Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising The Courts United Kingdom Apple News

Apple Stops Hiding Samsung Apology On Its UK Site 189

Posted by timothy
from the writing-on-the-wall dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Apple has quietly decided that it probably shouldn't be using JavaScript code on its UK site to hide its second Samsung apology. While you still have to scroll down in almost cases, the company is no longer forcing it; check it out yourself at Apple UK."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Stops Hiding Samsung Apology On Its UK Site

Comments Filter:
  • Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zenyu (248067) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:04PM (#41922257)

    It didn't change for me. I still need to scroll down to see it no matter the browser window size.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

      by JavaBear (9872) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:09PM (#41922333)

      The removed the resizing script that forced the size of the top ad to ensure the apology would be outside the screen, regardless of the resolution and size of your screen.
      Instead they just set the top ad to the maximum size the resize script had it at. Aka a "big ass ad".

      • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by poetmatt (793785) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:14PM (#41922459) Journal

        so instead of deliberately hiding the apology, it's now automatically hidden. See? Better! /facepalm

      • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sjames (1099) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:23PM (#41922603) Homepage

        Exactly, they just made sure you'd have to scroll even if you disable javascript. If I can't see it on a full-screened browser at 1920x1080, it's because they didn't want me to. They don't seem to have any problem making sure I can see the ad copy they WANT me to see.

        No, your honor, I did not kill that man. Yes, I wired the doorbell for a million volts, replaced the welcome mat with a grounded copper plate, and then invited him over for tea, but he's the one who touched the doorbell button! It was suicide!

        • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by garyebickford (222422) <gar37bic.gmail@com> on Thursday November 08, 2012 @03:53PM (#41923971)

          Yes, I wired the doorbell for a million volts, replaced the welcome mat with a grounded copper plate, and then invited him over for tea, but he's the one who touched the doorbell button! It was suicide!

          Ah, I am reminded of the joys of youth! Of course, in my case was only a 13KV neon sign transformer, and I was the one invited in by my brother, to his bedroom door across the hall. The plate was aluminum foil, under the door mat. It arced between my foot and the mat, and between my hand and the doorknob. The muscle contractions tossed me across the hall, through the door, over my bed and I landed against the window. Big fun! :P He wanted to make sure it wasn't dangerous before he tried it on his friend...

          • by sjames (1099)

            He wanted to make sure it wasn't dangerous before he tried it on his friend...

            How thoughtful of him! ;-)

            I made a shocker for my doorknob as well, but I used lower current HF AC so it would sting quite a bit but wouldn't causse any noticable twitching. It was a noce bonus that it actually made the 'touching the force field' sound from the original Star Trek when you touched it.

            Dad didn't think it was all that funny.

        • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by horza (87255) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @09:03PM (#41927525) Homepage

          Not only does it not appear on a full-size 1920x1080 monitor, it's carefully designed with equal white-space between the titlebar and the top of the screen and the footer and the bottom of the screen to appear there is absolutely nothing beneath. There is no way I would have seen that notice if I hadn't known to look for the browser bar and to try and scroll down and find it.

          Ignoring the hypocracy of a company that was suing for subtle differences and then is trying subtle subfertuge, it STILL DOES NOT COMPLY. They are not printing the text of the original judgement, even hidden from view.

          At the bottom of the web site at the moment: "On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement."

          This is NOT WHAT THE COURT ORDERED. They really are taking the piss out of the judge.

          Phillip.

      • The removed the resizing script that forced the size of the top ad to ensure the apology would be outside the screen, regardless of the resolution and size of your screen. Instead they just set the top ad to the maximum size the resize script had it at. Aka a "big ass ad".

        So, to "defiant" and "contemptuous" we can add the adjective "sneaky" to describe the spirit of Apple's compliance with the court order.

      • by wgoodman (1109297)

        They also stopped redirecting from apple.com to apple.co.uk for UK IPs.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by _xeno_ (155264) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:54PM (#41923101) Homepage Journal

      Before, the image above the apology was set up so it auto-sized to fill up the space until the browser view was 1600 pixels tall, at which point it stopped. (Mind you that you couldn't see the apology, the image knocking it off the bottom just stopped getting larger.)

      Now, in order to see the apology without scrolling, your browser window needs to be 1700 pixels tall, and the image doesn't change size depending on the browser window size.

      So, yes, it's an "improvement." Now NoScript doesn't make the apology visible.

      Incidentally, they're just showing both ad campaigns they're running at the same time. On the US website, you either see the iPad Mini or the iPad 4th gen ad. On the UK, you always see both, so that the apology gets knocked off the bottom in nearly all use cases.

      I'm really hoping that the judge will force them to make the apology "click-through" on every page they control and show in the UK after this bullshit.

    • It didn't change for me. I still need to scroll down to see it no matter the browser window size.

      Same here and there's also no apology there or at the link it says I should click on. It's just legal details an nothing that could remotely be called an apology. So yep, get ready to see that apology laser etched onto the back of all iphone 6's in the near future because I don't think the UK courts have a sense of humor over this.

    • by buglista (1967502)
      I get one line of the statement. And if I make the window bigger and reload, I still get one line. (Chrome)
  • Everybody knows they're not sorry. All court-ordered apologies do is remind us that people in authority aren't satisfied unless you agree with them. Then they can go home satisfied, knowing that their world view is intact. All they really did was use coercion to force somebody to lie. Apple is not sorry. Everybody knows it.

    • by YodasEvilTwin (2014446) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:09PM (#41922343) Homepage
      I'm kind of OK with Apple being held down and fucked in the ass. The fact that they don't like anal (aren't sorry) is kind of the point; it's all the more horrible for them.
      • by istartedi (132515) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:16PM (#41922491) Journal

        So two wrongs make a right? Apple's wrong was apparently to make some false statement about Samsung. Actually, now that I've scrolled down (Chrome, 1680 by 1050 when full screen), I see that it's more like a retraction than an apology. Retractions of false statements make good sense. I'm fine with that. Other news stories were calling it an "apology".

        • It's "wrong" to force a company to post a meaningless statement on their website as part of a court judgement against them? Really?
          • by istartedi (132515) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:25PM (#41922637) Journal

            An apology isn't meaningless. It means you are truly sorry for what you did. If you aren't truly sorry, and an authority coerces you to make such a statement, then yes. It's wrong. It looks like that's a lot for people to wrap their heads around here, especially when they don't like the person being coerced.

            • The point is if they aren't sorry, they should be. The court can't order them to feel sorry, but it can order them to act like it.
              • Well, this won't do it.

              • by shentino (1139071)

                I seriously doubt the court has the power to force them to make a false statement about their supposed remorse.

            • christ, this isn't the definition of apology your mommy told you about when you were 7. what does it even more for a corporation to be "sorry" anyway?

              the issue is that apple convicted samsung in the court of public opinion. they used the lawsuit to smear samsung before they were convicted of it. low and behold, they were NOT convicted. what the courts are asking is perfectly reasonable- publicly state the court's decision- use a bit of their PR machine to state the actual legal decision.

        • by Quakeulf (2650167) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:33PM (#41922763)
          You reminded me of a horrible joke, you know, the one that says that two wrongs don't make a right, but to Wrights make a plane.
        • So two wrongs make a right? Apple's wrong was apparently to make some false statement about Samsung. Actually, now that I've scrolled down (Chrome, 1680 by 1050 when full screen), I see that it's more like a retraction than an apology. Retractions of false statements make good sense. I'm fine with that. Other news stories were calling it an "apology".

          Fines somewhere around 50% of their gross revenue would have been more appropriate, but you take what you can get.

        • No; two wrongs make it funny.

    • by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:11PM (#41922387) Homepage

      Time to make them print some posters and put them on the main entrance doors of every apple store in the UK. Nothing else on the poster, just the apology. In two-inch tall Helvetica. Make them keep it there for a month. Any attempts to obscure the text or make it difficult for the public to see result in contempt of court and 30-day jail time for the head of Apple.

      • Time to make them print some posters and put them on the main entrance doors of every apple store in the UK. Nothing else on the poster, just the apology. In two-inch tall Helvetica. Make them keep it there for a month. Any attempts to obscure the text or make it difficult for the public to see result in contempt of court and 30-day jail time for the head of Apple.

        No... to really hammer it home as part of a judgement, it should be in two-inch tall Arial Bold. Have Apple suffer having to display some competitor's ugly font. This may actually convince them not to do it again.

        • by Dogtanian (588974)

          No... to really hammer it home as part of a judgement, it should be in two-inch tall Arial Bold. Have Apple suffer having to display some competitor's ugly font.

          I take it that you felt Comic Sans would be *way* too sadistic? :-)

      • and the court should design and print a photo-ready ad copy for them TO JUST PLAIN USE AS-IS.

        if even one extra ink dot is missing or wrong, they get fined some huge amount per hour.

        yes, I said per hour.

        I would not fuck around; if I was judge, there would be a lesson that apple (and the rest of the rogue 'too big to fail' companies) would learn.

        oh, and at this point, madatory jail time for the top exec board is in order, too.

        • if even one extra ink dot is missing or wrong, they get fined some huge amount per hour.

          ... and same should apply in the event it rains, and the poster gets soaked!

      • If they really wanted apple to feel it they could have made them use Ariel.
    • WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MrEricSir (398214) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:13PM (#41922427) Homepage

      Everybody knows they're not sorry.

      Do you honestly believe that corporations have feelings?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by istartedi (132515)

        Do you honestly believe that corporations have feelings?

        No. That's why I typed they're which is a contraction of they are. "They" is a gender-neutral plural of he or she, which means that I'm referring to 2 or more people.

        If I thought corporations were people, I might have said "Everybody knows he or she is not sorry", or if I were a believer in corporate personhood and a true fan boy I might have typed "Everybody knows He is not sorry".

        • "Apple is not sorry" shouldn't imply a belief in corporate personhood either. What's the appropriate grammar for expressing an attitude likely to be held by the members of a group, without implying corporate personhood? "Apple are not sorry"? Meh. Makes them sound like the Borg. It's my understanding that in common usage phrases like "The AARP said", or "Congress ruled" are shorthand for collective action that doesn't imply a belief in corporate personhood. OK folks, what's your suggested phrasing tha

          • by istartedi (132515)

            OK, I think I just answered my own question. "The people who run Apple" would work, or more specificly, "representatives of Apple"; but you know what? It's just not as pithy. This gets us back to something that I've observed over the years and may have attempted to forumulate as "laws":

            1. There is no limit to what can be inferred from what you type on the Internet.

            2. Any attempt to limit inference will result in lengthy, unappealing prose.

            These two "laws" are one of the reasons I've participated less

          • by sjames (1099)

            The English approach is somewhat helpful: "Apple are not sorry". Apple is merely the name of a group of people so the word is treated as a plural.

            • by shentino (1139071)

              it is a single group though.

              We are counting groups, not members.

              • by sjames (1099)

                That's the point, it is a bunch of individuals that all contribute their part to the group's results for good or evil. Everyone should get a bit of the credit and the blame.

                Treating the group's name as a plural emphasizes it's collective nature.

        • by nedlohs (1335013)

          They is valid in the singular. You might consider it bad style, but it's been common enough in English since Chaucer ("And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame,/They wol come up"), so writing such that you only communicate correctly to those who have the same grammatical nit pick as you seems inefficient.

      • by shentino (1139071)

        No, but the corporate officers that act on their behalf do.

    • by Baloroth (2370816) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:14PM (#41922453)

      It has nothing to do with what Apple does or does not think. In fact, the court wasn't even forcing them to "lie" or even apologize, properly speaking, it is forcing them to publicly set the record straight about the facts of the case, which is that Samsung was found to not be copying them after Apple claimed they were. It's a correction of the public record, not an apology.

      • They've been calling it an apology. Now that I've dug into it a bit, it sounds more like a retraction. This might also be yet another case of Americans and British being "divided by a common tongue". Maybe a retraction is called an apology over there.

        Anyway, stick a fork in me. I'm done. AFK. Lunch.

        • by fatphil (181876) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @05:05PM (#41924953) Homepage
          Oddly the word 'apology' until less than a century ago could also be used in common English to mean a defence, for example of your thesis. Effectively unchanged straight from the from the greek /apologia/.

          There was no snivelling and grovelling in an apology, but pride, and even arrogance could be appropriate.

          It's nice to see Apple keeping the old meaning alive through their attitude!
      • It has nothing to do with what Apple does or does not think. In fact, the court wasn't even forcing them to "lie" or even apologize, properly speaking, it is forcing them to publicly set the record straight about the facts of the case, which is that Samsung was found to not be copying them after Apple claimed they were. It's a correction of the public record, not an apology.

        ... except that they also had to remove the statement of facts that were also in the public record, namely the quotes from the judge's opinion and the statement about other cases. "Too much truth" apparently was just as bad as "too little".

    • by Jeng (926980)

      What the court-ordered apology does is provides consequences for their actions that go beyond just a fine that usually is less than the profits received from whatever immoral act that caused the court-ordered apology.

      You know the math. If the profit of doing something illegal is less than the fine then you do the illegal thing. This type of punishment changes that equation.

      • You know the math. If the profit of doing something illegal is less than the fine then you do the illegal thing.

        Provided of course that "you" are morally and ethically challenged, as Apple seems to be doing its level best to prove to the world.

      • You know the math.

        I do.

        If the profit of doing something illegal is less than the fine then you do the illegal thing.

        But, do you?

    • Then they can go home satisfied, knowing that their world view is intact. All they really did was use coercion to force somebody to lie.

      You'd think so -- that forcing a bully to apologize was pointless as they never mean it -- but what other solutions are there? Public shame is very effective in the schoolyard. You may be right that it's just the teacher's worldview that shaking down the kid in glasses for lunch money is wrong, but that -- oh. Wait.

      Yeah, I guess... um. Would a fine as a fraction of a company's profits work better? The way these companies try to "use coercion to force" the competition out of the market is pretty troublin

  • n/t
  • by wiegeabo (2575169) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:20PM (#41922559)

    It's sad that if the judge doesn't spell out every little detail of how the apology should appear, the company will take advantage and try to 'hide' it.

    The judge needs to assign further penalties on Apple. And every time they do something like this, slap on another, larger penalty. Like the old punishment for kids that always interrupt or talk back.
    "You're grounded for the weekend. And don't argue."
    "That's not fair!"
    "Two weekends. Don't say another word."
    "But-!"
    "Three. Wanna go for four?"

    "You're going to post an apology."
    "Fine." *hides it in the paper*
    "Not good enough.$100,000, and do it again."
    "Fine." *hides it on the website*
    "Not good enough. $500,000. Wanna try for a million?"

    • by PPH (736903)
      Like this? [postimage.org]
    • At this point, they just need to make Apple put it in the centre of the entrance door of every single Apple Store in UK, with predetermined text, font and size.

      • by gtirloni (1531285)
        Forgot to determine that no object should be in front of the sign as to obstruct the shopper's view.
    • by fatphil (181876)
      Only 4?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTeYncx1xmI
      (/Breakfast Club/ - the "I'm cracking skulls" scene)
    • by shentino (1139071)

      If I was the parent I'd have pushed it to a month straight off right when he started arguing and strapped the kid down for an ass whipping he'd never forget.

      If you're going to be a hardass about pulling rank, do it right and make your thunder from on high rattle a few rafters.

  • Even though they removed the Javascript, It is still effectively hidden on most monitors.

    • Even though they removed the Javascript, It is still effectively hidden on most monitors.

      Just like Slashdot has hidden your comment, because I have to scroll down to see it?

      • Even though they removed the Javascript, It is still effectively hidden on most monitors.

        Just like Slashdot has hidden your comment, because I have to scroll down to see it?

        I don't think he was ordered to post his comment by a judge.

        • Even though they removed the Javascript, It is still effectively hidden on most monitors.

          Just like Slashdot has hidden your comment, because I have to scroll down to see it?

          I don't think he was ordered to post his comment by a judge.

          I don't really see how that is relevant to the question of whether having to scroll a webpage -- a perfectly standard activity for anyone who uses a web browser -- constitutes "hiding" information below the first page. It's either hiding the information or it's not, regardless of the reason why the information the information is there.

          • Even though they removed the Javascript, It is still effectively hidden on most monitors.

            Just like Slashdot has hidden your comment, because I have to scroll down to see it?

            I don't think he was ordered to post his comment by a judge.

            I don't really see how that is relevant to the question of whether having to scroll a webpage -- a perfectly standard activity for anyone who uses a web browser -- constitutes "hiding" information below the first page. It's either hiding the information or it's not, regardless of the reason why the information the information is there.

            You should get a job working in Apple's spin department.

      • Just like Slashdot has hidden your comment, because I have to scroll down to see it?

        The difference is that on Slashdot you expect to have to scroll down to see all the comments, so people will do it.

        Apple's site, on the other hand, is laid out just as if the items above the fold were the complete site, so there's no clue (except the scrollbar itself) that there may be more on the site. And who, except geeks, pays attention to details such as seemingly useless scrollbars? We're talking about Apple's site here after all!

  • At the bottom of the screen, had to scroll down, is a paragraph stating that they did not correctly follow the apology ruling, and a link to an "apology".
    This apparently new "apology" is just a statement of what the ruling said, and in no way could be considered an apology. And let me reiterate, it is NOT on that or any Apple homepage, it has its own specific page (http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/).

    • by Tihstae (86842)

      I agree. This is not an apology.

    • Credits: "We apologize for the fault in the apology. Those responsible have been sacked."

      Later: " We apologize again for the fault in the apology. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked."

  • Funny, I see it just fine on my portrait-mode 1080p display...
  • Man, I wish I could use my mod points to mod this entire story Redundant [slashdot.org]
  • Apple wins again. Apple is even considering repairing the bite mark in their logo. Apple 1 : Legal 0

  • Apart from hiding the alleged apology/withdrawal it's worse than I'd possibly imagined - they're dressing the retraction (or whatever you want to call it) as a *Samsung* comment!!!

    "On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement."

    Note the last sentence - trying to address th

When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal

Working...