Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 243 posts

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#51

Post by saurik »

jbri wrote: post #12
coob wrote: post #3

How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.

Apple was ordered to make a statement that Samsung had not copied them. Saying "Joe told me to tell you X" is not the same as me telling you X. Apple trying to pull a fast one by saying "The court of appeals says we should tell you that Samsung didn't copy us" was never going to fly.

"Joe, who thought we were cool and clearly did not think Bill was cool, told us to tell you that he doesn't think Bill copied our amazing coolness. (Of course, Joe is in the minority position on this one, so please ignore him: you should really listen to Sally and Jack.)"

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#52

Post by debacle »

nagrom wrote: post #30

A 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…

In most jurisdictions, you are expected to comply with the spirit of a court order. Lawyers have some wiggle room when it comes to wordings, but it's a fine line between seeming clever and pissing the judge off.

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#54

Post by Camillo »

DannyBee wrote: post #32
bstar77 wrote: post #17

Did 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.

Yes, most companies would react differently, actually. The vast majority of companies are not stupid enough to think it's "cute" to piss off a judge in a non-banana republic.

The UK is not a republic at all.

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#56

Post by cobrophy »

count wrote: post #43
duiker101 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the court's ruling is not childish. The problem with Apple is their attitude, they think they are over the rules, look at the Italian case of the warranties, the law requires 2 years but Apple would give only one. 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 t…

Attitudes are not illegal.

It is when your attitude is a contempt towards a court ruling.

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#57

Post by cobrophy »

count wrote: post #43
duiker101 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the court's ruling is not childish. The problem with Apple is their attitude, they think they are over the rules, look at the Italian case of the warranties, the law requires 2 years but Apple would give only one. 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 t…

Attitudes are not illegal.

It is when your attitude is a contempt towards a court ruling.

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#58

Post by xutopia »

bstar77 wrote: post #17

Did 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.

There is a huge issue with just giving a fine. Profitable companies can choose to overlook the law if it makes financial sense for them to do so.

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#60

Post by macmac »

Hontano wrote: post #5
coob wrote: post #3

How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.

Beats me. Apple complied with a sloppy judgment. I'm no great fan of Apple in this, but the appeal judges fucked up by not clearly specifying what Apple needed to do and could not do.

It is only sloppy if you are ignorant of / choose to ignore the law that applies to it.
Post reply on HN