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…
Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
121–130 of 243 posts
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#122Here's what Apple wrote -- somehow I'm guessing this isn't what the court had in mind. From http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ : Samsung / Apple UK judgment On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the…
They presented the facts and they should be allowed to mention that other jurisdictions have other views of the matter. Does anyone think that they shouldn't be able to?
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#123Apple 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…
This episode is the childish and vindictive zenith of an amazing year of childish and vindictive behavior from Apple. Frankly I just don't get it. They make fantastic hardware and their software is usually at least good. Why do they have to lash out like a schoolyard bully at anybody that threatens to put the tiniest dent in their giant pile of cash money? Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselv…
I would hate to think he approves of this level of immaturity, but if he does then he should go too.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The courts don't work like this, largely because it's a waste of the court's time to figure out every single way some slimy bastard could try and weasel out of their rulings. This is pretty clear-cut too - the court ordered Apple to post a notice saying that Samsung's products had been found not to infringe, and Apple decided to instead post one that argued the court had got it wrong and Samsung were a bunch of evil…
It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication.
Apple complied with the letter of the judgment and arguably the spirit of the judgment which was "not designed to punish" but rather "to dispel commercial uncertainty". It clearly states that Samsung's products were found not to infringe in England and Wales. Unambiguously. Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?
Going on to provide nuance by quoting the original judge and including rulings from other jurisdictions doesn't negate that.
Apple have been foolish in getting the court's dander up, but they're not wrong.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#125Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of them.
Xerox sued, but the case was dismissed without addressing the claims, because it was filed as the wrong type of case, in the wrong court. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-s... Xerox did give Apple access to PARC, but see how that allows Apple to freely use any of their IP without compensation. According to Xerox: ''The ruling does not mean Apple hasn't taken substantial portions of the Star…
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#127Here's what Apple wrote -- somehow I'm guessing this isn't what the court had in mind. From http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ : Samsung / Apple UK judgment On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the…
They presented the facts and they should be allowed to mention that other jurisdictions have other views of the matter. Does anyone think that they shouldn't be able to?
They chose to take the proposed wording, chop it into two pieces, and inject their own paragraphs that are clearly intended to play up Apple and to downplay and dilute the purpose of the message and create doubt about whether or not there was copying by referring to other judgements, and on top that they are misrepresenting the court cases they mention:
The German court did not find that Samsung had carried out any infringing copying of their design. The US jury did NOT find the Samsung Galaxy Tab infringing. Apple's comment is technically correct, but they are on purpose clearly failing to mention that the judgement is mostly irrelevant to the UK case as it deals mainly with other products than the UK case (which only deals with the Galaxy Tab), and in the one instance where it is relevant, Samsung prevailed.
Apple is free to question the judgement, but doing so by diluting the effect of the very message the judges ordered them to put in place is at best a stupid mistake, at worst wilful attempt at doing an endrun around the court. The only reason they got away with this as lightly as they did is because the judges can't prove it wasn't someone just being stupid. So they've given Apple another chance and given them more rope - if Apple tries this stunt again, someone will be in serious personal trouble.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Also, paying for your groceries in that way (self-checkout) isn't discharging a debt as no debt was incurred: You could have decided not to pay and put the groceries back, after all.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
This episode is the childish and vindictive zenith of an amazing year of childish and vindictive behavior from Apple. Frankly I just don't get it. They make fantastic hardware and their software is usually at least good. Why do they have to lash out like a schoolyard bully at anybody that threatens to put the tiniest dent in their giant pile of cash money? Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselv…
When the authority (i.e. government) treats you like a child (i.e. outdated patent laws) then why should you act anything but childish? Note - I do realize Apple should publicly take a stance on patent laws. I think they genuinely believe they are outdated.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#130The article said that the judge ordered Apple to say that "Samsung did not copy their design." Apple, essentially, said that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy its design. That is factually correct. I don't see how anyone can be compelled to make the former statement rather than the latter one.