7 ms·

I really hope they get reamed by the judge again for this. It would be great to see them forced to place the verdict at the top of the page. Unfortunately, the

I really hope they get reamed by the judge again for this. It would be great to see them forced to place the verdict at the top of the page. Unfortunately, the judge probably has no idea what JS is.

joering2 14y ago
this is not 2001. Plenty of judges know this stuff (heck, some been favorized Facebook by slightly skewing their decisionsm, because FB helped them connect with further family) and I am sure well presented and explained case will make it through. I hope they get punished hard.
meaty 14y ago
Judge will work it out. You do not fuck with a legal judgement in the UK - they will start pulling the big guns next. Place your bets: frozen assets or criminal charge?
- Osmium 14y ago
  Where in the legal judgement did it say it had to be "above the fold"? They could have specified this if they'd wanted it.
  - lutze 14y ago
    It's a spirit of the law issue, again. Judges aren't friggin robots. You don't get to fuck around and have them go "BEEP BOOP WELL TECHNICALLY NOT A VIOLATION BEEP BOOP". The whole point of a judge is to, well, use his/her judgement. If this judge thinks Apple is fucking with him AGAIN, I can't imagine he'll be at all lenient. Apple is holding his authority in contempt.
  - anonymouz 14y ago
    I believe the GPs point is that judges do not take kindly to cat-and-mouse games, where you technically follow the court order by the letter but twist and turn it in such a way that it's spirit is violated. The order is not intended as a challenge on how to best wriggle out of it, and just because the court did not explicitly specify every last detail of how the message must be displayed does not mean that it will tolerate any tricks.
    - Osmium 14y ago
      By that token, though, the court did specify what they wanted: a link, 11pt text. So they'd not afraid of specificity. If they're wanted something more attention-grabbing, they could've said it must include, e.g. "a graphic at least x pixels by y pixels." I think another way of looking at it is this: if they don't request a particular location for the link, do they think Apple's going to put it anywhere other than the bottom of the page? And if so, the consequence (where this javascript exists or not) is that on a great number of devices you won't see it unless you scroll down.
      - PeterisP 14y ago
        They don't have to also specify that the text should be in a color different than the background and is not covered by a black rectangle. There are rules for contempt of court. They include jail time. They should be applied for such repeat contempt.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        jrockway 14y ago
        What would that achieve? The people making the decisions are in the US, outside of the UK's jurisdiction. So the court would have to go after some minion in the UK office, punishing someone for the sake of punishing someone rather than for the sake of justice.
        w1ntermute 14y ago
        Oh please, are you really going to use the Nuremberg defense?
        jrockway 14y ago
        Yes, because an court order to make a statement is a lot like the Holocaust...
  - colmvp 14y ago
    Indeed. Do we need studies that show people do scroll below the fold? I noticed that on the Apple homepage the modules cut off at the bottom (on my resolution) it's clear there is more to the page. Seriously, it's 2012. Do we still have to fight about 'the fold?'
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    This is a very slippery slope to go down. It's arguments like these that cause you to end up with laws that have lists of thousands of things in them. Would you rather have fair use be a list of 10 things, and only those 10 things, or something that you should follow the spirit of?
  - Zenst 14y ago
    In the UK the judges will not be ammused. But this aspect of legal terminology does cover such matters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  I don't know how things work in the UK, but I wonder whether the equivalent of contempt charges will be forthcoming. Toss a few of them in prison for a bit, and see whether that improves cooperation.
  - pasbesoin 14y ago
    While I was being ascerbic, I was not being facetious. We have a similar problem in the U.S.; in corporations, effectively no one ends up being personally responsible. However, if an individual personally fails to implement a judicial ruling, that anonymization and "monefication" of penalty may dissolve. I'm of very mixed opinion and feeling about several laws that may be involved -- both aspects of IP law and aspects of UK libel law. But I also rather dislike unbridled corporate arrogance.
theboywho 14y ago
I think you too have no idea what JS is. The script basically resizes the window based on weather you're on a touch device or not. It has nothing to do with the Samsung apology.
- chacha102 14y ago
  I'm using a fairly long screen and I can see the verdict fine. I don't think this was specifically put to get rid of the apology. More likely, the top image is always suppose to be fairly large and fit the screen well. I wouldn't put it past Apple to make things look nice.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Except when it comes to the text of the message, for some reason.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > I think you too have no idea what JS is. The script basically resizes the window based on weather you're on a touch device or not. Actually, you're the one who has no idea what JS is. I just resized a Chrome window with http://www.apple.co.uk/ http://www.apple.co.uk/ loaded in it on my Windows desktop PC. As I changed the height of the window, the content above the Samsung apology was resized so that the apology would be hidden unless I scrolled down. It is most definitely not restricted to touch devices.
  - spazmaster 14y ago
    Same here, 1440x900px screen. You have to make the content tiny before you see the statement above the fold.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
javert 14y ago
I really disagree. Forcing someone to say something they don't agree with is a violation of free speech.
- felipeko 14y ago
  First, a corporation is not someone. Second, forcing a corporation to repair the damage they done is the right thing to do.
  - javert 14y ago
    Regardless of "corporate personhood," this still amounts to forcing individual people to say something they disagree with. They should still be forced to pay damages. In this case, sufficient damages for Samsung to publicize the ruling. Forcing people to say something they disagree with is very dangerous. Reminds me of the ancient Catholic Church and their struggles with scientists.
    - hahainternet 14y ago
      Please name an individual person who has been forced.
      - javert 14y ago
        In this case, literally everyone who works for Apple or holds Apple stock. Would it help to imagine a company in Apple's position that was a sole proprietorship with no employees? So the company was just one guy? What about a company with 5 shareholders who work on the business, and no employees?
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      Forcing people to say something they disagree with is very dangerous. Reminds me of the ancient Catholic Church and their struggles with scientists. What legal remedy do you feel should be available to Samsung in this case? Apple made a claim in its advertising that was found to be untruthful under the law. Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction? Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.
Shivetya 14y ago
How about reamed by geeks? I for one decided my recent seven inch tablet purchase and now my upcoming ten inch tablet purchase based on Apple's bad behavior. This just reinforces the idea in my head that I made the right choice. The Nexus tablets offer an incredible amount of features at a price point Apple doesn't even try to compete at and all without the Assholiness of Apple
- shinratdr 14y ago
  > The Nexus tablets offer an incredible amount of features at a price point Apple doesn't even try to compete at and all without the Assholiness of Apple I like how you posted you BS reason and then followed it up with the real reason, pricing is more of a concern to you and you hate Apple. Yeah, something tells me even if this whole incident had never happened, you would end up with a Nexus tablet and not an iPad. Call it a hunch.
  - tisme 14y ago
    >> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4737400 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4737400 That's the second time you post an almost identical comment in a thread about people not buying apple products due to their behaviour and you're telling them they are not truthful. What reason would someone have to say anything whatsoever about a decision they've made? It's not as if they have Samsung stock or are shorting Apple. They are simple statements of fact. If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide.
    - shinratdr 14y ago
      > That's the second time you post an almost identical comment in a thread about people not buying apple products due to their behaviour and you're telling them they are not truthful. Actually I was arguing that they aren't buying Apple products because of this particular incident, not their overall behaviour. That I buy, it's a small segment of the population but it does exist. However I'm seriously skeptical that anyone would actually choose an Android tablet instead of an iPad because of this particular incident. It's a ridiculous prospect, and indicative of a consumer that has no real preferences about the device they buy, they're just running purely on spite. GP basically just came right out and said that. > If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide. I'm not allowed to apply critical thinking skills to statements others make about themselves? That's pretty ridiculous. And since when did I argue against that? I'm sure he does know his motivations better than I. That doesn't mean for a second that he's being honest with us or himself about those motivations.
jakejake 14y ago
I don't really care one way or the other, but I'm curious why Apple is being "shamed" in a sense. There are copyright rulings all the time but I haven't noticed or read about too many websites with notices posted on them. Was this a condition of the plea bargain, or is this just something that is common in the UK?
- Niten 14y ago
  First this is patent, not copyright law. And the issue is that Apple has effectively committed libel against Samsung in the UK with its repeated claims that the Samsung tablet is a copy of the iPad. This claim has turned out to be legally false, and now Apple is obliged to correct any turn of public opinion against Samsung that it instigated by making this false claim in the first place.
  - ionwake 14y ago
    plus apple were DICKS about it
    - shinratdr 14y ago
      Oh my god, companies being petty in the legal department!? Say it ain't so!
  - jagira 14y ago
    Totally worth a billion dollars. :-)
  - Camillo 14y ago
    So it's the same libel laws that we were regarding as batshit insane just a few months ago, when they were being used to silence scientists and journalists. But since they're now being used against a company some people don't like, the tune has changed to "you don't mess with the UK courts", "they had it coming", "my judge can beat up your judge", and similar outbursts of vicarious machismo. I find the tribalism in the tech community reprehensible.
Zenst 14y ago
THe judges a couple of days ago already lambasted Apple for the wording, details such as JS will not phase judges. It is the output and end result and if somebody smells something a miss then the judges will be told. They may not be the fastest or most aware, but they do look at the end result and if they see shinangigans or even a hint of it then they will ask what is going on. If they are not happy with the answear then they bite and they can bite. Generaly there pretty firm but fair so apple needs to play ball and stop trying to be clever as it will only work against them.

I really hope they get reamed by the judge again for this. It would be great to see them forced to place the verdict at the top of the page. Unfortunately, the judge probably has no idea what JS is.

joering2 14y ago

this is not 2001. Plenty of judges know this stuff (heck, some been favorized Facebook by slightly skewing their decisionsm, because FB helped them connect with further family) and I am sure well presented and explained case will make it through. I hope they get punished hard.

meaty 14y ago

Judge will work it out. You do not fuck with a legal judgement in the UK - they will start pulling the big guns next. Place your bets: frozen assets or criminal charge?

Osmium 14y ago
Where in the legal judgement did it say it had to be "above the fold"? They could have specified this if they'd wanted it.
- lutze 14y ago
  It's a spirit of the law issue, again. Judges aren't friggin robots. You don't get to fuck around and have them go "BEEP BOOP WELL TECHNICALLY NOT A VIOLATION BEEP BOOP". The whole point of a judge is to, well, use his/her judgement. If this judge thinks Apple is fucking with him AGAIN, I can't imagine he'll be at all lenient. Apple is holding his authority in contempt.
- anonymouz 14y ago
  I believe the GPs point is that judges do not take kindly to cat-and-mouse games, where you technically follow the court order by the letter but twist and turn it in such a way that it's spirit is violated. The order is not intended as a challenge on how to best wriggle out of it, and just because the court did not explicitly specify every last detail of how the message must be displayed does not mean that it will tolerate any tricks.
  - Osmium 14y ago
    By that token, though, the court did specify what they wanted: a link, 11pt text. So they'd not afraid of specificity. If they're wanted something more attention-grabbing, they could've said it must include, e.g. "a graphic at least x pixels by y pixels." I think another way of looking at it is this: if they don't request a particular location for the link, do they think Apple's going to put it anywhere other than the bottom of the page? And if so, the consequence (where this javascript exists or not) is that on a great number of devices you won't see it unless you scroll down.
    - PeterisP 14y ago
      They don't have to also specify that the text should be in a color different than the background and is not covered by a black rectangle. There are rules for contempt of court. They include jail time. They should be applied for such repeat contempt.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - jrockway 14y ago
        What would that achieve? The people making the decisions are in the US, outside of the UK's jurisdiction. So the court would have to go after some minion in the UK office, punishing someone for the sake of punishing someone rather than for the sake of justice.
        w1ntermute 14y ago
        Oh please, are you really going to use the Nuremberg defense?
        jrockway 14y ago
        Yes, because an court order to make a statement is a lot like the Holocaust...
- colmvp 14y ago
  Indeed. Do we need studies that show people do scroll below the fold? I noticed that on the Apple homepage the modules cut off at the bottom (on my resolution) it's clear there is more to the page. Seriously, it's 2012. Do we still have to fight about 'the fold?'
- DannyBee 14y ago
  This is a very slippery slope to go down. It's arguments like these that cause you to end up with laws that have lists of thousands of things in them. Would you rather have fair use be a list of 10 things, and only those 10 things, or something that you should follow the spirit of?
- Zenst 14y ago
  In the UK the judges will not be ammused. But this aspect of legal terminology does cover such matters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
pasbesoin 14y ago
I don't know how things work in the UK, but I wonder whether the equivalent of contempt charges will be forthcoming. Toss a few of them in prison for a bit, and see whether that improves cooperation.
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  While I was being ascerbic, I was not being facetious. We have a similar problem in the U.S.; in corporations, effectively no one ends up being personally responsible. However, if an individual personally fails to implement a judicial ruling, that anonymization and "monefication" of penalty may dissolve. I'm of very mixed opinion and feeling about several laws that may be involved -- both aspects of IP law and aspects of UK libel law. But I also rather dislike unbridled corporate arrogance.

theboywho 14y ago

I think you too have no idea what JS is. The script basically resizes the window based on weather you're on a touch device or not. It has nothing to do with the Samsung apology.

chacha102 14y ago
I'm using a fairly long screen and I can see the verdict fine. I don't think this was specifically put to get rid of the apology. More likely, the top image is always suppose to be fairly large and fit the screen well. I wouldn't put it past Apple to make things look nice.
- rhizome 14y ago
  Except when it comes to the text of the message, for some reason.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
w1ntermute 14y ago
> I think you too have no idea what JS is. The script basically resizes the window based on weather you're on a touch device or not. Actually, you're the one who has no idea what JS is. I just resized a Chrome window with http://www.apple.co.uk/ http://www.apple.co.uk/ loaded in it on my Windows desktop PC. As I changed the height of the window, the content above the Samsung apology was resized so that the apology would be hidden unless I scrolled down. It is most definitely not restricted to touch devices.
- spazmaster 14y ago
  Same here, 1440x900px screen. You have to make the content tiny before you see the statement above the fold.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

javert 14y ago

I really disagree. Forcing someone to say something they don't agree with is a violation of free speech.

felipeko 14y ago
First, a corporation is not someone. Second, forcing a corporation to repair the damage they done is the right thing to do.
- javert 14y ago
  Regardless of "corporate personhood," this still amounts to forcing individual people to say something they disagree with. They should still be forced to pay damages. In this case, sufficient damages for Samsung to publicize the ruling. Forcing people to say something they disagree with is very dangerous. Reminds me of the ancient Catholic Church and their struggles with scientists.
  - hahainternet 14y ago
    Please name an individual person who has been forced.
    - javert 14y ago
      In this case, literally everyone who works for Apple or holds Apple stock. Would it help to imagine a company in Apple's position that was a sole proprietorship with no employees? So the company was just one guy? What about a company with 5 shareholders who work on the business, and no employees?
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    Forcing people to say something they disagree with is very dangerous. Reminds me of the ancient Catholic Church and their struggles with scientists. What legal remedy do you feel should be available to Samsung in this case? Apple made a claim in its advertising that was found to be untruthful under the law. Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction? Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.

Shivetya 14y ago

How about reamed by geeks? I for one decided my recent seven inch tablet purchase and now my upcoming ten inch tablet purchase based on Apple's bad behavior. This just reinforces the idea in my head that I made the right choice. The Nexus tablets offer an incredible amount of features at a price point Apple doesn't even try to compete at and all without the Assholiness of Apple

shinratdr 14y ago
> The Nexus tablets offer an incredible amount of features at a price point Apple doesn't even try to compete at and all without the Assholiness of Apple I like how you posted you BS reason and then followed it up with the real reason, pricing is more of a concern to you and you hate Apple. Yeah, something tells me even if this whole incident had never happened, you would end up with a Nexus tablet and not an iPad. Call it a hunch.
- tisme 14y ago
  >> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4737400 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4737400 That's the second time you post an almost identical comment in a thread about people not buying apple products due to their behaviour and you're telling them they are not truthful. What reason would someone have to say anything whatsoever about a decision they've made? It's not as if they have Samsung stock or are shorting Apple. They are simple statements of fact. If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide.
  - shinratdr 14y ago
    > That's the second time you post an almost identical comment in a thread about people not buying apple products due to their behaviour and you're telling them they are not truthful. Actually I was arguing that they aren't buying Apple products because of this particular incident, not their overall behaviour. That I buy, it's a small segment of the population but it does exist. However I'm seriously skeptical that anyone would actually choose an Android tablet instead of an iPad because of this particular incident. It's a ridiculous prospect, and indicative of a consumer that has no real preferences about the device they buy, they're just running purely on spite. GP basically just came right out and said that. > If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide. I'm not allowed to apply critical thinking skills to statements others make about themselves? That's pretty ridiculous. And since when did I argue against that? I'm sure he does know his motivations better than I. That doesn't mean for a second that he's being honest with us or himself about those motivations.

jakejake 14y ago

I don't really care one way or the other, but I'm curious why Apple is being "shamed" in a sense. There are copyright rulings all the time but I haven't noticed or read about too many websites with notices posted on them. Was this a condition of the plea bargain, or is this just something that is common in the UK?

Niten 14y ago
First this is patent, not copyright law. And the issue is that Apple has effectively committed libel against Samsung in the UK with its repeated claims that the Samsung tablet is a copy of the iPad. This claim has turned out to be legally false, and now Apple is obliged to correct any turn of public opinion against Samsung that it instigated by making this false claim in the first place.
- ionwake 14y ago
  plus apple were DICKS about it
  - shinratdr 14y ago
    Oh my god, companies being petty in the legal department!? Say it ain't so!
- jagira 14y ago
  Totally worth a billion dollars. :-)
- Camillo 14y ago
  So it's the same libel laws that we were regarding as batshit insane just a few months ago, when they were being used to silence scientists and journalists. But since they're now being used against a company some people don't like, the tune has changed to "you don't mess with the UK courts", "they had it coming", "my judge can beat up your judge", and similar outbursts of vicarious machismo. I find the tribalism in the tech community reprehensible.

Zenst 14y ago

THe judges a couple of days ago already lambasted Apple for the wording, details such as JS will not phase judges. It is the output and end result and if somebody smells something a miss then the judges will be told. They may not be the fastest or most aware, but they do look at the end result and if they see shinangigans or even a hint of it then they will ask what is going on. If they are not happy with the answear then they bite and they can bite. Generaly there pretty firm but fair so apple needs to play ball and stop trying to be clever as it will only work against them.