Apple Leaves U.K. Judge at ‘Loss’ Over Samsung Web Posts

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Bloomberg News

Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges for posting a notice on its website about a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”

The U.K. Court of Appeal in London ordered Apple to remove the statement within 24 hours and replace it with a new notice acknowledging the inaccurate comments.

“I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.”

The decision is the latest in a lawsuit that produced a July judgment in which another London court said the design for three Samsung Galaxy tablets didn’t infringe Apple’s registered design because they were not “cool” enough. Apple, based in Cupertino, California, was told by the same court last month to post a notice about the ruling that Samsung’s Galaxy tablets didn’t copy the design of Apple’s iPad.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html

---

Apple Must Apologise To Samsung Again: And Properly This Time.

The Court of Appeal in the UK this morning decided that Apple had been very naughty boys. Their apology, which the same court had previously ruled Apple must publish, to Samsung was not adequate. Indeed, it was inaccurate near to the point of being misleading. Apple must now publish a further apology, using the correct terms and language, and keep it up until 14 th December on their UK home page.

My advice to Apple at this point is to stop playing around and do as the nice judges say. For those judges at the Court of Appeal do not take kindly to being played around with. The Guardian has part of the story:

The UK court of appeal has reprimanded Apple over the wording of the statement on its website acknowledging that Samsung did not infringe the iPad tablet’s registered design, and ordered it to put an altered statement on its homepage – rather than tucked away in a linked page – until 14 December.

The acknowledgement put up last week, linked from the home page by a tiny link, was deemed to be “non-compliant” with the order that the court had made in October. The court has now ordered it to correct the statement – and the judges, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob, indicated that they were not pleased with Apple’s failure to put a simpler statement on the site.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/01/apple-must-apologise-to-samsung-again-and-properly-this-time/

Offending current apology at this link : http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

[enlightenment]

1. Whoever is in charge of Apple Inc needs to

reread Oedipus Rex - neither the gods nor the courts appreciate hubris.

[cui bono]

2. Apple is the electronics industry's GOP

When they can't legitimately win, they cheat and lie.

What little whiny babies.

[Poll_Blind]

5. I don't think I would go that far, but some of their actions DO seem "entitled".

You get a similar portion of behavior like that from Microsoft too, but it's usually not served up with the attitude that Apple gives it.

PB

[cui bono]

24. I'm thinking more of their cell phone behavior. There is video of Jobs swearing to destroy Android

phones and they are still playing stupid games in an effort to do so. Android has taken over the largest market share of cell phones now and Apple is determined to stop it. One thing they do is patent technology that is common and that everyone already implements, then sue the other companies for using it so that they can hold up imports of new models of phones. Then they sue Samsung because their tablet is rectangular with rounded corners. I mean really. How many TVs are shaped the same? It's just childish.

What they should be doing is figuring out how they can keep the iPhone more relevant by coming out with new models more often, or making low end, mid end and high end versions that aren't only about gb but on actual technological features. But if they only come out with a new model every 12-18 months they can't possibly think they are going to dominate the market when there's big improvements in Android phones every 2-4 months. Even the iPhone 5 isn't even HD and only has 1gb of RAM. My phone has been HD for a year and has 1gb RAM, current top end phones have 2gb RAM now. So they don't make a better phone by their own design and then play childish games. Just like Republicans.

[NYC Liberal]

3. They followed the court ruling and now the court is changing its mind.

The judge told them to include some specific text and they did so -- right at the top of the page.

It was an especially stupid order to begin with, seeing as Apple never claimed on their website that Samsung copied them, nor did they ever take out print ads claiming it.

[.99center]

4. Right at the top of the page?

It's down at the very bottom, in between the frequently clicked, 'Use of cookies" and "Choose your country or region",which would only be used if a visitor of the site mis-clicked the first time they picked their country.

[NYC Liberal]

7. No, right at the top of the page where they put the required text:

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

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.

That was the text required by the judge to be included, and it was.

(The link is in the required font size on the home page -- the court specified 10px or 11px font. If the court wanted a larger or more prominent link, they'd have specified it.)

[.99center]

12. You're right,

I apologize for my snarky comment. As the OP points out, the courts problem is Apples summary of their ruling.

[Posteritatis]

6. Uh, when I saw it they went far out of their way to conceal it

It was hidden among the copyright tags at the bottom, in the smallest font on the page.

[NYC Liberal]

8. The font size is the size specified by the court:

Within seven days of the date of this Order [18th July 2012] [Apple] shall at its own expense (a) post in a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this order on the homepage of its UK website ... as specified in Schedule 1 to this Order, together with a hyperlink to the Judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 9th July 2012

[dipsydoodle]

9. The issue isn't the font size.

Its the additional narrative. which is at issue.

[Posteritatis]

10. I'd say it was also the font size

May have been in the wishy-washy statement they posted, but the link was in the usual tiny-print they use at the bottom of a page. You wouldn't know the statement had been posted at all unless you were actively looking for it on a part of a website which most people never even glance at in the first place.

They screwed the wording, of course, but they also tried to conceal it.

[dipsydoodle]

11. Yes the issue

is that of prominence on the Apple website.

Generally speaking our judges don't hesitete to imprison for contempt of court. Apple may not be aware of. that.

[NYC Liberal]

13. The "tiny print" was the very specific font size ordered by the court.

If the court had wanted a larger link they would have specified a larger font size. They specifically said "11 point font", which is the font size it's in.

[NYC Liberal]

14. The court ordered specific text to be included. It was. The judge has now changed his mind.

The "additional narrative" is a direct quote from the very same judgement.

[dipsydoodle]

15. Not the reference to Germany isn't

That was the issue which caused the judge to instruct that a prominent retraction be published. The UK original UK finding covered the whole EU - subesequently going to the German court was regarded as taking the Micky.

[NYC Liberal]

16. Yes and the text says clearly: "That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union"

[cui bono]

25. "Indeed, it was inaccurate near to the point of being misleading."

Quoted from what was posted above.

[NYC Liberal]

26. Quoting the same ruling that ordered this "ad" is inaccurate?

That's, uh, interesting.

[cui bono]

28. I thought that was the response to that ad. Either way...

Last edited Fri Nov 2, 2012, 02:18 PM - Edit history (2)

Apple needs to grow the fuck up.

EDIT TO ADD FOR TRUTH: It WAS a response to the ad. Not sure what you're talking about.

[NYC Liberal]

29. They carried out a childish order with exactly the seriousness it deserved.

[cui bono]

30. The so-called "childish" order was given in response to a childish suit.

They fill the courts with whiny lawsuits constantly in a desire to destroy Android, which was one of Jobs' goals, specifically. They need to grow up and make a superior product or at least keep up if they want to dominate the cell phone and tablet market.

And btw... doesn't look to me like you're correct above in your previous response ot me. What I quoted was about what they posted in response to the order, which you said they had done properly. The court clearly stated they did not. You can read more about it in the Forbes piece.

[NYC Liberal]

31. They did carry out the order properly. The court is now changing its mind after the fact

because a petulant judge doesn't like his own words from his own ruling to be quoted. The judge proposed some text, and that text was included as required. Apple also included quotes from the same ruling. Had the court wanted nothing else on the page, they would have specified that, just like they specified the font type and size.

[LanternWaste]

17. One multinational corporation is much like most other multinational corporations.

One multinational corporation is much like most other multinational corporations. No good reason I'll hold Apple to a higher or a lower standard than any of the others...

[.99center]

19. Wouldn't you agree

That it's refreshing to see a court hold a company accountable for filing these ridiculous patent infringement cases, that do nothing but waste the courts time. They all should be publicly shamed when they lose infringement cases. It really irks me that they can afford to file lawsuit after lawsuit which cost them millions, but can't afford to pay their workers a livable wage.

[LanternWaste]

27. To be perfectly honest, I don't have enough legal knowledge to presume

To be perfectly honest, I don't have enough legal knowledge to presume if one or another particular patent infringement case is with or without merit.

But yes, all thing being equal, any company that prioritizes keeping a coffer full for lawsuits, whilst simultaneously draining the coffer for employees is merely another multinational corporation-- parasites adapting to an ever changing host.

[DaveJ]

18. Not Funny, Dated humor, IMO

With all the serious issues people are facing today, Apple's obsession with being "cool" seems kind of lame.

[sendero]

20. I worked....

.... for a company providing technical services to Apple way back in 1984. I couldn't help but notice the smug attitude of just about every Apple employee I worked with. You'd think they were curing cancer.

I've never cared for Apple as a company since, and I'm not remotely interested in paying a 40% premium for "cool".

[DaveJ]

21. We know, they aren't exactly kind people.

I guess they have their own idea of what makes them special. From the outsider's perspective, as you said, they just come off as arrogant. I guess 20 years ago, they could pull it off, but normal people see through the act these days.

[argiel1234]

22. i have never bought a apple product

and never will

overpriced garbage, speaking from experience with friends who use iphones and ipads

[rachel1]

23. The only purpose of Apple's lawsuits was to stifle competition

through frivolous litigation and intimidation.

What a shame.

On a similar note, the whole patent system is a joke because only physical property can be possessed not thoughts and ideas.