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

111–120 of 243 posts

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

#111

Post by AmarettoAndCode »

thomseddon wrote: post #49
ZoFreX wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens. That actually comes under the letter of the law: http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/leg... Not to detract from your overall point though, which is 100% correct.

I was going to post this! TL;DR the link: Coins are only legal tender up to a certain amount. For example 21p in 1p's is not classed as legal tender. (Is it only me who can only say "legal tender" in a scottish accent > "I think you'll find that's...")

>(Is it only me who can only say "legal tender" in a scottish accent > "I think you'll find that's...")

Lets thank the comical Michael McIntyre for that!

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

#112

Post by vidarh »

Karunamon wrote: post #101
vidarh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case the UK legal system is pretty much exactly like any other civilized legal system. The judge in this case is the court, and when he says the original passage doesn't comply with his order, by definition it does not comply with his order. If they choose to continue to fail to comply with this order, the people responsible finds themselves at risk of being found in contempt of court and jailed.

So a single person can perhaps issue an order and not be overruled or challenged in any way? That hardly seems like a "civilized" legal system. In fact it sounds like something in a corrupt banana republic.

It can be challenged by appealing the finding. This is already in the appeals court - good luck to Apple's lawyers in getting the UK Supreme Court to overrule a court order about a small statement on their website.

But what metratonscube suggested was to ignore the court order and put up a message that is blatantly in violation of the order then fight them in court if they didn't come up with a reason to comply. Ignoring this court order would be straightforward contempt of court at this stage, and will result in substantially more severe sanctions than being told to put a modified message up.

And yes, this is how a civilized legal system handles it - every single European country, the US and most other countries in the world gives the judges (in this case a panel in the appeals court, so not just one) wide latitude in ensuring compliance with their orders. The failure to comply with a judge's legally issued order without specifically going to the court and asking for a stay pending an appal, is considered extremely serious exactly because the rule of law requires someone to be the arbiter, and if one party was able to get away with just ignoring what the judge orders them to, then the court has no ability to carry out it's duties.

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

#113

Post by DannyBee »

Karunamon wrote: post #101
vidarh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case the UK legal system is pretty much exactly like any other civilized legal system. The judge in this case is the court, and when he says the original passage doesn't comply with his order, by definition it does not comply with his order. If they choose to continue to fail to comply with this order, the people responsible finds themselves at risk of being found in contempt of court and jailed.

So a single person can perhaps issue an order and not be overruled or challenged in any way? That hardly seems like a "civilized" legal system. In fact it sounds like something in a corrupt banana republic.

Err, this is true in almost all "civilized" legal systems.

Judges everywhere are always responsible for determining if you are compliant with their orders, and holding you accountable if not.

Not everything is appealable.

In every justice system, there is always someone who is "always right because they are last", not "last because they are always right".

For example, in the US, the supreme court judges also act as the highest individual judge in a given circuit court. This usually comes into play with stays of death penalty cases. The judges usually refer the petition to the full court, and the full court takes a vote. However, this is not required. The judge could simply deny/accept it. You would have no way to appeal this.

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

#115

Post by robotresearcher »

bstar77 wrote: post #29
adaml_623 wrote: post #21

Earlier 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…

The were not required to make an apology, but a statement of the facts found by the judge on behalf of consumers in England and Wales.

Since Apple is quite happy to see judges' will be done when Apple wins, their statement in defeat was not at all classy.

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

#116

Post by ashray »

denzil_correa wrote: post #47

Judge Robin Jacob's comments on On Apple's legal notice posted “I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.” On Technical Difficulties to take 14 days to change the notice “I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on” their website, Jacob said. “I ju…

I'm really impressed that he asked for an affidavit from the head of apple. That would've really put apple in deep trouble had they gone that route. Good job on calling their bluff on the 'it will take us 14 days to update the site'. =/

Apple just seems so slimy these days. I absolutely love many of their products but lately they seem quite meh.

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

#117

Post by awfabian2 »

vidarh wrote: post #81
metatronscube wrote: post #11

The 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.

In this case the UK legal system is pretty much exactly like any other civilized legal system. The judge in this case is the court, and when he says the original passage doesn't comply with his order, by definition it does not comply with his order. If they choose to continue to fail to comply with this order, the people responsible finds themselves at risk of being found in contempt of court and jailed.

In the US, such orders usually have to be in writing, be pretty specific, and the meaning has to be fairly clear. You would have a very difficult time holding someone in contempt for a court order that's not written. And, so, what's written IS the order, regardless of the judge's intent.

In other words, a third party judge should be able to judge compliance with the order, so it certainly would not be the case that if the original judge thinks something doesn't comply with his order that it necessarily doesn't comply.

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

#118

Post by pfortuny »

To those saying that Apple "complied"... Do you think Apple would have complied if the text were in #FEFEFE over #FFFFFF in a page including, say "buy iPhone and be happy!" in clear #000000 and a Photo of Steve?

It would be literally complying: The text would be there to be read, anyway.

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

#119

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

thomseddon wrote: post #49
ZoFreX wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens. That actually comes under the letter of the law: http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/leg... Not to detract from your overall point though, which is 100% correct.

I was going to post this! TL;DR the link: Coins are only legal tender up to a certain amount. For example 21p in 1p's is not classed as legal tender. (Is it only me who can only say "legal tender" in a scottish accent > "I think you'll find that's...")

I recently paid for £21 worth of groceries in 20p pieces (change jar needed emptying).

Lock me up and throw away the key.

(Fortunately it was a self-checkout so no witnesses).

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

#120

Post by pcwalton »

lonnyk wrote: post #91
debacle wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>In most jurisdictions, you are expected to comply with the spirit of a court order. In what country are you referring to?

Any jurisdiction with contempt of court, basically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court
Post reply on HN