A bit of Karma..... [Apple must run Did not Copy Ads in Britain]

[heySkippy]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

So far, it looks like Apple is the stupid one for willful disobedience to a court order, and unquestionably arrogant to even try such an ignorant stunt.

So far, what has it cost them? So far, I would argue that they've gained more than they've lost from all this silliness.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

So far, what has it cost them? So far, I would argue that they've gained more than they've lost from all this silliness.

In what way have Apple gained from this?

They lost the case itself, were largely mocked in the press for having to run the 'apology' statement, and the reaction across the internet to their first, petulant 'non-apology' was almost entirely negative, with the exception of the Apple fan sites - and even some of those thought it was ill-advised.

Graham

[Tacty]

apple is laughing at everybody and yet no one stand up to punish this behaviour? eu is dragging microsoft through hell about internet explorer but at the same time apple were doing much more and nothing. for example, apple doesnt care about eu policy of 2 years guarantee for electronic products and gives only one year. apple is ignoring micro usb standardization...eu is mum about it.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Tacty

for example, apple doesnt care about eu policy of 2 years guarantee for electronic products and gives only one year.

If you buy your products from Apple they will honour the statutory two year guarantee for defects in the product when bought:

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal/statutory-warranty/

The issue seems to be that they don't advertise that they comply with the ruling, and give the impression that cover is only for one year. The EU Justice Commission is looking into that.

http://gigaom.com/apple/eu-sniffing-...anty-practice/

Graham

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Tacty

apple is ignoring micro usb standardization...eu is mum about it.

I thought Apple had an exemption for this because they include an adapter in the EU?

The EU should also be happy about Apple's early adherence to RoHS and the reduction of Mercury.

Look, I dislike Apple greatly for their blatant stealing of others hard work and claiming for their own magic, and piss poor feature set in overpriced toys. But this is a bit much.

[Daithi]

So here is the Apple webpage stating Samsung didn't copy the iPad.

I am not an Apple fan. You would be hard pressed to find any post of mine touting Apple or any of their products. However, in this case, I have to say "Well played Apple."

They were required to post a page stating Samsung hadn't copied the iPad. They complied with that order. They just took it a step further by making it clear that other jurisdictions have disagreed with this conclusion, and used the judges own words to describe why the U.K. judge found Samsung wasn't in violation---

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. [...] It is a cool design."

and

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. [...] They are not as cool."

The BBC's headline on this story is "Apple ordered to re-write 'inaccurate' Samsung statement." However, I'm hard-pressed to see where anything in Apple's statement is 'inaccurate'.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Daithi

So here is the Apple webpage stating Samsung didn't copy the iPad.

I am not an Apple fan. You would be hard pressed to find any post of mine touting Apple or any of their products. However, in this case, I have to say "Well played Apple."

They were required to post a page stating Samsung hadn't copied the iPad. They complied with that order. They just took it a step further by making it clear that other jurisdictions have disagreed with this conclusion, and used the judges own words to describe why the U.K. judge found Samsung wasn't in violation---



and



The BBC's headline on this story is "Apple ordered to re-write 'inaccurate' Samsung statement." However, I'm hard-pressed to see where anything in Apple's statement is 'inaccurate'.

The order was given to Apple to correct the misinformation that apple had spread about Samsung copying them. By adding the irrelevant information about the German court (the UK decision came first and in the EU a decision in a member country applies to the whole of the EU), apple were not addressing the issue at heart, but instead muddling the water even more. No wonder the judges were not happy with the non-apology, and good on them for sticking to their guns and seeing through the apple smoke of "we need 2 weeks to update our website".

[HansTWN]

Apple's apology was along the lines of "yes judge, I raped that woman and I am sorry. But look at the dress she was wearing at the time!"

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Daithi

They were required to post a page stating Samsung hadn't copied the iPad. They complied with that order. They just took it a step further by making it clear that other jurisdictions have disagreed with this conclusion, and used the judges own words to describe why the U.K. judge found Samsung wasn't in violation---

The BBC's headline on this story is "Apple ordered to re-write 'inaccurate' Samsung statement." However, I'm hard-pressed to see where anything in Apple's statement is 'inaccurate'.

The fact that you're hard-pressed is exactly why the judge has ordered this restatement.
,
In those other jurisdictions, the US jury, while finding for Apple with regard to phone patents, actually ruled in Samsung's favour on tablet design. In other words, on the matter in the UK court case, the US jury agreed with the UK judge.

And in Germany, while Apple won a preliminary injunction, a) it should not have been granted as under EU law the UK court took precedence, and b) a preliminary injunction is not the same as going on to win the case.

So, neither in the US nor in Germany did Apple win a court ruling that Samsung's Tab copied the iPad's design.

Do you see now why Apple's statement, while brilliantly worded, and true in every word, was nonetheless highly misleading and thus did not do what was ordered, i.e. to 'correct the damaging impression' that Samsung had infringed Apple's design patent?

Graham

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by Graham

The fact that you're hard-pressed is exactly why the judge has ordered this restatement.
,
In those other jurisdictions, the US jury, while finding for Apple with regard to phone patents, actually ruled in Samsung's favour on tablet design. In other words, on the matter in the UK court case, the US jury agreed with the UK judge.

And in Germany, while Apple won a preliminary injunction, a) it should not have been granted as under EU law the UK court took precedence, and b) a preliminary injunction is not the same as going on to win the case.

So, neither in the US nor in Germany did Apple win a court ruling that Samsung's Tab copied the iPad's design.

Do you see now why Apple's statement, while brilliantly worded, and true in every word, was nonetheless highly misleading and thus did not do what was ordered, i.e. to 'correct the damaging impression' that Samsung had infringed Apple's design patent?

Graham

Not really. Mostly, I just think it's funny.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Not really. Mostly, I just think it's funny.

That, we all agree - very funny that apple has to publicly apologise on their website for misleading the public. As the title of the thread goes, Karma is a b....

[holymadness]

I don't know what the UK court expected. They weren't going to shame Apple into feeling any genuine remorse and offering a statement that adhered to the spirit of the ruling. Anyone with half a brain knew that Apple would comply to the least possible extent.

They could have avoided this whole fiasco by mandating what should appear on the Apple website. Yet rather than do that the second time around, they persist in sending Apple back to the drawing board to get it right themselves. So bizarre.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by holymadness

I don't know what the UK court expected. They weren't going to shame Apple into feeling any genuine remorse and offering a statement that adhered to the spirit of the ruling. Anyone with half a brain knew that Apple would comply to the least possible extent.

They could have avoided this whole fiasco by mandating what should appear on the Apple website. Yet rather than do that the second time around, they persist in sending Apple back to the drawing board to get it right themselves. So bizarre.

Yes, it was rather bizarre that they trusted Apple not to play childish games. The court should write the statement themselves, and specify the exact size, font specs, and position on the front page of Apple's website, as well as the exact date and time the statement must appear and the date and time when it is to be taken down. the court should also reserve the right to approve any of the other items that are to appear on Apple's website during that time to avoid that Apple displays any content contradicting the statement. What was the judge thinking that Apple would behave like responsible adults?

[frahse]

afv011
HansTWN

Apple has gotten away with being childish (we own the rectangle) for so long, I don't expect them to really apologize for anything.

After all, they are APPLE, and have a 100 Billion in the bank. Lots of retainers for lawyers there.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by holymadness

they persist in sending Apple back to the drawing board to get it right themselves. So bizarre.

Yup, it sure is bizarre that Apple cannot figure how to follow a simple court order with the army of lawyers they have on call. Whatever lawyer signed off on their feeble non-compliance of the original court order deserves a contempt of court citation.