metrics/scripts/s_code_h.js http://images.apple.com/metrics/scripts/s_code_h.js, which contains a function getPercentPageViewed which measures exactly how many people will scroll down. I did not dig fully through the code obfuscation, but I am reasonably sure that this information is included in the s_ppv field of the session cookie which is sent to Apple on later requests. A look at the Wayback machine indicates that this tracking code is not new. Therefore, if my interpretation is correct, Apple had and still has the exact fraction of people who would fail to scroll down and see the notice. And it possibly can measure what effect seeing the notice has on going on to buy. They may or may not have realized they had this information. Samsung should ask Apple what fraction of users scroll down to see the notice. Additionally, they should ask Apple whetherthis issue arose in any internal discussions surrounding the notice. Apple is still acting in bad faith.