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

[afv011]

Here's the AD they ran on the papers. Dry as the desert, but at least it's "court-approved".

[Graham]

Originally Posted by afv011

Here's the AD they ran on the papers. Dry as the desert, but at least it's "court-approved".

The only thing that might still be questioned is that the court order was that Apple had to acknowledge the ruling; it had to 'come from the horse's mouth'.

Since there is no logo attached, there is nothing in this advert that tells the reader that the message is from Apple. They've complied with the letter of the ruling again, but still haven't quite complied with the spirit of it.

However, they've garnered so much negative publicity about this across the press, that it's probably now done the job that the court wanted, and got the message out that the Tab doesn't infringe.

Graham

[afv011]

Well, well, well, now apple has to apologise for its non-apology. This is getting better and better!

Apple will have to apologise for its rubbish apology as well its patent infringement claims against Samsung when it publishes a statement on its UK website tomorrow.

The three sentence statement that Apple will have to display on its homepage will say:

On 25th October 2012, Apple Inc published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court Appeal of England and Wales. A correct statement can be found at this link.

I guess messing with a court order and making fun of the judges was not that great of an idea...

Source

[Nexutix]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

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.

It's not called 'bizzare'. It's called oversmart. Without doubt lawyers wanted to cover-up the ruling by sugarcoating it. That failed miserably.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Nexutix

It's not called 'bizzare'. It's called oversmart. Without doubt lawyers wanted to cover-up the ruling by sugarcoating it. That failed miserably.

There's even a suggestion now that they've fiddled with the javascript on the UK site so that you have to scroll down to see the notice.

It's certainly true that if you set your browser zoom to 100% and go to the US site you will see the page footer. This was also true earlier of the UK site.

Now if you go to the UK site the footer is not seen until you scroll down.

See http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...a-page-a-page/.

The Next Web has pointed out this interesting little point:

"Apple today posted its second Samsung apology to its UK website, complying with requests by the UK Court of Appeal to say its original apology was inaccurate and link to a new statement. As users on Hacker News and Reddit point out, however, Apple modified its website recently to ensure the message is never displayed without visitors having to scroll down to the bottom first."

Now that is interesting, isn’t it? It also appears that the code was added to the site only a couple of days ago. It’s not something that has historically been there nor is it present on the US site according to Next Web.

Graham

[frahse]

Originally Posted by afv011

Well, well, well, now apple has to apologise for its non-apology. This is getting better and better!

I guess messing with a court order and making fun of the judges was not that great of an idea...

Source

Those good old boys over in the home country, with the powdered wigs, don't mess around. They got no first amendment over there.
A lot of heads went up on pikes on that bridge for that kind of insolence and foot dragging.

[murraypaul]

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the closest equivalent of the US First Amendment:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Graham

There's even a suggestion now that they've fiddled with the javascript on the UK site so that you have to scroll down to see the notice.

It's certainly true that if you set your browser zoom to 100% and go to the US site you will see the page footer. This was also true earlier of the UK site.

Now if you go to the UK site the footer is not seen until you scroll down.

See http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...a-page-a-page/.



Graham

It's been confirmed. Oddly enough, when I checked the website on my nooktablet I didn't have to scroll, it showed the footer (maybe a glitch on the browser running on the tablet). However, later I checked on my monitor (which has 1440px vertically), and the footer was not there, I had to scroll. Very sneaky.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by frahse

Those good old boys over in the home country, with the powdered wigs, don't mess around. They got no first amendment over there.
A lot of heads went up on pikes on that bridge for that kind of insolence and foot dragging.

It was Apple that ran crying to the UK court system looking for redress of Samsung's imagined infringement of Apple's Imaginary Property.

They also ran crying to Mexican courts claiming that iFone's 2003 trademark is confusing with Apple's 2007 iPhone trademark.

If Apple want compensation for confusion caused by others, why should they expect to cause confusion with impunity?

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

It was Apple that ran crying to the UK court system looking for redress of Samsung's imagined infringement of Apple's Imaginary Property.

They also ran crying to Mexican courts claiming that iFone's 2003 trademark is confusing with Apple's 2007 iPhone trademark.

If Apple want compensation for confusion caused by others, why should they expect to cause confusion with impunity?

I would have called that Mexican (iFone 2003) confusion caused by Apple.

I sometimes have trouble believing all the stuff they do. It goes beyond silly and foolish.

[din155]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

I would have called that Mexican (iFone 2003) confusion caused by Apple.

I sometimes have trouble believing all the stuff they do. It goes beyond silly and foolish.

As in stranger than the fiction?

[frahse]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the closest equivalent of the US First Amendment:

"2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

It is part 2 where they greatly differ. I like the American one better. Screw "Politically Correct!" Say what is in your heart.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by frahse

"2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

It is part 2 where they greatly differ.

Not really, except that the EU drafters had seen the endless troubles caused by the US drafters not specifying enough detail.
Your first amendment rights are not unrestricted.

[Dave_S]

An Apple lawsuit against Google's Motorola Mobility unit over alleged patent abuse was thrown out on Monday just hours before trial, a setback for the iPhone maker in its efforts to gain leverage in the smartphone patent wars.

However, in a court filing last week, Apple argued that it would not consider itself bound by Crabb's rate if it exceeded $1 per Apple phone.

Good way to get judge Crabb on Apple's side?

Source

[Nexutix]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

I sometimes have trouble believing all the stuff they do. It goes beyond silly and foolish.

Oh, by that I remember those very dumb ads aired by apple starring Josh Rabinowitz. On youtube, they had around 50% dislikes. Some days later, commenting was disabled. After few days, they were made private.

They were literally one of the worst ads.



Josh Rabinowitz is comedian by profession. He, for sure, made me laugh at the ads.