AOL "journalist" told to reword "The Guardian's article": http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsu...
To be fair i don't think they ever claim to be journalists-- the source link is always in their posts. If there is any wrong doing, it is the people who post links to one aggregator (like engadget) on another (like HN). I guess in the HN case it is likely because of the url dupe filter.
Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
31–40 of 243 posts
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#32Did the court seriously think ANY COMPANY would have reacted differently than Apple did? This is a childish and completely unproductive order. Fine Apple and be over with it if you think they did something wrong.
The vast majority of companies are not stupid enough to think it's "cute" to piss off a judge in a non-banana republic.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
No court judgment ever said it had to be an apology. It was supposed to "to dispel commercial uncertainty". Looks as if Apple have exploited a loophole by adding to the judgment instead of simply posting it.
Well the judge who issued the order seems to feel pretty strongly that they did not comply.
I wonder if the judge could have added a clause requiring Apple to submit the statement to him for review first.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#34The UK legal system is a complete joke. Apple should consider using its considerable resources to take legal action with this demand and simply post " X is not as cool as Y" and leave it at that. I can not fathom why this has been pulled up, and would challenge the appeals court to explain why the original passage is non-compliant and if they cant give a reasonable answer I would be meeting them in court.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#35Did the court seriously think ANY COMPANY would have reacted differently than Apple did? This is a childish and completely unproductive order. Fine Apple and be over with it if you think they did something wrong.
Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose, name a device and than pay if it breaks some trademark or whatever.
I think the judge understood this and wanted to teach them a lesson of humility, which Apple didn't get and showed once again that they think they are more clever and over the rules. But the reality is that the judge has the power and is not a stupid, and I bet he doesn't like to be treated like one.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#36Did the court seriously think ANY COMPANY would have reacted differently than Apple did? This is a childish and completely unproductive order. Fine Apple and be over with it if you think they did something wrong.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#37How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.
So when Apple issues a statement that says "Court X ordered us to tell you that Samsung didn't copy us, but Court Y did say they copied us." then it's not really following the intent of dispelling their claim
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#38Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that one judge said he "cannot believe".[1] Clearly the judge hasn't ever submitted an iOS app for review? And to people who don't understand why Apple are held to be in "non-compliance" despite copying verbatim the extract from the judgment: it was because of how "snarky" Apple were. - Saying their device is…
That caught my eye as an excuse of the super enterprise-y. I don't recall the page they put up after Steve Jobs passed away taking quite near that long.
But yeah this is some Grade-A bullshit. Either that or Apple is worse at the web than I thought (which is pretty bad considering iTunes Connect).
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#39A lot of the posts that are saying something like "The judge didn't say that they couldn't do it like this!" are deliberately missing the point. In the UK, you are expected to comply with the spirit of such a court order, not just the letter of it. Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens. It's entirely possible to be punished for contempt of court to a much greater extent than the…
If Apple is going all out with lawyers and legal prowness, instead of competiting with products, they need to get better at it.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think a monetary fine is appropriate punishment for any type of corporate misbehaviour? EDIT: The court case counted as negative publicity for Samsung and I don't think the court thought that a fine would counteract that publicity.
For the issue of patent wrangling, which is very much a gray area, yes, I do think monetary fines are the most appropriate. The court cannot make Apple be sincere in an apology if Apple believes they are in the right. Just the same way Sally's Mother cannot make little Jimmy sincerely apologize for tattling on her daughter when she copied his homework, especially after the teacher already praised him for bringing it…
Your analogy is deeply flawed. Apple had a choice as to whether to bring this matter before the courts and UK judge has no vested interest in protecting Samsung. There is no 'teacher' figure in this case; no more objective person involved in the case than the UK judge.
If Apple had no respect for the court's opinion, they should not have brought the lawsuit. In bringing the suit against Samsung into that court, they have effectively asked the court to pass judgement and agreed to respect and abide by the decision. The entire problem is that whoever is in charge at Apple believes they are in the right and that the court is wrong; the statement shows a lack of respect for the court and therefore is, in a way, a challenge to the court's authority. This is the judge's way of reminding them that they should respect the verdict and comply with it.
The only resolutions to this are Apple complies fully, or stops operating in the UK. The UK court system woud much rather get rid of Apple from the UK than allow a challenge to their authority to stand, and Apple would rather continue to operate in the UK than flounce out over a matter like this and lose the UK (and potentially the EU) market. Apple should have folded before, and should definitely fold now. The longer this silly game goes on, the more they have to lose.