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

151–160 of 243 posts

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

#151

Post by bitcartel »

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).

Would love to see the source code for this situation, where payment is disrupted due to the change jar needing to emptied. I bet the programmers put in some amusing comments.

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

#152

Post by vidarh »

michaelfeathers wrote: post #141
vidarh wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are not compelling speech. They are compelling Apple to facilitate dissemination of a message that is very clearly labelled as not being Apple's opinion.

It is pretty clear that this is not a problem under US law either: All kinds of legal requirements exist to add specific notices to various products, for example.

> but it should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree with it.

There is nothing in the proposed wording that implies Apples agreement. In fact, the very purpose is to announce the verdict of a court case where Apple very obviously argued for the opposite result.

The proposed wording starts "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled". There's no implication that Apple agrees anywhere.

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

#153

Post by ChuckMcM »

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…

This is true, but I don't think I've ever seen a ruling quite like this one, so the lawyers probably don't know how far they can push it. I expect them to do 'better' but still get it wrong, its a delay of game tactic that makes the judge look like he is being picky. I would agree though that Apple is coming off looking badly (to me at least, and I think I am part of their target market).

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

#154

Post by swang »

michaelfeathers wrote: post #141
vidarh wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course those slimy judges can't get away with it in the US. Corporations in the US are people now.

Should cigarette companies be allowed to write their own diatribe under the "Surgeon General's Warning" label? Cigarette companies definitely don't agree that smoking causes cancer, so why not post a rant about how has not yet declared smoking dangerous so the UK is wrong?

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

#155

Post by danielweber »

mkr-hn wrote: post #86
kingnothing wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company doesn't protect its intellectual property, it is liable to lose it. The only thing that's changed is now Apple is leading the market and is in a position where they need to fight these battles.

I thought that only applied to trademarks.

It applies to patents, too.

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

#156

Post by smackfu »

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.

In this case, the original judge wanted the notice on Apple's UK home page. Apple did appeal that judgement, and the appeals court said it would be sufficient to put it in a link from the footer. So there is recourse.

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

#157

Post by oneandoneis2 »

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?

Maybe because it's required in response to their failed attempt to use the UK court's view of the facts to block a competitor's products from the market?

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

#158

Post by mokash »

I saw this coming. Their 'apology' was just another thinly veiled stab at Samsung. They're simply coming off as childish and immature now. They're not exactly getting into the good-books of that judge which would have worked in their favour if they ever encountered him again which judging by their history and mantra of 'sue everything' is highly likely.

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

#159

Post by danielweber »

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?

If I'm required to put "the surgeon general has determined that smoking causes cancer" on the cigarettes I sell, then I'm required to put that message there.

I am not following that law if I add "but the surgeon general is a stupid head" right after that. Or "but smoking is totally cool in Europe."

I have plenty of other avenues in which I can try to persuade people that the surgeon general is a mean poopy head that they should ignore.

It's insulting to pretend not to understand this, which is also how the judge feels.

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

#160

Post by bstar77 »

TheCapn wrote: post #143
nagrom wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yes, this is essentially what I meant. I guess I could have used better players in the analogy, but it was just a quick response.

It's hard (unreasonable?) for someone to admit guilt when many others are shouting that they are in the right.

Post reply on HN