3 ms·

I 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 t

by Osmium 14y ago

I 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 ago
Though 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
  > the accusation itself is usually a great PR damage which is rarely fixed even by a successful verdict. I agree with this. I'm just not sure a court-mandated notice is the solution, precisely because it's so difficult to achieve the effect the court desires ("dispel a commercial uncertainty"). In practice, marketing, PR, public perception -- you name it -- is going to muddy whatever intent the court had, and the end result could be just as damaging as the original accusation.

by Osmium 14y ago

dsirijus 14y ago

Though 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
> the accusation itself is usually a great PR damage which is rarely fixed even by a successful verdict. I agree with this. I'm just not sure a court-mandated notice is the solution, precisely because it's so difficult to achieve the effect the court desires ("dispel a commercial uncertainty"). In practice, marketing, PR, public perception -- you name it -- is going to muddy whatever intent the court had, and the end result could be just as damaging as the original accusation.