UK Court of Appeal Reprimands Apple Over Mandated Samsung Statement 241
Macthorpe writes "In the UK, Apple were previously ordered to add a statement to their website stating that Samsung did not copy their designs, following a previous case where this was ruled by the UK courts. However, today the same court revealed that Apple's statement is not good enough. From the article: '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.' It appears the main objection is the statement is on a separate page and only linked from the hompage — and that the statement is buried in marketing blurb, and also put next to references to a case Apple won."
Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (Score:5, Informative)
It appears the main objection is the statement is on a separate page and only linked from the hompage
The judge said that a link from the home page would be all that's needed. It is only now that the statement has to appear on the home page.
Paragraphs 85 and 86
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html [bailii.org] [bailii.org]
Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that they were originally allowed to just put a link; abused this and are now required to put the text on the homepage, is what is known as a 'punishment'.
Fanbois unfamiliar with the concept should think of it as being 'unfriended' by the court.
Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that they were originally allowed to just put a link; abused this and are now required to put the text on the homepage, is what is known as a 'punishment'.
Fanbois unfamiliar with the concept should think of it as being 'unfriended' by the court.
I understand that, but the way the story is written, it makes it sound like Apple was wrong to only use a link, whereas they were actually implying. Just trying to clarify
The rest of your comment you can leave to the fanboys.
Re:Uh.... no. (Score:5, Informative)
What they're required to post (as distinct from what they chose to add) is this:
Sorry for breaking your browsers, y'all!
Re:Good-o (Score:5, Informative)
They were ordered to make a statement that Samsung had not copied the iPad and on reading their statement, which ends with a summary that clearly says that Samsung had copied the iPad. That statement clearly does not comply with the order.
Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (Score:5, Informative)
No, the judge was explicitly clear about what he wanted. He wanted an honest answer.
He didn't say "please mislead with the statement and violate the spirit of the law."
see: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121101091853360 [groklaw.net]
Apple did not follow the letter of the law, and it's amazing they haven't fired the lawyers for informing them that they may be flouting the judge's decision. He did not just say a link from the home page .He said a link from the home page stating samsung did not copy apple.
He did not say "please include commentary", or "please cite additional judgements which have been invalidateD".
Re:Apple complied - whose being a baby now..the co (Score:5, Informative)
Did you read the apology? It consisted of more than just the language of the court. It added an editorial pointing out how other courts found in their favor.
Right up there with your mother telling you to apologize, and when you go up to do so, you say you're sorry and then follow it up with an 80's "NOT".
Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (Score:5, Informative)
Not, the judge gave them the wording required, and they added marketing fluff to it. The text was to be posted to rectify Apple's statements that the tablet infringed and inform consumers that it was safe to purchase a Samsung tablet. Instead Apple used the statement to continue to create the impression that the tablet infringed and it was just the English court that was wrong. That's called contempt of court and teh English courts do not tolerate it like the US courts seem to.
Worse, they quoted two court rulings that didn't apply, so in themselves those added statements were deliberately misleading. In the US case the jury found the tablet did not infringe, and the German ruling was incorrectly sought in the wrong court by Apple after the English court had already ruled on an EU wide basis. Apple had even told the English Appeal court they were wrong to bring the German case and would apply to have that interim judgement withdrawn.
The court gave Apple a reasonable amount of rope and they hung themselves with it. If they had simply printed the required text who would have noticed? Instead they now have a publicity problem on their hands.
Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (Score:3, Informative)
It was not an English court it was a Community Court, so it covers the whole of the EU (including Germany).
Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pissing off judges (Score:4, Informative)
Appeal against ruling lost: October 18th
Notice posted on website: October 26th
How long did it take? What is your source?
Do your own fucking research.
Oh, never mind, we all know you just made that up.
We do? I happen to know that he didn't make it up, he's right, and you're talking nonsense. Please stop.
Re:Apples' response to the reprimand (Score:2, Informative)
Also, the US court determined the galaxy tab didn't infringe on any patents.