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.
Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Enlighten me (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
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: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: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:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, lying as such is not covered by the 1st Amendment. Especially if done in the course of commercial activities.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: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 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: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: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:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (Score:4, Insightful)