Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Apple

UK Court Sanctions Apple For Non-Compliance 217

Posted by Soulskill
from the hope-it-was-worth-it dept.
drinkypoo writes "We've been following the story that Apple was ordered by a UK court to post an apology to Samsung both in newspapers and on Apple's UK website. After originally posting a non-apology and then hiding a real one, Apple finally complied. Now, PJ over at Groklaw reports on the ruling from the UK court itself, which condemns Apple's conduct in this matter. 'Since Apple did not comply with the order in its estimation, adding materials that were not ordered and in addition were "false," the judges ordered Apple to pay Samsung's lawyers' fees on an indemnity basis, and they add some public humiliation.' The judge wrote, 'Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. ... I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Court Sanctions Apple For Non-Compliance

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Enlighten me (Score:2, Informative)

    by mamas (468872) on Saturday November 10, 2012 @11:48AM (#41942557)

    In a nutshell, Apple lied.

    But instead of forcing someone else to write it down for you, which you'll have to read anyway, why not go read beyond the headlines?
    Here, I'll spare the googling trouble for you this time:

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121109130213229 [groklaw.net]

  • Re:er... what now? (Score:5, Informative)

    by neokushan (932374) on Saturday November 10, 2012 @11:48AM (#41942561)

    You didn't read the whole article, did you? Apple's response was "lackadaisical" because they were ordered to put the notice in each newspaper as early as possible, but they dragged their heels for weeks before doing it.

  • by Nidi62 (1525137) on Saturday November 10, 2012 @11:57AM (#41942617)

    They arguably did the job the first time as I don't believe there was anything that said they couldn't mention the other stuff.

    When a judge tells you to do something, you do it. No more, no less. Apple and their lawyers were trying to be cute, and in the end still got off a lot easier than they deserved. Turn off the reality distortion field and get some fresh air.

  • Re:Enlighten me (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 10, 2012 @12:07PM (#41942691)

    OK, no doubt this will be modded to oblivion as a pedantic post by an AC. So be it.
    You use the word "proscribed". I do not think you actually meant that. I suspect that you meant "prescribed".

    To save you all the google time, here is an explanation:
    http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/prescribe_proscribe.htm

    The meanings are different. Really. Almost opposites.

    Yes, I know language changes, and so forth. This, however, is an example of the way meanings can be completely missed.
    It's called "malapropism".

    Another example would be "uninterested" versus "disinterested" - but I've pretty much given up on that one.

    Actual impoverishment of the language is not the same as shifting meaning.

  • by thebjorn (530874) <bjorn@tkbe.org> on Saturday November 10, 2012 @12:09PM (#41942703) Homepage
    According to the judge, what they added was false, misleading, and did not convey the intent of the order -- and he analyzes each added statement in depth. In addition they used too much time to comply when it came to newspapers, where the judge expected "earliest possible time" to mean the next couple of days and not a month. As a punishment they now have to pay _all_ of Samsung's legal expenses (i.e. not only legal fees), they have to keep the notice up for much longer, and they have to put on their home page that they lied in their previous attempt. You don't have to agree with a judge's order, but you do have to follow it. Judges tend to get pissed off if you try to worm yourself around an order -- not something that should be news for Apple's capable legal team.
  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Saturday November 10, 2012 @12:33PM (#41942899) Journal

    I would wager you are very wrong. Mos certainly US courts have ordered similar sanctions and most certainly defying the court order would lead to increasing sanctions. When you lose a case, civil or criminal, you lose a good many protections as they pertain to the case. That is the underlying notion of due process.

  • Re:Enlighten me (Score:5, Informative)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday November 10, 2012 @12:36PM (#41942915) Homepage Journal

    There was absolutely nothing false

    As per TFA

    22. Here what Apple added was false and misleading. I turn to analyse it. The first sentence reads:

            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.

    That is false in the following ways:

    (a) "Regarding the same patent." No patent of any kind has been involved in Germany or here, still less "the same patent."

    (b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published.

    (c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the 10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law. But the statement is likely to be read as of more general application.

  • by Karzz1 (306015) on Saturday November 10, 2012 @01:00PM (#41943117) Homepage
    I won't go into a long discussion on this, but in criminal cases you are correct but incorrect in civil cases. A judge cannot issue an order preventing you from stating that another court somewhere else disagrees with that court.

    I am fairly certain you are wrong in this context. If you read the judgement, the other cases either did not pertain to the same thing Apple suggested or the case had been reversed/dropped. Blatantly misrepresenting the order would certainly fall under contempt in a U.S. court, along with most courts.
  • Not this time, dude. (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 10, 2012 @01:28PM (#41943333)

    Of course it took them two weeks. Don't you know Apple's MO? They take what someone else made, then spend a while polishing it to a brilliant luster, then pretend they invented the damned thing, let their version sink in, get a few million copies to all their sycophantic, empty-headed fans, cult-members, etc., then sue someone else for "copying" them.

    It took that time much time because they first had to wade through other, better apologies than they could come up with on their own, and try to figure out how to make them look slick and futuristic. You can't do that in a day, bro. It takes weeks at least, to polish a turd like that. THAT'S WHY. Shortly, they will seek a patent on a method or technique for making other people believe, using printed words, that you are experiencing sorrow and/or regret or remorse for some action you may have taken in the past.

    From the summary:

    I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple

    No, it's very typical. Apple has no integrity. They steal from others, polish to a high luster, sell it to morons, who stare at each new shiny turd from crApple and say to themselves in hushed tones, "oooh... sparkly!" Then, reality in Cupertino so distorted that they believe their own bullshit, they start suing other people for doing something similar, even if those people have never heard of Apple or seen their products, or even if they were first. Like when they stole the idea for the GUI and the mouse-driven interface, then tried to pretend they invented it, just because they removed a couple buttons from the mouse, then sued someone else for doing exactly what they did. So basically, they're fucking shitheaded assholes who have never had an original idea in their lives. They're the worst kind of thieves, hypocrites who get mad when someone tries to steal an idea they stole first, or worse, they get mad when someone whose idea they've stolen tries to compete with them. Jobs was an embarrassment to all those hokey eastern philosophies he claimed to have learned from when he was out finding himself while failing to fulfill his obligations to his family and his kid. What a piece of dog shit he was. The world really is better off.

    Anyway, I really hope Apple will just get banned in the UK, as a punishment. They are ignoring court orders, then playing games with them, rather than complying. Who the fuck do they think they are, Microsoft? You can't just ignore what a court tells you like that. Hey, UK... Apple is saying they don't have to obey your little Mickey Mouse laws. Are you okay with that? Are you going to take that? Apple is saying your court is just a little bitch that they don't have to listen to. Are you seriously going to let them flout your laws in this way? Only a bunch of fags would allow that...

    : ) Sorry, just really hoping the judge in this case will pull his thumb out of his ass and slam Apple like they so richly deserve. : )

  • by ryzvonusef (1151717) on Saturday November 10, 2012 @01:56PM (#41943587) Journal

    If you are going to apologise, apologise with dignity, damn it!

    Dear Apple, learn a lesson from Michael McCain, the CEO of the Canadian food company Maple Leaf Food.

    In 2008, there was an outbreak [1] of Listeriosis, which was linked to Maple Leaf products.

    What did Mccain do? To quote [2] from The Globe and Mail (a Canadian newspaper of record):

    First, it admitted it was the company's fault. It admitted it was responsible. It said, in essence, "it's our fault and we're going to fix it."

    Second, Maple Leaf apologized. It wasn't "wordsmithed" or spin-doctored to deny culpability. The company didn't dodge the issue. It apologized up front in every possible media.

    Third, it didn't hire a celebrity to deliver the apology, or a blonde actress with very white teeth wearing a lab coat. CEO Michael McCain was the voice and the face of the crisis, and of the apology.

    Fourth, once Maple Leaf realized the problem was the company's fault, it acted decisively, and transparently. It recalled more than 200 packaged meat brands (amounting to tens of thousands of individual packages) that were manufactured or packaged at the affected plant.

    Which brings me to one of the best quotes about using (or not using) lawyers. CEO Michael McCain said in his apology on TV and on YouTube[3]: "Going through the crisis there are two advisers I've paid no attention to. The first are the lawyers, and the second are the accountants. It's not about money or legal liability; this is about our being accountable for providing consumers with safe food. This is a terrible tragedy. To those people who have become ill, and to the families who have lost loved ones, I want to express my deepest and most sincere sympathies. Words cannot begin to express our sadness for your pain."

    (bolded by me)

    I am not saying this let's MLF off the hook, but darn it, when it came to apologising, they didn't mince their words.

    Dear Apple, just shut and apologise, and get over it already. MLF did it and got over it, so can you.

    [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_Leaf_Foods#Canadian_Food_Inspection_Agency_recall [wikipedia.org]
    [2]: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-growth/the-best-legal-advice-is-often-an-apology/article626797/ [theglobeandmail.com]
    [3]: (original link in article wasn't working, here is an alternative) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSrazdNo55U [youtube.com]

  • by FromWithin (627720) <stuff@@@fromwithin...com> on Saturday November 10, 2012 @02:13PM (#41943739) Homepage

    Did you even read the on this, Mr. Ignorance? [bailii.org]

    Apple lied. I shall quote the ruling here:

    21. I turn to the last paragraph. I do not think the order as made precluded any addition to the required notice if that addition had been true and did not undermine the effect of the required notice. But I do consider that adding false and misleading material was illegitimate. For by adding such material the context of the required notice is altered so that it will be understood differently.

    22. Here what Apple added was false and misleading. I turn to analyse it. The first sentence reads:

    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.

    That is false in the following ways:

    (a) "Regarding the same patent." No patent of any kind has been involved in Germany or here, still less "the same patent."

    (b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published.

    (c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the 10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law. But the statement is likely to be read as of more general application.

    23. The second sentence reads:

    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.

    That is misleading by omission. For the US jury specifically rejected Apple's claim that the US design patent corresponding to the Community Design in issue here was infringed. The average reader would think that the UK decision was at odds with that in the US. Far from that being so, it was in accordance with it.

    24. The third sentence reads:

    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 wilfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

    This is calculated to produce huge confusion. The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying, which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying. There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true.

    25. The reality is that wherever Apple has sued on this registered design or its counterpart, it has ultimately failed. It may or may not have other intellectual property rights which are infringed. Indeed the same may be true the other way round for in some countries Samsung are suing Apple. But none of that has got anything to do with the registered design asserted by Apple in Europe. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it.

There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?

Working...