7 ms·

The UK Court Sanctions Apple, Hopes "Lack of Integrity" Is Not "Typical"

160 points by esolyt 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago
Apple is increasingly acting like a spoiled toddler who doesn't like it when he can't get what he wants.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- evoxed 14y ago
  So, even more like Steve Jobs? I'm not taking a jab here, but I wonder if that's how they see it.
- zmmmmm 14y ago
  I actually genuinely think they are slightly delusional internally. They really think they invented multitouch, rounded corners, that popularisation = invention, that their inventions are worth $30 per handset while everybody elses are worth $1, and that they occupy a special place in the world that exempts them from rules others must follow. Thus I don't actually see them in the "spoilt toddler" mode, rather more like an autistic adult person behaving rationally in a world that constantly baffles them because they have a different internal model of its rules. And I even see this as possibly essential to their success - you can't create products that defy conventional expectations unless you are slightly crazy - "the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones that actually do" truly fits. Of course, this doesn't absolve them of anything, now that they occupy such a position of power in the world they need to grow up and live in reality.
  - mmahemoff 14y ago
    It's funny, this kind of mentality is exactly what Marco Arment was saying about MS recently on his podcast, with reference to Surface. That it's in a Redmond bubble and thinks it's several notches cooler than everyone else does. Maybe it's just an inevitable trajectory for successful platform companies, or at least something its leaders need to be vigilant about.
    - bjustin 14y ago
      This is the same problem that afflicts online communities, where you end up with a bunch of people standing around agreeing with each other[1]. If you spend too much time with like-minded people, you lose perspective. [1] Euphemism, use your imagination.
      - grogs 14y ago
        Groupthink.
  - Osmium 14y ago
    I'm not sure I agree with your analogies, but I think you're right that Apple really does think they're responsible for the spread of those technologies. There's no denying that they were a game-changer: all consumer electronics can now defined as "pre-Apple" or "post-Apple" just by looking at them. The problem is that people disagree to the extent Apple should be compensated (or their ideas protected). More technology-minded people can see the roots of Apple's devices, and so think it's inevitable and all Apple did was "popularise" it, while others think that Apple's innovations were/are a stroke of genius, and without them we'd be floundering in a world of Windows CE and Symbian for the next decade. The trouble is, no one's wrong. It's just a difference of opinion. And that's the patent system in a nutshell. People spend so much time arguing Android v. Apple that it's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture, which is that we're really arguing "how far can a company have a monopoly on an idea? and even if they did invent something, is it fair that they can impede the progress of an entire industry to protect that invention?" Because I can assure you, even if Apple was responsible for every chip and every bit in the iPhone, from concept to execution, people would still want Android, and people would still resent Apple for wanting a monopoly.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      ...all consumer electronics can now defined as "pre-Apple" or "post-Apple" just by looking at them. So the Braun T3 radio[0] and LE1 speaker[1] are definitely post Apple, right? [0] https://barryborsboom.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/172_721-rams-ipods-1.jpg https://barryborsboom.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/172_721-ra... [1] https://barryborsboom.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/mac-speaker.jpg https://barryborsboom.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/mac-speake...
      - fwr 14y ago
        You are comparing a radio and a speaker with an mp3 player and a computer. Not everything is design.
        pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        This whole deal is about design patents (or registered designs, depending on jurisdiction), basically the look of the box that the electronics are housed in; the content ot the box is immaterial in this respect.
comex 14y ago
Poor copywriting. If the snark were written more precisely so that it couldn't be considered misleading, Apple would probably have been able to get the press points without being forced to put a large statement on their homepage disclaiming the previous one as "inaccurate".
- bengl3rt 14y ago
  Welcome back to being allowed to comment on Apple things publicly! Feels good, doesn't it?
  - comex 14y ago
    It's fun being a fanboy.
nagrom 14y ago
Watching this play out is hilarious. I'm not quite sure if it is schadenfreude, the morbid curiosity akin to that experienced from watching a snake eat a rabbit, or just the prospect of watching an 800lb. gorilla behave like a spoiled child, but I have a real feeling that Apple could end up fighting the UK court systems and losing, very, very hard. I simply cannot believe that Apple's previous behaviour was sanctioned by its legal team. The idea of not just losing in court but then pissing the judge off...wow. There's a really childish part of me that hopes that Apple won't comply with this latest judgement just to see what the court does next. Monetary fines? Product bans? Executive jail time? I believe that the best thing Apple can do now is fold, and grovel. However, I have no idea if they'll do that. I've said before in previous threads: the UK court system is much more invested in proving its own authority than Apple is invested in a silly argument with Samsung. And on that note, if you were Samsung, you'd likely be rolling in the aisles just about now. EDIT: I see that they've complied. I see why, but I'm disappointed!
- adaml_623 14y ago
  Why do you think the penalties for perjury and contempt of court are so extreme? A large chunk of society hanging together and working relies on impartial but powerful judicial systems. It's one of those thin edge of the wedge situations. We don't want a system where people flout court rulings even if it's just about a notice on a website.
  - cstross 14y ago
    Also note: British judges and prosecutors are not elected by popular vote -- they're appointed from within the system on the recommendation of their peers. So they're heavily invested in the authority of the judicial system itself, rather than in dancing to the electoral campaign paymasters' tunes.
- gsnedders 14y ago
  Note this is the English courts, acting under English law. You can't really extrapolate from this into the Scottish and Northern Irish courts.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jarcoal 14y ago
What a mess this is on both sides. Apple has reacted poorly, but if I were British I would be a bit upset that my judges were wasting time on punishments like this. The point is to punish Apple, so just fine them and be over with it. The end result is the same, just without all this drama in the middle. EDIT: I'm going to retract my opinion here because a few good points have been made and I shouldn't have spoken when I was not 100% informed on the matter. Sorry!
- CervezaPorFavor 14y ago
  I believe it has been said many times that the main objective is to undo some of the harm that Apple has caused to Samsung. Hence, the public announcements.
  - jarcoal 14y ago
    "harm" for a company is another way of saying money lost, so why not just fine Apple a ton of money and give it to Samsung?
    - chc 14y ago
      Because that still allows Apple to profit from what the court views as severe misbehavior?
    - aes256 14y ago
      Because there is no way of calculating the potential cost of the damage to Samsung's reputation. Plus, it makes far more sense to tackle the root of the problem — the harm caused to Samsung's reputation — by ordering Apple to make public announcements that its allegations against them were false.
    - jbri 14y ago
      So it should be fine to break the law and commit any sort of crime against a company, and the only penalty should be giving them make-up money after the fact?
jpxxx 14y ago
Tim Cook, past-peak, Steve Jobs would never, bully, bullying, bullies, bullied, overpriced, one mouse button, luxury, ivory tower, arrogant, evil, marketing, finally.
- dboat 14y ago
  Some manner of inside joke?
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    More like a Tourette's attack.
  - jpxxx 14y ago
    I figure that if you put all of the asinine and dipshit comments into one big one, it'll drain the swamp and allow for some actual conversation.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      An interesting concept, but that's what the downvote arrow is for. And looking at your BS-magnet post, it appears to be working fine.
      - jpxxx 14y ago
        True. :) spend 'em if you gottem!
Camillo 14y ago
I can't even tell what's going on any more. All of this notice-posting is meant to undo the "harm" Apple has caused by saying Samsung copied the iPad, right? But the court insists that it never even touched the question of whether Samsung copied the iPad. Yet the same court is upset about Apple suggesting that Samsung did copy the iPad. So, to sum up: - Apple said that Samsung copied the iPad; - the court wants Apple punished for saying that; - although the court never made any determination about whether Samsung copied the iPad; - and Apple is still forbidden from saying that Samsung copied the iPad. Nope, still confused.
- Nursie 14y ago
  You're confused because you're trying to oversimplify. Try reading the article again, the court case was over a registered design, not the iPad
  - Camillo 14y ago
    Yes, but if you believe that Samsung's business incurred substantial damage from a perception of infringement, surely that perception would have to be "Samsung copied Apple's products", not just "Samsung infringed Apple's Community Registered Design No. 000181607-001". Basically, if the case was "big" (over the issue of Samsung copying the iPad), then: - the court would have had to rule on whether Samsung copied the iPad; and, if it ruled negatively, then - Samsung could have claimed to have incurred a significant damage to its reputation after being smeared as a copycat, and - the court would have had reason to prohibit Apple from reiterating the copying accusations. However, if the case was "small" (over the issue of Community Registered Design No. 000181607-001, and explicitly excluding the question of whether Samsung copied the iPad), then: - the court would merely have to rule on whether Samsung infringed that specific design, explicitly leaving open the question of whether they "copied the iPad" or not; and, having decided negatively, then - the damage to Samsung's reputation would have been insignificant, since (some) people care about whether they are copycats or not, and the court's decision on that specific registered patent does not touch the greater question, and thus - the court would have no grounds to prohibit Apple from saying: "the court ruled that Samsung didn't violate this specific registered design; however, we still believe that they copied our products, and here are a few other cases where they were found to infringe our IP". You see what I mean? I don't see how you can have BIG damages, BIG punishment, BIG limitations on what Apple can say if you don't also have the BIG decision that would justify all that. And the court has said over and over that they have made no such decision.
chrisacky 14y ago
No shit.[1] "Apple. Your brand is being ruined by misplaced trust in a losing super-aggressive legal strategy." I genuinely used to like Apple. I can actually remember regularly checking the website for the different gadgets I could buy. This was well before the Android v Apple "fan-boyism". I switched off totally from the anti-consumerism that drives Apple. They make great devices that just work. I have no problems in borrowing an iPad for an hour, but they consistently take strategies beyond their products that have decremental effects to their customers and customers of other companies. Who needs a third adapter for their phone (that will only work on iPhone5)? Who needs a different form factor for their SIM card so Apple can secure three year licencing deals with carriers? Who needs the walled garden of an App Store that prevents developers from releasing Apps that might cross over with iOS functionality... Who needs to write a book on Apple Software where the terms demand that they only distribute the book on Apple platforms[2].. Put honestly, there is very little that Apple does that could be interpreted as being for the "better-ment" of people that aren't Apple customers. They take a "fuck"[1] everyone attitude that isn't a beneficiary of Apple stock. I just think that this is a very toxic label for Apple to have against them. Just to stress... I think Apple make great products, although I will never again contribute a single cent to anything that bears the Apple name. They have all but destroyed their brand that I once so sorely coveted (and this was a time not so long ago). Who needs humility... Clearly, not Apple... [1] : I hate swearing. Apologies. [2] : This got changed shortly after considerable backlash. [9] : I need to stop writing so many "Apple" critical comments.. If you look through any of my last 50 comments I'd guess perhaps 10 are Apple related. It's wrong of me that I consistently only comment on Apple posts.
- jrockway 14y ago
  I was the same way until one day, I tried to run gdb on iTunes, and gdb segfaulted. I did some research and found that Apple added extra code to the OS just to prevent someone from doing exactly that. They spent additional engineering effort just to lock me out of my own computer. (I still wonder what data collection they were trying to hide.) Anyway, that was the day I deleted OS X and switched back to Linux forever. (I even ran Rockbox on my iPod until I replaced it with a $30 Sansa device with 10x the features.)
RossM 14y ago
I did not know that Apple's paper advert had been pushed back so late. I have seen a photo of one that appeared in the Guardian about a week ago [0] which as a reader I would skim over given the lack of branding and its similarity to adverts that try to appear part of the newspaper copy, yet have that tell-tale 'Advertisement' header. (These are common to all newspapers in the UK, big and small - maybe elsewhere also.) Skipping over these is something that regular readers naturally do and I expect the design is intentional. I am very interested to see what their Nov 16th ad will look like. Given that it must appear in magazines as well as broadsheets it may be that the mags require it to have some sort of branding/style so as to not make the magazine appear cheap, unlike the image linked. [0]: http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/the-frontline-blog/2222112/apple-print-apology-to-samsung-hits-the-newsstands http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/the-frontline-blog/2222112/apple-p...
pfortuny 14y ago
Serves them well. Stupidity (if not malice) has to have its price.

160 points by esolyt 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago

Apple is increasingly acting like a spoiled toddler who doesn't like it when he can't get what he wants.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
evoxed 14y ago
So, even more like Steve Jobs? I'm not taking a jab here, but I wonder if that's how they see it.
zmmmmm 14y ago
I actually genuinely think they are slightly delusional internally. They really think they invented multitouch, rounded corners, that popularisation = invention, that their inventions are worth $30 per handset while everybody elses are worth $1, and that they occupy a special place in the world that exempts them from rules others must follow. Thus I don't actually see them in the "spoilt toddler" mode, rather more like an autistic adult person behaving rationally in a world that constantly baffles them because they have a different internal model of its rules. And I even see this as possibly essential to their success - you can't create products that defy conventional expectations unless you are slightly crazy - "the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones that actually do" truly fits. Of course, this doesn't absolve them of anything, now that they occupy such a position of power in the world they need to grow up and live in reality.
- mmahemoff 14y ago
  It's funny, this kind of mentality is exactly what Marco Arment was saying about MS recently on his podcast, with reference to Surface. That it's in a Redmond bubble and thinks it's several notches cooler than everyone else does. Maybe it's just an inevitable trajectory for successful platform companies, or at least something its leaders need to be vigilant about.
  - bjustin 14y ago
    This is the same problem that afflicts online communities, where you end up with a bunch of people standing around agreeing with each other[1]. If you spend too much time with like-minded people, you lose perspective. [1] Euphemism, use your imagination.
    - grogs 14y ago
      Groupthink.
- Osmium 14y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with your analogies, but I think you're right that Apple really does think they're responsible for the spread of those technologies. There's no denying that they were a game-changer: all consumer electronics can now defined as "pre-Apple" or "post-Apple" just by looking at them. The problem is that people disagree to the extent Apple should be compensated (or their ideas protected). More technology-minded people can see the roots of Apple's devices, and so think it's inevitable and all Apple did was "popularise" it, while others think that Apple's innovations were/are a stroke of genius, and without them we'd be floundering in a world of Windows CE and Symbian for the next decade. The trouble is, no one's wrong. It's just a difference of opinion. And that's the patent system in a nutshell. People spend so much time arguing Android v. Apple that it's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture, which is that we're really arguing "how far can a company have a monopoly on an idea? and even if they did invent something, is it fair that they can impede the progress of an entire industry to protect that invention?" Because I can assure you, even if Apple was responsible for every chip and every bit in the iPhone, from concept to execution, people would still want Android, and people would still resent Apple for wanting a monopoly.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    ...all consumer electronics can now defined as "pre-Apple" or "post-Apple" just by looking at them. So the Braun T3 radio[0] and LE1 speaker[1] are definitely post Apple, right? [0] https://barryborsboom.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/172_721-rams-ipods-1.jpg https://barryborsboom.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/172_721-ra... [1] https://barryborsboom.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/mac-speaker.jpg https://barryborsboom.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/mac-speake...
    - fwr 14y ago
      You are comparing a radio and a speaker with an mp3 player and a computer. Not everything is design.
      - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        This whole deal is about design patents (or registered designs, depending on jurisdiction), basically the look of the box that the electronics are housed in; the content ot the box is immaterial in this respect.

comex 14y ago

Poor copywriting. If the snark were written more precisely so that it couldn't be considered misleading, Apple would probably have been able to get the press points without being forced to put a large statement on their homepage disclaiming the previous one as "inaccurate".

bengl3rt 14y ago
Welcome back to being allowed to comment on Apple things publicly! Feels good, doesn't it?
- comex 14y ago
  It's fun being a fanboy.

nagrom 14y ago

Watching this play out is hilarious. I'm not quite sure if it is schadenfreude, the morbid curiosity akin to that experienced from watching a snake eat a rabbit, or just the prospect of watching an 800lb. gorilla behave like a spoiled child, but I have a real feeling that Apple could end up fighting the UK court systems and losing, very, very hard. I simply cannot believe that Apple's previous behaviour was sanctioned by its legal team. The idea of not just losing in court but then pissing the judge off...wow. There's a really childish part of me that hopes that Apple won't comply with this latest judgement just to see what the court does next. Monetary fines? Product bans? Executive jail time? I believe that the best thing Apple can do now is fold, and grovel. However, I have no idea if they'll do that. I've said before in previous threads: the UK court system is much more invested in proving its own authority than Apple is invested in a silly argument with Samsung. And on that note, if you were Samsung, you'd likely be rolling in the aisles just about now. EDIT: I see that they've complied. I see why, but I'm disappointed!

adaml_623 14y ago
Why do you think the penalties for perjury and contempt of court are so extreme? A large chunk of society hanging together and working relies on impartial but powerful judicial systems. It's one of those thin edge of the wedge situations. We don't want a system where people flout court rulings even if it's just about a notice on a website.
- cstross 14y ago
  Also note: British judges and prosecutors are not elected by popular vote -- they're appointed from within the system on the recommendation of their peers. So they're heavily invested in the authority of the judicial system itself, rather than in dancing to the electoral campaign paymasters' tunes.
gsnedders 14y ago
Note this is the English courts, acting under English law. You can't really extrapolate from this into the Scottish and Northern Irish courts.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jarcoal 14y ago

What a mess this is on both sides. Apple has reacted poorly, but if I were British I would be a bit upset that my judges were wasting time on punishments like this. The point is to punish Apple, so just fine them and be over with it. The end result is the same, just without all this drama in the middle. EDIT: I'm going to retract my opinion here because a few good points have been made and I shouldn't have spoken when I was not 100% informed on the matter. Sorry!

CervezaPorFavor 14y ago
I believe it has been said many times that the main objective is to undo some of the harm that Apple has caused to Samsung. Hence, the public announcements.
- jarcoal 14y ago
  "harm" for a company is another way of saying money lost, so why not just fine Apple a ton of money and give it to Samsung?
  - chc 14y ago
    Because that still allows Apple to profit from what the court views as severe misbehavior?
  - aes256 14y ago
    Because there is no way of calculating the potential cost of the damage to Samsung's reputation. Plus, it makes far more sense to tackle the root of the problem — the harm caused to Samsung's reputation — by ordering Apple to make public announcements that its allegations against them were false.
  - jbri 14y ago
    So it should be fine to break the law and commit any sort of crime against a company, and the only penalty should be giving them make-up money after the fact?

jpxxx 14y ago

Tim Cook, past-peak, Steve Jobs would never, bully, bullying, bullies, bullied, overpriced, one mouse button, luxury, ivory tower, arrogant, evil, marketing, finally.

dboat 14y ago
Some manner of inside joke?
- MartinCron 14y ago
  More like a Tourette's attack.
- jpxxx 14y ago
  I figure that if you put all of the asinine and dipshit comments into one big one, it'll drain the swamp and allow for some actual conversation.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    An interesting concept, but that's what the downvote arrow is for. And looking at your BS-magnet post, it appears to be working fine.
    - jpxxx 14y ago
      True. :) spend 'em if you gottem!

Camillo 14y ago

I can't even tell what's going on any more. All of this notice-posting is meant to undo the "harm" Apple has caused by saying Samsung copied the iPad, right? But the court insists that it never even touched the question of whether Samsung copied the iPad. Yet the same court is upset about Apple suggesting that Samsung did copy the iPad. So, to sum up: - Apple said that Samsung copied the iPad; - the court wants Apple punished for saying that; - although the court never made any determination about whether Samsung copied the iPad; - and Apple is still forbidden from saying that Samsung copied the iPad. Nope, still confused.

Nursie 14y ago
You're confused because you're trying to oversimplify. Try reading the article again, the court case was over a registered design, not the iPad
- Camillo 14y ago
  Yes, but if you believe that Samsung's business incurred substantial damage from a perception of infringement, surely that perception would have to be "Samsung copied Apple's products", not just "Samsung infringed Apple's Community Registered Design No. 000181607-001". Basically, if the case was "big" (over the issue of Samsung copying the iPad), then: - the court would have had to rule on whether Samsung copied the iPad; and, if it ruled negatively, then - Samsung could have claimed to have incurred a significant damage to its reputation after being smeared as a copycat, and - the court would have had reason to prohibit Apple from reiterating the copying accusations. However, if the case was "small" (over the issue of Community Registered Design No. 000181607-001, and explicitly excluding the question of whether Samsung copied the iPad), then: - the court would merely have to rule on whether Samsung infringed that specific design, explicitly leaving open the question of whether they "copied the iPad" or not; and, having decided negatively, then - the damage to Samsung's reputation would have been insignificant, since (some) people care about whether they are copycats or not, and the court's decision on that specific registered patent does not touch the greater question, and thus - the court would have no grounds to prohibit Apple from saying: "the court ruled that Samsung didn't violate this specific registered design; however, we still believe that they copied our products, and here are a few other cases where they were found to infringe our IP". You see what I mean? I don't see how you can have BIG damages, BIG punishment, BIG limitations on what Apple can say if you don't also have the BIG decision that would justify all that. And the court has said over and over that they have made no such decision.

chrisacky 14y ago

No shit.[1] "Apple. Your brand is being ruined by misplaced trust in a losing super-aggressive legal strategy." I genuinely used to like Apple. I can actually remember regularly checking the website for the different gadgets I could buy. This was well before the Android v Apple "fan-boyism". I switched off totally from the anti-consumerism that drives Apple. They make great devices that just work. I have no problems in borrowing an iPad for an hour, but they consistently take strategies beyond their products that have decremental effects to their customers and customers of other companies. Who needs a third adapter for their phone (that will only work on iPhone5)? Who needs a different form factor for their SIM card so Apple can secure three year licencing deals with carriers? Who needs the walled garden of an App Store that prevents developers from releasing Apps that might cross over with iOS functionality... Who needs to write a book on Apple Software where the terms demand that they only distribute the book on Apple platforms[2].. Put honestly, there is very little that Apple does that could be interpreted as being for the "better-ment" of people that aren't Apple customers. They take a "fuck"[1] everyone attitude that isn't a beneficiary of Apple stock. I just think that this is a very toxic label for Apple to have against them. Just to stress... I think Apple make great products, although I will never again contribute a single cent to anything that bears the Apple name. They have all but destroyed their brand that I once so sorely coveted (and this was a time not so long ago). Who needs humility... Clearly, not Apple... [1] : I hate swearing. Apologies. [2] : This got changed shortly after considerable backlash. [9] : I need to stop writing so many "Apple" critical comments.. If you look through any of my last 50 comments I'd guess perhaps 10 are Apple related. It's wrong of me that I consistently only comment on Apple posts.

jrockway 14y ago
I was the same way until one day, I tried to run gdb on iTunes, and gdb segfaulted. I did some research and found that Apple added extra code to the OS just to prevent someone from doing exactly that. They spent additional engineering effort just to lock me out of my own computer. (I still wonder what data collection they were trying to hide.) Anyway, that was the day I deleted OS X and switched back to Linux forever. (I even ran Rockbox on my iPod until I replaced it with a $30 Sansa device with 10x the features.)

RossM 14y ago

I did not know that Apple's paper advert had been pushed back so late. I have seen a photo of one that appeared in the Guardian about a week ago [0] which as a reader I would skim over given the lack of branding and its similarity to adverts that try to appear part of the newspaper copy, yet have that tell-tale 'Advertisement' header. (These are common to all newspapers in the UK, big and small - maybe elsewhere also.) Skipping over these is something that regular readers naturally do and I expect the design is intentional. I am very interested to see what their Nov 16th ad will look like. Given that it must appear in magazines as well as broadsheets it may be that the mags require it to have some sort of branding/style so as to not make the magazine appear cheap, unlike the image linked. [0]: http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/the-frontline-blog/2222112/apple-print-apology-to-samsung-hits-the-newsstands http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/the-frontline-blog/2222112/apple-p...

pfortuny 14y ago

Serves them well. Stupidity (if not malice) has to have its price.