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

131–140 of 243 posts

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

#131

Post by deong »

greyboy wrote: post #25
chrisacky wrote: post #13

Apple 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.

Well, they are the only retailer I can think of that has to take their entire site down for several hours to add a new sku.

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

#132

Post by vidarh »

ksec wrote: post #122
michaelfeathers wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Exactly. I see nothing wrong or made up in that. All the presented information are facts. They are saying in a way, we lost, and here are the facts. In a case May be the the Judge should order the Prime Minister for an Public apology and if he does not like it, apologise until he likes? This is just stupid. And this isn't a Apple's is right or wrong issues with Samsung Copied or not either.

Read the judgement. It sets out the purpose of the message very clearly, and it proposes a message. It is very plainly obvious that the way they modified the proposed wording makes a mockery of the stated purpose of the order.

The judgement also describes the UK courts view on the US and German cases, which sheds even more light on why they were pissed of at this: Apple's wording might be technically true, but they're misleading the readers of the note the put up there too (e.g. they seem to try to imply the Galaxy Tab - which is what the UK case was about - was found infringing in the US case; it was not).

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

#134

Post by ksec »

michaelfeathers wrote: post #105

Do US Courts ever make judgements like this? It's akin to compelling speech.

Exactly. Again i have difficulty understanding the notion behind it. You can rule, and fine, or what ever you want. But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in.

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

#135

Post by RobAley »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #119
thomseddon wrote: post #49

Earlier 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).

Legal Tender only means what you have to accept in settlement of a debt. You can choose to accept small denomination coins in any volume, or anything else for that matter. But if you have agreed a transaction with someone, or otherwise have a debt to that person, a court will consider the payment made if you pay (or try to pay) with legal tender.

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

#136

Post by Deestan »

Hontano wrote: post #124
makomk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The judgement specified where, when, and how to publish the notice down to which website and publications, the typeface, and point size. 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 desi…

> 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.

No, it was pretty clear what message Apple were supposed to give, and that's a good enough ruling.

> "Billy, don't take cookies from the jar."

munch munch "I didn't take them, they fell out when I held the jar upside down."

> "Don't touch the jar, then."

munch munch "I did't touch the jar, I used a spoon."

> "Stay 5 meters away from the jar at all times."

munch munch "I did stay away! I just convinced my brother to get them for me."

Et cetera. With lawyers involved, this kind of process can go on indefinitely. At some point, you have to stop adjusting the rules and call them out on obvious disobedience.

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

#137

Post by vidarh »

awfabian2 wrote: post #117
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.

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 i…

The court order is in writing, and it includes a proposed text of the statement. Apple changed it. This is what the court wrote:

"Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given].

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

In the result I would dismiss both appeals but vary the publicity order as indicated or in such other way as may be agreed or settled by further argument. I would hope that any such argument (and any other consequential) arguments can be resolved by written submissions.:"

If Apple thinks that "I would propose the following" means they're free to change the text as they please, they better fire their lawyer, especially given the preceding "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side".

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

#138

Post by ksec »

scott_w wrote: post #61
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.

As noted above, the UK doesn't operate on the exact wording of the law. For example, a judge will sometimes wiggle around the wording of an Act of Parliament if he feels that the intent of the Act was breached. The case taught to law students is that of the prostitutes soliciting from their windows. The law stated that they could not solicit "in" the streets. The judge in the case expanded this to solicit "to" the st…

Thanks, that is finally making some sense to me.

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

#139

Post by ubernostrum »

thomseddon wrote: post #46
belorn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Annoying a judge is a really bad idea. The court system is normally quite free from corruption, but all that goes out off the window when it become personal and political. See the pirate bay court case, or just any of the police brutality cases. If Apple is going all out with lawyers and legal prowness, instead of competiting with products, they need to get better at it.

Is this specifically in reference to the UK legal system or just a blanket statement about practice around the world? If it is the former, I really must disagree with the notion that the legal system in the UK is in any way corrupt. Quite far from it, I think it is one of the things that we can be most proud of. If it is the latter, may I suggest you either be more specific or more correct.

In many civilized and relatively non-corrupt jurisdictions, judges nonetheless tend to get... shall we say, petulant when they feel they've been wronged.

(and I say "relatively" because of things like libel tourism and superinjunctions, both of which enable corruption to various degrees)

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

#140

Post by greyboy »

deong wrote: post #131
greyboy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, they are the only retailer I can think of that has to take their entire site down for several hours to add a new sku.

That's true.

I guess the ridiculousness of this excuse is that the page already exists and would simply (I would think) be a matter of changing the page text. I wouldn't think this would require intensive site-wide testing, but I've been wrong on these thigns before.

Post reply on HN