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

141–150 of 243 posts

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

#141

Post by michaelfeathers »

vidarh wrote: post #127
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?

The purpose of the notice was explicitly to counter some of the damage from Apple's very public claims that Samsung had clearly copied the iPad with their Samsung Galaxy Tab. Apple tried to damage Samsung by taking victory in advance. When they then lose, it is only natural they face consequences, otherwise they would have no incentive not to the same again. They chose to take the proposed wording, chop it into two p…

To me, the core problem is that the UK court is compelling speech. Maybe that is okay in the UK, but I don't think a court would be able to get away with that in the US.

I think is okay to have Apple announce the court's judgement, but they should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree with it.

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

#142

Post by vidarh »

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.

The judgement included a proposed wording with the introduction "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following". Apple might think that gives them carte blanche to write what they think, but I can guarantee you that no British lawyer would think a wording like that means anything than that they should thread _very_ carefully if deviating from it without consent from the court and/or private agreement with the other party.

> Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?

No, but we can read the rest of the text where they tried to confuse the matter again by misrepresenting rulings from other courts. E.g. the German court did not find infringing copying. The US jury explicitly found the Galaxy Tab (which is what the UK court case and the notice is about) non-infringing.

It clearly and blatantly has a purpose that is at odds with the spirit of the judgement.

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

#143

Post by TheCapn »

nagrom wrote: post #40
bstar77 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As others have noted: it is difficult to counteract the effect of negative publicity brought against Samsung by Apple's accusations. Having Apple publicly retract those accusations is the court's way of trying to mitigate that. 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 i…

Slightly off topic, but I just want to point out that I think he was getting at in his analogy was that German courts were "the teacher".

That is to say, it'll be a hard time getting Apple to believe they were in the wrong because a different court has already said their accusations are correct.

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

#144

Post by michaelfeathers »

vidarh wrote: post #132
ksec wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'r…

Again, why should a company be required to only give the UK court's view of the facts?

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

#145

Post by bitcartel »

Shivetya wrote: post #123
cageface wrote: post #62

Earlier 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…

I think Mr. Cook needs to rid Apple of a few more bad ones. I would hate to think he approves of this level of immaturity, but if he does then he should go too.

You're right. Mr Cook has good reason to P45 (British pink slip) the UK legal team for their poor advice, but a fish rots from the head.

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

#146

Post by deong »

michaelfeathers wrote: post #103

The 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.

Isn't that the whole purpose of a court system? If you insist on calling OJ Simpson a murderer who got away with it, he can sue you for libel. He is, as a point of fact, not legally a murderer, and you would be lying to defame him. Legal truth isn't some abstract concept. It is defined by the court's opinion. The factual statement in UK law is now "Samsung did not copy their design." End of story.

You don't get to flout a court ruling by continuing to behave the same way, only with a disclaimer that says, "Well, the judge said we're wrong, but screw him."

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

#147

Post by DanBC »

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.

It is an elegant order. Rather that trying to collapse everything down to a dollar value (and thus have extended bickering between the parties) you have a simple "You accused them of copying. They did not copy. They say they are damaged by your claims. Retract your claims."

The problem with money is that Apple has a lot of it, and thus making them pay for realistic (as oppose to punitive) damages is not a disincentive to further poor behaviour. It just becomes a cost of doing business.

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

#148

Post by Hontano »

vidarh wrote: post #142
Hontano wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. The judgement included a proposed wording with the introduction "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following". Apple might think that gives them carte blanche to write what they think, but I can gua…

You're right, I just re-read the judgment with the proposed wording. Apple should have gone with that verbatim and otherwise shut up so as to not drag it out.

They made what could have been a publicly boring notice buried in the page footer a spectacle.

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

#149

Post by vidarh »

michaelfeathers wrote: post #144
vidarh wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'r…

Again, why should a company be required to only give the UK court's view of the facts?

Nobody is requiring that. They are free to publish pages upon pages of opposing views if they please.

They are required to comply with a court order with a very clear intent: To rectify the false impression Apple had created that the Samsung Galaxy Tab infringed on UK law and might get banned from sale.

All the court is requiring is that Apple is not diluting that message by including other paragraphs that are at best irrelevant and at most directly misleading.

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

#150

Post by smackfu »

ashray wrote: post #116
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.

Yeah, there's a world of difference between "we would like 14 days to update it" and "we need 14 days to update it".
Post reply on HN