If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   UK judge to Apple: Apologise to Samsung on your website. Apple: Fine, we'll turn it into an advert. UK judge: How about no?   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 53
    More: Followup, Samsung, apples, Galaxy Tab  
•       •       •

4854 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Nov 2012 at 12:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-01 11:08:55 AM  
That made me feel warm inside.
 
2012-11-01 11:18:14 AM  
I'm glad the judge is smart enough to see through their excuses and deny their 14 day extension. Meanwhile, If any of us normal folks tried to skirt around a court order we'd be lucky to not end up in jail for contempt.
 
2012-11-01 11:31:43 AM  
Good on that Judge. 14 days to post an amended notice for one of the most profitable tech companies the world has ever seen? Get real.

You gotta love the hubris though. "Apple is required by law to advise that, despite different rulings in Germany and the US, the Samsung Galaxy does not, in the eyes of a UK Judge, infringe on patent designs." "BTW we can't fix this notice in under 14 days. That would be haaarrrrrdddd and our legal department is waaaay too busy to approve any modification."
 
2012-11-01 12:32:32 PM  

WTFDYW: That made me feel warm inside.

This

Gig103: I'm glad the judge is smart enough to see through their excuses and deny their 14 day extension. Meanwhile, If any of us normal folks tried to skirt around a court order we'd be lucky to not end up in jail for contempt.

This

Elandriel: Good on that Judge. 14 days to post an amended notice for one of the most profitable tech companies the world has ever seen? Get real.

You gotta love the hubris though. "Apple is required by law to advise that, despite different rulings in Germany and the US, the Samsung Galaxy does not, in the eyes of a UK Judge, infringe on patent designs." "BTW we can't fix this notice in under 14 days. That would be haaarrrrrdddd and our legal department is waaaay too busy to approve any modification."

And some of this.

/f*ck Apple
 
2012-11-01 12:35:26 PM  

Elandriel: Good on that Judge. 14 days to post an amended notice for one of the most profitable tech companies the world has ever seen? Get real.

You gotta love the hubris though. "Apple is required by law to advise that, despite different rulings in Germany and the US, the Samsung Galaxy does not, in the eyes of a UK Judge, infringe on patent designs." "BTW we can't fix this notice in under 14 days. That would be haaarrrrrdddd and our legal department is waaaay too busy to approve any modification."


The whole thing is laughable. The core of the dispute between Apple and Samsung is laughable. The UK requiring a website statement when the issue was found the other way in other nations is laughable. But most ridiculous of all is the thought that a technology company with what must be a small army of web developers cannot get a statement posted inside two weeks... they can do this in ten minutes from the bathroom.
 
2012-11-01 12:37:52 PM  
That's why those types of judicial orders shouldn't be permitted at all, and the judge who issues them is an idiot for doing so. You can't tell people what to say and expect it to come out of their mouths sounding true.

Judicial rulings are typically limited to: prison sentences, money damages, settling claims of ownership, cease-and-desist orders for specific activities. Those are clear-cut black-and-white things that can be enforced. Telling a person or a company that they have to appologize and really mean it is just silliness.
 
2012-11-01 12:48:30 PM  
Did I miss somewhere in the article where they wrote what it was that Apple actually put up? I might have, but if not then that's some shoddy writing.
 
2012-11-01 12:50:59 PM  

cefm: That's why those types of judicial orders shouldn't be permitted at all, and the judge who issues them is an idiot for doing so. You can't tell people what to say and expect it to come out of their mouths sounding true.

Judicial rulings are typically limited to: prison sentences, money damages, settling claims of ownership, cease-and-desist orders for specific activities. Those are clear-cut black-and-white things that can be enforced. Telling a person or a company that they have to appologize and really mean it is just silliness.


They didn't have to mean it. They just had to say it, very, very publicly.
You take a case to appeal, and you risk coming off worse for it. This kind of thing is designed to prevent frivolity in the legal system.

(Also, if you lose, you pay the other side's costs)
 
2012-11-01 12:51:57 PM  

sure haven't: /f*ck Apple


Did Steve Jobs personally kick your puppy and steal your sucker as a child?

/not sure why anyone would side with a multi-national conglomerate basically run by the mob like Samsung. Which has a sketchier labour history than most companies out there
//but whatever
 
2012-11-01 12:54:47 PM  

gingerjet: sure haven't: /f*ck Apple

Did Steve Jobs personally kick your puppy and steal your sucker as a child?


Maybe he did. If so, he probably does not want to talk about it.


Apple needs to lose the ego.
 
2012-11-01 12:58:31 PM  
Oh fark Samsung. Bunch of whiny ass hats.
 
2012-11-01 12:59:57 PM  

gingerjet: sure haven't: /f*ck Apple

Did Steve Jobs personally kick your puppy and steal your sucker as a child?

/not sure why anyone would side with a multi-national conglomerate basically run by the mob like Samsung. Which has a sketchier labour history than most companies out there
//but whatever


Clearly you've chosen a side and its just as ridiculous as someone 'choosing' Samsung's side. They're both huge corporations that wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
 
2012-11-01 01:07:04 PM  

NutznGum: Clearly you've chosen a side and its just as ridiculous as someone 'choosing' Samsung's side. They're both huge corporations that wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.


Winner.
 
2012-11-01 01:14:43 PM  

NutznGum: gingerjet: sure haven't: /f*ck Apple

Did Steve Jobs personally kick your puppy and steal your sucker as a child?

/not sure why anyone would side with a multi-national conglomerate basically run by the mob like Samsung. Which has a sketchier labour history than most companies out there
//but whatever

Clearly you've chosen a side and its just as ridiculous as someone 'choosing' Samsung's side. They're both huge corporations that wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.


Of course they are. It's just that Apple are being dicks with their lawyers again. Does anyone remember these?

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-01 01:27:11 PM  

gingerjet: /not sure why anyone would side with a multi-national conglomerate basically run by the mob like Samsung. Which has a sketchier labour history than most companies out there


Not sure why you'd side with a corporation...period.

I side with whatever let's me buy products in a competitive and innovative marketplace. Apple is currently the largest threat to that.
 
2012-11-01 01:48:51 PM  

cefm: You can't tell people what to say and expect it to come out of their mouths sounding true.


Despite what Romney says, corporations are not people my friend.

American corporations are going to have to get use to the fact that not every nation on the planet sucks on corporate dong the way the American government does. Jobs' reality distortion field worked on lots of customers and journalists but Apple is going to get a nasty lesson in how the world works if they think they can continue peeing on other parts of the world while telling them its lemonade.
 
2012-11-01 01:58:31 PM  
R. I. P. Jobs

/Rot in Purgatory
 
2012-11-01 02:11:35 PM  

EngineerAU: cefm: You can't tell people what to say and expect it to come out of their mouths sounding true.

Despite what Romney says, corporations are not people my friend.


I get that reading Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United v FCC can be difficult, but I don't understand how this went from being a snide short-hand to some people actually, honestly believing that this is what Republicans believe.
 
2012-11-01 02:15:54 PM  

cefm: You can't tell people what to say and expect it to come out of their mouths sounding true.


Well if they haven't learned their lesson, you just keep going at them until they get it.
 
2012-11-01 02:20:15 PM  

meanmutton: honestly believing that this is what Republicans believe.


Well they act like they believe it.
 
2012-11-01 02:44:25 PM  
Good, Apple did this because they are the little brat that is mad that they did not get their way.
 
2012-11-01 03:04:54 PM  

Gordon Bennett: NutznGum: gingerjet: sure haven't: /f*ck Apple

Did Steve Jobs personally kick your puppy and steal your sucker as a child?

/not sure why anyone would side with a multi-national conglomerate basically run by the mob like Samsung. Which has a sketchier labour history than most companies out there
//but whatever

Clearly you've chosen a side and its just as ridiculous as someone 'choosing' Samsung's side. They're both huge corporations that wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

Of course they are. It's just that Apple are being dicks with their lawyers again. Does anyone remember these?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 786x789]


The whole internet debate is interesting, because Apple is more hated for its arsehat legal maneuvers than Samsung is for its dark history (which makes Apple/MS look like CostCo).
 
2012-11-01 03:09:19 PM  

timujin: Did I miss somewhere in the article where they wrote what it was that Apple actually put up? I might have, but if not then that's some shoddy writing.




Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
 
2012-11-01 03:11:53 PM  
2 days is obviously not enough for the following:

Marketing department have to decide message, design web page and newspaper adds.
Legal department has to approve it all.
Focus groups have to agree it makes Apple look good.
Management has to approve it.
repeat until everyone at Apple is happy
publish result.
 
2012-11-01 03:15:52 PM  

Loki009: timujin: Did I miss somewhere in the article where they wrote what it was that Apple actually put up? I might have, but if not then that's some shoddy writing.



Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competiti ...


Sorry, not that part, I was wondering what "ad" Apply put up that the judge felt wasn't in compliance.
 
2012-11-01 03:15:55 PM  

gingerjet: sure haven't: /f*ck Apple

Did Steve Jobs personally kick your puppy and steal your sucker as a child?

/not sure why anyone would side with a multi-national conglomerate basically run by the mob like Samsung. Which has a sketchier labour history than most companies out there
//but whatever


Who said I "chose" Samsung or anything?

I despise Apple, that's it. I am on no one's side, for no one is on my side.
 
2012-11-01 03:40:19 PM  

Moopy Mac: Gordon Bennett: NutznGum: gingerjet: sure haven't: /f*ck Apple

Did Steve Jobs personally kick your puppy and steal your sucker as a child?

/not sure why anyone would side with a multi-national conglomerate basically run by the mob like Samsung. Which has a sketchier labour history than most companies out there
//but whatever

Clearly you've chosen a side and its just as ridiculous as someone 'choosing' Samsung's side. They're both huge corporations that wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

Of course they are. It's just that Apple are being dicks with their lawyers again. Does anyone remember these?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 786x789]

The whole internet debate is interesting, because Apple is more hated for its arsehat legal maneuvers than Samsung is for its dark history (which makes Apple/MS look like CostCo).


I think it has more to do with people not really knowing much about Samsung whereas Apple is ubiquitous. I didn't know Samsung made tanker ships and forklifts and I have no idea about their history.

I hate both sides to be honest, its ridiculous to me that they couldn't have sat down and worked out licensing deals on their patents. Its especially crazy considering the amount of business the two companies do together.
 
2012-11-01 03:40:27 PM  

timujin: Sorry, not that part, I was wondering what "ad" Apply put up that the judge felt wasn't in compliance.


No, that's the one. Basically, Apple complied with the order to the letter (link on the home page, that first paragraph of text, in at least 12 point type), but certainly not to the spirit of it (don't quote the sections of the judge's opinion that make you look good or Samsung look bad, don't reference other cases in other jurisdictions, etc.). So, the court has added additional, more specific requirements to the order that Apple will have to comply with.
When the ruling first came out, I predicted that the contradictions between the different jurisdictions would be an issue.
 
2012-11-01 03:42:38 PM  

NutznGum: I hate both sides to be honest, its ridiculous to me that they couldn't have sat down and worked out licensing deals on their patents. Its especially crazy considering the amount of business the two companies do together.


I think they normally would, except that these patents had to do with look and feel, rather than functional technology. Licensing design patents would be like licensing your trade dress - it ends up not being "your" trade dress in the minds of consumers.
 
2012-11-01 03:47:24 PM  

Theaetetus: NutznGum: I hate both sides to be honest, its ridiculous to me that they couldn't have sat down and worked out licensing deals on their patents. Its especially crazy considering the amount of business the two companies do together.

I think they normally would, except that these patents had to do with look and feel, rather than functional technology. Licensing design patents would be like licensing your trade dress - it ends up not being "your" trade dress in the minds of consumers.


Good point, but to some, myself included, the whole look and feel' aspect of this was silly. A lot of people see it as Apple patenting a rectangle with rounded corners. Yes, that its an oversimplification but there's truth to it. Most laptops and PC's look pretty much the same, TV's and stereo equipment, etc....And Apple's 'sue first and ask questions later then sue again' attitude is off-putting to many people.
 
2012-11-01 03:50:13 PM  

meanmutton: EngineerAU: cefm: You can't tell people what to say and expect it to come out of their mouths sounding true.

Despite what Romney says, corporations are not people my friend.

I get that reading Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United v FCC can be difficult, but I don't understand how this went from being a snide short-hand to some people actually, honestly believing that this is what Republicans believe.


....maybe because it's a word for word Romney quote?

"Romney explained that one way to fulfill promises on entitlement programs is to "raise taxes on people," but before he could articulate his position on not raising taxes, someone interrupted. "Corporations!" a protester shouted, apparently urging Romney to raise taxes on corporations that have benefited from loopholes in the tax code. "Corporations!" "Corporations are people, my friend," Romney said."

Link
 
2012-11-01 04:00:33 PM  

NutznGum: Theaetetus: NutznGum: I hate both sides to be honest, its ridiculous to me that they couldn't have sat down and worked out licensing deals on their patents. Its especially crazy considering the amount of business the two companies do together.

I think they normally would, except that these patents had to do with look and feel, rather than functional technology. Licensing design patents would be like licensing your trade dress - it ends up not being "your" trade dress in the minds of consumers.

Good point, but to some, myself included, the whole look and feel' aspect of this was silly. A lot of people see it as Apple patenting a rectangle with rounded corners.


Eh, that's why we're not marketing people. Or industrial designers or graphic artists. To some people, this stuff is really important. And honestly, they're not wrong - some of the biggest differences between mid level cars and luxury cars, for example, involve the aesthetics and ornamentation, since all the money in the world won't change the speed limit on the highway. Same thing with fashion. Consumer electronics also involve a lot of aesthetics, since the functional differences aren't that major - most computers these days have the same processors, same GPU, same hard drives, etc., so it's really look and feel that differentiates them.
 
2012-11-01 04:06:40 PM  

Theaetetus: NutznGum: Theaetetus: NutznGum: I hate both sides to be honest, its ridiculous to me that they couldn't have sat down and worked out licensing deals on their patents. Its especially crazy considering the amount of business the two companies do together.

I think they normally would, except that these patents had to do with look and feel, rather than functional technology. Licensing design patents would be like licensing your trade dress - it ends up not being "your" trade dress in the minds of consumers.

Good point, but to some, myself included, the whole look and feel' aspect of this was silly. A lot of people see it as Apple patenting a rectangle with rounded corners.

Eh, that's why we're not marketing people. Or industrial designers or graphic artists. To some people, this stuff is really important. And honestly, they're not wrong - some of the biggest differences between mid level cars and luxury cars, for example, involve the aesthetics and ornamentation, since all the money in the world won't change the speed limit on the highway. Same thing with fashion. Consumer electronics also involve a lot of aesthetics, since the functional differences aren't that major - most computers these days have the same processors, same GPU, same hard drives, etc., so it's really look and feel that differentiates them.


I think Apple would have been better served by actually making a marketing campaign based on the similarities of the two phones. They should have had commercials pointing it out saying their product was so 'groundbreaking' its being copied wholesale. I think it could have embarrassed Samsung and have Apple looking like the bigger person so to speak. But we end up with Apple looking petty and Samsung being the victim.
 
2012-11-01 04:47:57 PM  

Theaetetus: timujin: Sorry, not that part, I was wondering what "ad" Apply put up that the judge felt wasn't in compliance.

No, that's the one. Basically, Apple complied with the order to the letter (link on the home page, that first paragraph of text, in at least 12 point type), but certainly not to the spirit of it (don't quote the sections of the judge's opinion that make you look good or Samsung look bad, don't reference other cases in other jurisdictions, etc.). So, the court has added additional, more specific requirements to the order that Apple will have to comply with.
When the ruling first came out, I predicted that the contradictions between the different jurisdictions would be an issue.


ah, I misread it, I thought that was the original ruling
 
2012-11-01 04:51:56 PM  

cefm: That's why those types of judicial orders shouldn't be permitted at all, and the judge who issues them is an idiot for doing so. You can't tell people what to say and expect it to come out of their mouths sounding true.


I doesn't matter if Apple sounds like they're really sorry. It matters to the judge that English consumers know that Samsung's devices are perfectly legal and all that. They're supposed to state a fact, publicly, not tell us about their feelings.
 
2012-11-01 05:03:35 PM  

NutznGum: Theaetetus: NutznGum: Theaetetus: NutznGum: I hate both sides to be honest, its ridiculous to me that they couldn't have sat down and worked out licensing deals on their patents. Its especially crazy considering the amount of business the two companies do together.

I think they normally would, except that these patents had to do with look and feel, rather than functional technology. Licensing design patents would be like licensing your trade dress - it ends up not being "your" trade dress in the minds of consumers.

Good point, but to some, myself included, the whole look and feel' aspect of this was silly. A lot of people see it as Apple patenting a rectangle with rounded corners.

Eh, that's why we're not marketing people. Or industrial designers or graphic artists. To some people, this stuff is really important. And honestly, they're not wrong - some of the biggest differences between mid level cars and luxury cars, for example, involve the aesthetics and ornamentation, since all the money in the world won't change the speed limit on the highway. Same thing with fashion. Consumer electronics also involve a lot of aesthetics, since the functional differences aren't that major - most computers these days have the same processors, same GPU, same hard drives, etc., so it's really look and feel that differentiates them.

I think Apple would have been better served by actually making a marketing campaign based on the similarities of the two phones. They should have had commercials pointing it out saying their product was so 'groundbreaking' its being copied wholesale. I think it could have embarrassed Samsung and have Apple looking like the bigger person so to speak. But we end up with Apple looking petty and Samsung being the victim.


Yeah. That's why I'm generally anti-litigation. The end result is almost always worse for both parties than a negotiated agreement.
 
2012-11-01 05:05:32 PM  

timujin: Theaetetus: timujin: Sorry, not that part, I was wondering what "ad" Apply put up that the judge felt wasn't in compliance.

No, that's the one. Basically, Apple complied with the order to the letter (link on the home page, that first paragraph of text, in at least 12 point type), but certainly not to the spirit of it (don't quote the sections of the judge's opinion that make you look good or Samsung look bad, don't reference other cases in other jurisdictions, etc.). So, the court has added additional, more specific requirements to the order that Apple will have to comply with.
When the ruling first came out, I predicted that the contradictions between the different jurisdictions would be an issue.

ah, I misread it, I thought that was the original ruling


well, im still misreading it. the colon before that description says the judge is giving his description of the differences, not that the ad is saying the differences.

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."


This doesnt feel like it reads like a disclaimer on their website. It sounds like what the judge says of the situation.
 
2012-11-01 05:08:05 PM  

The Flexecutioner: This doesnt feel like it reads like a disclaimer on their website. It sounds like what the judge says of the situation.


It is... The Apple "apology" is an entirely factual report of the various cases and direct quotes from the judge in this case. Hence why they aren't being accused of lying or anything. But, the arrangement and context certainly gives a different impression than what the judges intended.
 
2012-11-01 05:09:43 PM  
are there screencaps or something? the article doesnt seem to communicate that at all to me.
 
2012-11-01 05:11:39 PM  

The Flexecutioner: are there screencaps or something? the article doesnt seem to communicate that at all to me.


Link to apology.

The first paragraph is directly copied from the order.
 
2012-11-01 05:21:15 PM  
ah, thanks. i was just reading the actual summary when you posted that link. Loki009's post seemed like a cut and paste from the article since i didnt see it linked anywhere.
 
2012-11-01 05:29:44 PM  
If Apple doesn't seem to be taking this judge seriously, maybe it's because the ruling is a joke.

/Pro tip: judges can be brainwashed iHaters too.
 
2012-11-01 05:35:09 PM  

bingethinker: If Apple doesn't seem to be taking this judge seriously, maybe it's because the ruling is a joke.

/Pro tip: judges can be brainwashed iHaters too.


I don't know about that... I think the penalty is a joke (as I would find any such forced speech to be a joke), but this is the UK where free speech doesn't exist. But the judge was pretty complimentary towards Apple (hence their quotes from his ruling).
 
2012-11-01 05:51:51 PM  

bingethinker: If Apple doesn't seem to be taking this judge seriously, maybe it's because the ruling is a joke.

/Pro tip: judges can be brainwashed iHaters too.


It's kind of scary how you constantly defend Apple like they actually give a damn about you.

At least that's what your mother told me to tell you. She also said you need to take out the garbage next time you come upstairs.
 
2012-11-01 06:17:45 PM  

Theaetetus: bingethinker: If Apple doesn't seem to be taking this judge seriously, maybe it's because the ruling is a joke.

/Pro tip: judges can be brainwashed iHaters too.

I don't know about that... I think the penalty is a joke (as I would find any such forced speech to be a joke), but this is the UK where free speech doesn't exist. But the judge was pretty complimentary towards Apple (hence their quotes from his ruling).


Freedom of speech is an inalienable natural right. Governments that fail to recognize it are no more legitimate that armed gangs controlling their territory. I hereby order the UK to surrender to me.
 
2012-11-01 07:55:39 PM  
"We're the most profitable corporation in the history of commerce... THEY DAMAGED US IRREPARABLY!"
 
2012-11-02 12:33:06 AM  

Theaetetus: bingethinker: If Apple doesn't seem to be taking this judge seriously, maybe it's because the ruling is a joke.

/Pro tip: judges can be brainwashed iHaters too.

I don't know about that... I think the penalty is a joke (as I would find any such forced speech to be a joke), but this is the UK where free speech doesn't exist. But the judge was pretty complimentary towards Apple (hence their quotes from his ruling).


Yeah...that guy isn't worth replying to, he just appears to post one incredibly pro-Apple post and then leaves.
 
2012-11-02 02:29:38 AM  

Theaetetus: The Flexecutioner: This doesnt feel like it reads like a disclaimer on their website. It sounds like what the judge says of the situation.

It is... The Apple "apology" is an entirely factual report of the various cases and direct quotes from the judge in this case. Hence why they aren't being accused of lying or anything. But, the arrangement and context certainly gives a different impression than what the judges intended.


The functional aspects of the apology were just fine, it was the look and feel that needed to be changed.
 
2012-11-02 06:07:01 AM  

Lachwen: Theaetetus: The Flexecutioner: This doesnt feel like it reads like a disclaimer on their website. It sounds like what the judge says of the situation.

It is... The Apple "apology" is an entirely factual report of the various cases and direct quotes from the judge in this case. Hence why they aren't being accused of lying or anything. But, the arrangement and context certainly gives a different impression than what the judges intended.

The functional aspects of the apology were just fine, it was the look and feel that needed to be changed.


cache.ohinternet.com 

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the judge would have been fine with the post if Apple hadn't added in the last paragraph:

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

Apple is cherry picking the rulings that have been in their favor and did not include rulings against them (Japan/Korea/Australia). They also didn't mention the current appeal that Samsung was granted in the US case either. It's smart marketing even if it passive aggressive BS.

On a different but related note, did Sony go crazy suing every Walkman clone manufacturer back in the day? That's a serious question too. I was way too young back then to be paying even the slightest bit of attention. I just find all these lawsuits to be ridiculous. Consumer products that are popular will always have cheaper clones nipping at their heels. Apple didn't invent the tablet, they're just the first to make them viable as consumer products. They found the right combo of design and usability and consumers flocked to it.
 
2012-11-02 06:34:16 AM  
Lord Justice Longmore told Mr Beloff: "We are just amazed that you cannot put the right notice up at the same time as you take the other one down."

One of the other judges, Sir Robin Jacob, added: "I would like to see the head of Apple [Tim Cook] make an affidavit about why that is such a technical difficulty for the Apple company."

Apple told the BBC it did not want to comment further.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report