UK Court Sanctions Apple For Non-Compliance 217
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.'"
Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cue the apple fanbois and their out of control apologetics.
This story just wouldnt be complete without their sqealing.
On a more serious note, I agree with the judge. This kind of change could have been implemented in less than one day. Apple probably just wanted more time to try to wrangle some legal way out of putting the directed message on their website in the manner proscribed.
You know what they say-- Tell a lie enough times, and you will begin to believe it yourself. That's the danger of using an RDF.
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:5, Funny)
On a more serious note, I agree with the judge. This kind of change could have been implemented in less than one day
Bullshit.
Their web design team is forced to use iPads.
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:5, Funny)
You sure? My Apple-logic(tm) that would make super productive, as the iPad is clearly superior to a mere PC for any use, ....
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:5, Funny)
On a more serious note, I agree with the judge. This kind of change could have been implemented in less than one day
Bullshit.
Their web design team is forced to use iPads.
That it suck a lie. Their wouldn't be Amy difference in time coating a new home pave on a iPod.
Sent from my iPad
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:5, Funny)
Yah, it sounds like he would make the smart choice.
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:5, Funny)
But, the anti-Apple fanboys have valid arguments so what is your point?
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:4, Funny)
Just saying the anti-Apple fanbois spew just as much anti-Apple comments as the pro-Apple fanbois do pro-apple comments. I thought it was ironic and don't think it relevant if the underlying comment was on point or not (it was)...it was the fact he/she was cueing the pro-Apple mob when he already formed an anti-Apple mob (figuratively because torches and pitchfork combo sets don't go on sale until after Thanksgiving...unless you opt for the iTorch and the iPitchfork which will allow the user to prod and protest much more condescendingly).
With the crucial difference being that when we who are anti-Apple post how much Apple sucks and how they should die, (as a company,) we're RIGHT. The Apple fan is the man whose brains are so soft that they can ignore reality, and buy into the idea that Apple invented all the gadgets they stole from their betters, then polished. By the way, the iTorch costs 300 times what a real torch costs, and although it's made of a burnished aluminum-magnesium alloy, and has a perfectly smooth surface and the holes in the tip are so small that they're not visible to the naked eye, yet a flame flickers out of it looking almost as if the metal itself is on fire, which it isn't, and although it can be be controlled via an iPhone app, allowing the user to vary the size of the flame, color, rate of flicker, temperature, etc. it's still just a torch. Give me an old stick of wood with a piece of oil-soaked cloth wrapped around the head any day. The iPitchfork, I'll admit is a cool take on the pitch fork, and at $109.95 + 64.95 for Apple Care for iFarming iMplements, it's not that badly overpriced.
Re: (Score:3)
Just saying the anti-Apple fanbois spew just as much anti-Apple comments as the pro-Apple fanbois do pro-apple comments. I thought it was ironic and don't think it relevant if the underlying comment was on point or not (it was)...it was the fact he/she was cueing the pro-Apple mob when he already formed an anti-Apple mob (figuratively because torches and pitchfork combo sets don't go on sale until after Thanksgiving...unless you opt for the iTorch and the iPitchfork which will allow the user to prod and protest much more condescendingly).
With the crucial difference being that when we who are anti-Apple post how much Apple sucks and how they should die, (as a company,) we're RIGHT.
You missed off "in our opinion" from that sentence. Quite a crucial difference. You also forgot to log in. Hard to be "RIGHT", in capitals, if you can't even stand behind your arguments with something as trivial as a slashdot account.
For the record: Apple in the wrong here. Should have simply done what the judge ordered without any messing around, even with all the publicity surrounding this.
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:5, Insightful)
As one who tends to be anti-apple-- though I wont deny some of their stuff is impressive-- Ill say most of my sentiment comes from the wild fanboyism. Im happy to have apple as a competitor, and producing the stuff they do. It gets me riled up when people come out of the woodworks making absurd endorsements of Apple products as if they are technically superior in all ways and a better value to boot.
If everyone was a bit more realistic and honest about their products, a lot of my issues with Apple would disappear.
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't your problem with the idiot fanbois rather than with Apple then? Since Apple doesn't pay the idiot fanbois, I'm not sure how you managed to blame Apple for the idiot fanbois behavior...?
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the sentiment spreads so now when people ask me about new computers, they inevitably mention that theyre thinking about going apple-- and as they are not really up to speed on specs, I can only assume its because some apple enthusaist has told them how it will solve all of their problems and balance their budget to boot. I have to stop myself from getting into an argument when a friend who otherwise knows nothing about computers gushes about how much better apples are.
My problem is the culture that the apple products represent, I suppose. If someone tells me they have a linux / unix background and have grown tired of mucking around with breakage every 6 months so they went apple, wonderful. When someone tells me how they had 8 zillion viruses before and theyre so happy that they now have a machine that is inherently immune to viruses, i start to loathe apple because of the mistruths its culture and advertising have sold to the public.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:4, Funny)
Apple pays its employees now?! Damn, I thought they just worked for the privilege of breathing in the air that Steve Jobs breathed out.
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't mind apple at all, if apple conducted itself in a manner that wasn't synonymous with being contrite cock gobblers.
Apple's ENTIRE business structure revolves around continual invocation of "The dick move". (We are apple. You want our shiny products! But---- If you want the shiny products, you have to do everything we say! If you dont, we'll break your, or rather, OUR, shiny product to stop your defiance.) [essentially. That and a whole lot more.]
If apple just made products and sold them like any other company, instead of trying to create a bullshit mystique and bullying every other product manufacturer and their own potential user base while lieing through their teeth about being innovative, I wouldnt have any problem with them, much like I dont have any problem with the dozens of other handset makers out there.
I dont have a boner for Google, or Motorola, or HTC, or Samsung, or any of the others. (and, contrary to your seemingly diametrically polarized world view, I actually DISLIKE google for a large number of reasons.)
I just dont like Apple, because Apple conducts itself like a total douche.
It bothers me greatly that such a large number of people are so beholden to Apple, that they would attempt to justify any action it takes, regardless of how horrendous it is, rather than make the personal admission that perhaps their devotion wasnt justified.
I was simply sarcastically pointing out that stories like this draw them out of the woodwork without fail to cast apologetic rhetoric in favor of their preferred tech company.
Companies don't deserve loyalty. They show us absolutely none. They deserve none of ours.
It is as simple as that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason people buy Apple now is familiarity, and fashion... and the fashion statement has grown stale since you can buy them in Walmart now.
Apple Inc. products are as fashionable as a Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry (the comparison stops there, these cars are fairly priced and of excellent quality). These are products for the masses. Apple marketing is outstanding in convincing their users that they are trendy and cool. The fact that only these users think so, while others just are shaking their heads in bewilderment does not deminish the accomplishment on the part of Apple's marketing machine.
Apple products are primarily for those whose understanding of technology is cursory, but who want to pretend they are on the edge. Their actual functional needs of the users are average (few exceptions apply), but they pay a hefty premium for the brand and "belonging".
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Going very fast and using expensive materials is not excellent quality. The definition of an engineer is someone who can do, over and over again, for 10c, what anybody can do once for a dollar.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you completely. I used to be a mac user for over 15 years, but in the end I just couldn't bring myself to give anymore of my money to Apple or for Jobs for the arrogance and the overall assholeness. It was very liberating to finally to move first to Ubuntu and then to Windows 7 (I use software that's only Windows and Mac) and find that Windows 7 is a great OS. OS X feels in someways suffocating, and perhaps partly it's because of the strict guidelines of the GUI, but probably much more because of the attitude of Apple and of its rabid fanbase.
Using Apple's products is like being in jail all the time, where other inmates are constantly telling with bright eyes how lucky they are to be there. Granted, I still think OS X is in some ways better (e.g. multitasking), but after few years of using Windows 7 I don't miss OS X at all. And I haven't been interested to buy any other Apple's products either. Of course Apple is now with iphones and ipads much bigger, and its userbase is much much larger than only with macs, and probably overall the userbase is not that brand faithful anymore. Apple itself is just getting worse.
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some companies do show loyalty-- for instance, off the top of my head, I can mention that Logitech, AMD, and Antec have been awesome to me whenever I have called them about broken or missing parts. Each of them has sent me no-postage, no hassle, no cost replacements for parts that went broken or missing. In AMD's case, they replaced an OC'd processor with non-stock mods and a cracked die-- with no questions. With Logitech, they replaced 2 G9 mouses-- one had had its cord eaten by a rabbit, the other stopped clicking. The rabbit-eaten one was upgraded to a G9x, again without cost.
So I will disagree with you regarding loyalty. They had financial incentive to be loyal-- as now I highly recommend those products from a customer service standpoint-- but they treated me well which is why I treat them well.
Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The UK judge (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The UK judge (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The UK judge (Score:5, Funny)
That probably would be perfect indeed.
... but only if the link to Apple at the bottom of the page had accompanying ECMAScript to ensure it started off life just outside the user's visible page area.
Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the judge has not yet said the final word. This sanction is only for the delayed newspaper ads and the non-compliant website ad. When they find the message in the UK homepage is specially designed to make the message invisible except after scrolling; the judge might impose more sanctions and maybe even fines. The subsequent javascript edit does not hide the fact that the UK page is differently designed compared to other pages.Apple's mischief has not stopped, yet...
Re: (Score:2)
I think the judge has not yet said the final word. This sanction is only for the delayed newspaper ads and the non-compliant website ad. When they find the message in the UK homepage is specially designed to make the message invisible except after scrolling; the judge might impose more sanctions and maybe even fines. The subsequent javascript edit does not hide the fact that the UK page is differently designed compared to other pages.Apple's mischief has not stopped, yet...
It doesn't do that any more. Apple took out the JS code that makes that happen. Now it's just underneath their other homepage material, but you have to scroll to see it if your monitor is too small. If you have a giant monitor and plenty of space it is visible without scrolling. I guess someone gave them a kick up the ass and told them to just stop messing around with it and just get it over and done with.
Re: (Score:2)
you have to scroll to see it if your monitor is too small.
I've got a 23" monitor running at 1920 × 1080 resolution. I still have to scroll. Roughly are running at resolutions of the same height or less. [wikipedia.org]
This is just douchiness and intentionally trying to hide it by saying "well we just naturally had a bigass add, it wasn't being re-sized anymore!"
But they do - the homepage has always been a huge advert, unless it's something for a special event (like the anniversary of Jobs' death, or a major product launch).
Your second sentence makes no sense.
You also forgot to log in.
Maybe fix those issues, then we can debate.
Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, if I were the judge I'd just up the stakes at this point. Something along the lines of
"You have proven yourselves incapable of modifying the front page of your website in compliance with the court order. To avoid any further misunderstandings or evasions, we are providing this 800x1200px PNG containing the exact text we wish you to display. Your site shall serve this up as the only content of the front page for the next week, or we'll begin seizing assets.
Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Informative)
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:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, lying as such is not covered by the 1st Amendment. Especially if done in the course of commercial activities.
Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
To play Devil's Advocate wasn't Samsung barred from showing phone designs they made that predated the iPhone? How can you be prohibited from mentioning those designs?
Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Informative)
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:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Read the ruling. The judges (there are more than one) specifically say they can not and are not barring Apple from saying whatever they want, even the outright lies, as that would be prior restraint. What they ARE requiring is that they have a page which contains ONLY the required text and nothing else.
And quit calling this 'an apology'. It is not an apology in any sense of the word. Apple is being required to state a simple uncontestable fact, and nothing else. The text of the wording they are suppos
Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Insightful)
The cases did NOT contradict the UK court case, if you had actually read the judgement
In fact the comments were factually incorrect, and technically therefore a lie.
Apple showed contempt for the court, and are still showing contempt.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue isn't whether they added extra information. The issue is they lied to everyone with that extra information.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way in the US that a judge could gag you from mentioning *other* court cases or for that matter prevent you from stating your own opinion contrary to the judge's.
I've got a good idea, why don't you get involved in a court case and try just that. While you're at it, dance a little jig in the courtroom. Let us know how that works out for you.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way in the US that a judge could gag you from mentioning *other* court cases or for that matter prevent you from stating your own opinion contrary to the judge's.
The court explicitly said in its order Apple was free to say what it liked elsewhere.
'Nothing in this Order shall prevent the Appellant from publishing any comment or information regarding the dispute between the parties in respect of the Samsung Galaxy Tablet computers in issue in this appeal.'
However, when the court ordered Apple to publish a notice to clear up any misunderstanding, Apple wasn't free to add its own words to the body of the notice, especially when they were themselves misleading, and in so
Re: (Score:3)
You can easily find yourself in contempt of court if you try to be funny. If Samsung paid Apple in coins, they would be in contempt of court regardless of the fact that they paid up. You don't go fooling around with a court order trying to "one up" the court.
Re: (Score:3)
Technically you're getting into territory of legal tender, rather than contempt of court. In the UK, £ coins are legal tender up to any amount, and therefore a valid way of paying a court-ordered debt. Coins under £1 are only legal tender up to a certain low amount, so you can legitimately refuse a court-ordered debt that is offered to be paid in 50p coins.
Re: (Score:2)
The judges didnt feel that they needed to tell Apple to NOT make up facts and add them to the stipulated text.
Most people would consider that part of the idea hat you do not show contempt for the courts ruling.
Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people have enough sense not to defy, directly or via playing games, the direct order of a judge. Judges in most jurisdictions, and most certainly in the British and American tradition, are afforded wide powers to force compliance. The Court must be obeyed, otherwise it loses all credibility.
I can only assume Apple overruled or ignored rather lawyers, who most certainly would tell them that playing this kind of game was only going to lead to more severe sanctions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I can only assume Apple overruled or ignored rather lawyers, who most certainly would tell them that playing this kind of game was only going to lead to more severe sanctions.
I sense the limp wrist of Tim Cook pulling these strings. By the way, Apple has lost $150 billion of market value in the eight weeks since the iPhone 5 introduction.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that Apple still aren't swayed by the power of this particular judge - after all, all he can do is increase the fine by something that still will not be significant compared to Apple's bottom-line, but all the eyes of the world are now moving in Apple's direction. And what Apple first thought was a great joke, turns out to be more like a joke that silences the party.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh nonsense. The intent of the ruling is clear, and continually defying a judge will lead to ever greater sanctions.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still hoping that the Judge will issue a temporary ban of 6 months on all Apple products in the U.K. for their contempt of court. That may be the only thing getting the message through to Apple that You Don't Fuck with the Judges. Of course it would be far better if Judge Dread Charged and Fined them
Too big to fail, or too arrogant to notice. (Score:4, Insightful)
When companies get big, they become a type of clique. Since so many people have to be on-board for any one thing to get done, the company controls them with a kind of dogma or culture.
This reinforces an us-them mentality even where it doesn't need to exist.
As a result, the companies get arrogant not so much from their CEOs, but from the rank and file. That then spreads upward. They have become victims of their own propaganda.
This is why these "too big to fail" companies tend to blow out on obvious issues like this. Did they really just defy a sitting court? How stupid do you have to be to do that?
Their lawyers must be apoplectic. Or just carefully filling out their bills.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think clique is the word. It looks more like tribalism these days.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like a crack house.
This behavior is in Apple's DNA (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple has always treated the world, including its own customers, from a superiority position. Apple is all knowing. Apple doesn't follow standards or rules. Apple always knows best and can do no wrong.
So why did anyone expect for Apple to behave differently this time? Arogance is a core value of their corporate culture and its only got stronger since their cash flow surged.
I will be enormously happy when this tumor of a company will die off.
Nice work, Soulskill (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't write my submission nearly so elegantly, nor with proper inline links. Now that is what I call editing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot's community has a habit of picking on the editors whenever they do a sloppy job. It's nice to see them complemented when they do it properly.
I, for one, have frequently picked on the editors, and I feel it is only fair that I applaud them when they do an excellent job. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to come up as often as the converse ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Wondered why we had this old garbage was being posted again rather than something technical that may actually have been of interest.
False dichotomy. The slashdot front page can take more than one submission per day. HTH, HAND.
How a company *should* apologise... (Score:4, Informative)
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]
Re:How a company *should* apologise... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just googled a bit, and her are some corporate apologies:
http://www.cbc.ca/undertheinfluence/season-1/2012/05/19/when-brands-apologise-sorry-seems-to-be-the-smartest-word-1/ [www.cbc.ca]
is he serious right now? (Score:3)
I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.'"
NOOOOOOPE!!!!!!!!!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't think they're in the wrong.
Al Capone didn't think he was in the wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
On matters unrelated to the UK courts ruling.
That Apple then lied about, and tried to say they were the same cases, to try to lessen the courts decision by making people think the UK court got it wrong.
Thus showing contempt
Seriously, not difficult!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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:Enlighten me (Score:5, Interesting)
It essentially boils down to Apple trying to "superficially" comply, while actually completely disregarding the purpose behind the order.
For an example, there was recently a sting operation set up to catch a major traffic offender, who routinely drove on the sidewalk to evade stopped traffic from a routine school bus stop that made the news this last week. [huffingtonpost.com]
As part of her punishment, she has to wear a sign declaring that she is an idiot, and that only an idiot would try to pass a school bus while driving a car, by driving on the sidewalk.
The intent behind the order is very clear, and directly tied to the heart of the infraction it was proscribed for.
If the woman had followed after Apple's example, she would have worn the sign alright, but it would have given counter examples as to why driving on the sidewalk like that was perfectly justifiable, and made allusions that the judge that made her wear the sign was mistaken in his judgement, and that 2 other judges in similar cases (which were improperly conducted for different reasons, or later invalidated in their rulings) concurred with her point of view.
Re:Enlighten me (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Enlighten me (Score:5, Interesting)
I admit the mistake. It is however, one that is hard for me to break. :(
When I read "Prescribe", I see it as a compound of the prefix "Pre", meaning "comes before", and "Scribe", meaning "to write or mark."
So, "prescribe" means "Written in advance". (Such as with a doctor's script. He writes down the course of your treatment in advance of your receiving it. A prescription.)
When I see "Proscribe", I see the prefix "Pro", (antonym of "Con") meaning "In favor of / supporting". (Nevermind that 'conscribe' is not a word, or at least not a proper word.)
So, "proscribe" means "Written in support of." (Like with an editorial, citing a proposed course of action; a proscribed action.)
I accept that this is not conserved by actual definition of those words. It is simply a malfunction in my ability to parse language I guess.
As the site linked to points out, this is a very common mistake, for pretty much exactly the reasoning I pointed out. I understand that English has many special exceptions, but "proscribe" is particularly cumbersome in that respect.
I will however, endeavor to correct my usage.
Re: (Score:2)
In the mode of pedantry....
When I see "Proscribe", I see the prefix "Pro", (antonym of "Con") meaning "In favor of / supporting".
That's not the most common meaning of "pro," at least from an etymological standpoint. "Pro" as a prefix more commonly means "before" (prohibit - literally "before having," progenitor - an ancestor before the immediate family) and by extension "in front of/forward/outward" (promise - to send forth [an expectation], prospect - looking forward, produce - lead forth, pronunciation - send a message outward, propagation - fasten/extend/reproduce outward) or sometimes "in place of/on b
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, the interesting thing about the error here is that it is a "prescription" involving a public punishment for a woman, which is fairly close to the original ancient Latin meaning of "proscribe," although in that case, the person would be "proscribed," not the punishment.
I originally thought the GP was making a pun, which is the only reason I ended up reading the arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
And she would have worn the sign under a sweater.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I'm really surprised that woman got off so lightly over that school bus affair. I hope some pictures crop up on the internet showing the sign. That would be great.
Re:Enlighten me (Score:5, Informative)
There was absolutely nothing false
As per TFA
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was absolutely nothing false, and that the judge keeps trying to pretend that there was, is to me a red flag warning that he is no longer dealing in the facts of the case and the ruling, but trying to deny his own words.
There were apparently three false statements, all pretty clearly mentioned and referenced in the article. So it looks like you can probably disregard that particular red flag.
Re:Enlighten me (Score:5, Interesting)
The heart of the issue is that the judge told Apple to "clarify" any misconceptions that Samsung had violated the specific patent in question. The judge was concerned that consumers would be confused about whether or not buying a non-Apple device would lead to problems down the road.
What Apple did is glossed over the apology, and then went on to mention all of their other litigation against Samsung in other country and touted the positive (for Apple) verdicts in those countries. It was basically a marketing piece that said in short, "The judge is wrong, Samsung really is stealing our ideas, look at all of these other countries who think so."
The judge called them out on their BS and told them to comply with the court order to "clarify" the misconceptions. Apple spouted some BS about how it was going to take 14 days to change the message. The judge told them that was a load of crap. Apple then changed the message, but made it much less prominent than the first one they posted. Again, the judge called them out on it.
In short, Apple's legal team is the same as legal teams all over the place. They are a bunch of assholes who think they are smarter than everyone else and will do whatever they think they can get away with.
I dislike lawyers intensely. I really do. I never realized how bad they are until I worked with them. We provide services to them. We are on their side. They still treat us like crap, like we are the adversary. They are constantly trying to trip us up over the slightest things. It's like their brains are hard wired to press any perceived advantage and exploit even the slightest gap. They want systems with five nines up time, yet they are the cheapest, tightest, penny pinching bastards on the planet. I really think they demand the insane SLA so that they have something to dispute with the intention of extracting concessions on the monthly fees. It is to the point where I will not get on the call with a client unless a member of our legal team is on the call. When I do get on the call, I give short, brief and extremely limited answers. I do not explain in detail. I do not think outside the box. I take everything literally. It sucks because I have to become a different person when I deal with them. I cannot even offer constructive solutions because then it turns into a game of, "Why are you only thinking about this now? Why did you not predict this need of ours a year ago? That sounds negligent to me."
Re: (Score:3)
The judge called them out on their BS and told them to comply with the court order to "clarify" the misconceptions. Apple spouted some BS about how it was going to take 14 days to change the message.
And the judge basically called out Tim Cook on it:
"I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on [its site]. I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given."
Ouch.
Re:Enlighten me (Score:4, Interesting)
I dislike lawyers intensely. I really do. I never realized how bad they are until I worked with them. We provide services to them. We are on their side. They still treat us like crap, like we are the adversary. They are constantly trying to trip us up over the slightest things. It's like their brains are hard wired to press any perceived advantage and exploit even the slightest gap.
Years ago my brother found what he thought was a niche opportunity. He noticed a lawyers district downtown had very few computer shops and, figuring lawyers need notebooks, backup services and the like, opened a small shop near there advertising specifically to them, with things like special discounts to members of the bar association, monthly maintenance contracts, repair services and the like. Just guess what the result was after a few months. Yes, that! Exactly what's just crossed your mind!
In a related note, once I and a few friends, one of which is a lawyer (a very nice one, not your usual villainous kind), were dinning together, and during the conversation we asked him who was right in a case that was receiving some attention in the news, and even he couldn't contain himself. His reply: "Depends. I'm the lawyer for which side?" We all laughed and all, but yeah.
To those how haven't read Gulliver Travels, download a copy from Project Gutenberg and do a search for "lawyers" and similar terms. At one point Johnathan Swift provides one of the best descriptions I've ever seen of the profession. Read (or reread) it. It's well worth the effort, both for the laughs and for the awful realization that everything he says is absolutely true.
Re:Enlighten me (Score:5, Insightful)
I admit I am ignorant in this case beyond the headlines. Did the judge order the exact wording of the apology? Did the judge order the exact location on a web site that the apology must appear? Did the judge order the exact page of newspapers the apology must appear? Also, we're the quotes attributed to the judge not accurate?
The thing with judges is that they believe in their own authority. And they don't like it when someone fucks with them. (**Suddenly a mis-quote from "Pulp Fiction" is running through my head...**)
When a judge tells you to do something, they are telling you to follow their intent not to find an alternative interpretation of their words. If you interpret their directives in a way other than what they intended for you to do, they can punish you for it.
Sure, you can appeal that punishment, but then it goes to another judge (or judges) to decide if you were being treated unfairly -and all judges believe that their authority as a judge is sacrosanct: anything that challenges the authority of a judge is a potential challenge to the authority of all judges. Even when a judge disagrees with the decision handed down by another judge, they dislike being forced to admit that any judge may have been wrong as it creates an implied challenge to their own authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the ruling (it's at the last link in the summary) is quite interesting. Basically what happened is that Apple tried to exploit technicalities in the judge's wording, and the judges found a bunch of technicalities in Apple's statement to find it invalid anyway.
(For instance, the judges focused on the facts that the court case had nothing, technically, to do with the iPad, and that patents weren't involved, both of which contradict Apple's original statement.)
Re:er... what now? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:er... what now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:er... what now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh crap.. this decision is cutting edge and it was brilliant. This ought to be a new template. The standard in the corporate world these days is to NEVER admit they are wrong and act as arrogant as possible. This is one of the few ways this can that can actually make it on the public record that the corporations actually broke the law and that consumers ought to know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The standard in the corporate world these days is to NEVER admit they are wrong and act as arrogant as possible.
That's because if you admit you were wrong, you open yourself up to a metric *crapton* of lawsuits. From consumers claiming pain and suffering. From stockholders claiming failure of due diligence. From partners or suppliers or resellers claiming breach of contract or bad faith etc...
Re: (Score:3)
Why, that sounds almost as if they would be held accountable for their actions, to the extent that it might actually be disadvantageous to break the law...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they lost that one in the UK and the US (funny detail, but then the jury has gone so fast through the verdict that they had less than 5 minutes on average for each question, and that does include the time that they should have spent reading the explanations, guess a "quality verdict"), even the US jury found that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not infringe on the iPad design.
Re: (Score:2)
It's entirely possible that different people/teams were in charge of updating the website and publishing the newspapers. Plus, newspapers generally charge more if the ad is bigger so keeping it to a minimum probably suited them better (not that Apple isn't rolling in cash or anything).
Re: (Score:2)
Apple was doing this stuff under Jobs as well. It's got nothing to do with Cook.
It's a reaction from a company who make expensive gadgets to a threat which was always going to come, namely that innovation on smartphones has reached a plateau allowing mass market device manufacturers to undercut them with functionally equivalent devices.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The fact that Apple is still selling apple products in UK is testament to Tim Cook's more even keel.
How easily you forget the Steve that swore to use Apple's entire cash cache (ha!) to destroy Google. Steve's solution might well have been to pay applicable fines, pull ALL iOS products from the UK, write an open letter to the judge and let public pressure roast the responsible magistrates alive.
Like it or not, Apple IS the big kid in the playground, and they DO make excellent products that generates enormous
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple committing slow suicide, Tim Cook assisti (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be suggesting that mere consumer popularity should permit that corporations can act effectively above the law, and that they can behave as illegally as they please. There are very obvious reasons why this can not be permitted! The law is the law, and Apple were found to be a pack of liars who are continuing to bring baseless legal action against their competitors. They have been hoisted on their own petard by their legal actions here, given that all of this is self-inflicted, and they are acting like a spoiled, petulant child.
While kind of offtopic, if Apple were to be banned from trading in the UK, I think you'd find that it would hurt Apple Inc much more than it would British citizens. There are plenty of other computer and gadget manufacturers out there who would pick up the slack. Apple just manufacture shiny, but limited, gadgets. The world does not revolve around them.
Re: (Score:2)
The bottom line is that the UK (through consumer demand) needs Apple far more than Apple needs the UK market.
You need some Prozac. If Apple followed your fanciful prescription its stock would be worth $100 billion less the next day, for starters.
By the way, it is clear to everyone but you that consumers like Samsung's products more than Apple's.
Re: (Score:2)
see how pissed off brits get if apple just says "fuck you, we're taking our ball and going home."
See how fired Tim Cook would be.
Re: (Score:3)
Estimates are that around 10% of Apple's proftis each year come from UK sales. What do you think would happen to Apple's stock if they announced that they were going to lose 10% of their profit, and abandon what is most likely their second or third biggest market to their rivals?
Apple need the UK a lot more than the UK needs the second most popular shiny gadget of the moment.