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

161–170 of 243 posts

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

#161

Post by bitcartel »

smackfu wrote: post #150
ashray wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

If what Apple claims is true, that it takes 14 days to update a few sentences on its website, how long to fix Maps?!

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

#162

Post by jlgreco »

mbesto wrote: post #93
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…

When the authority (i.e. government) treats you like a child (i.e. outdated patent laws) then why should you act anything but childish?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 I think they genuinely believe they are outdated.

> "When the authority (i.e. government) treats you like a child (i.e. outdated patent laws) then why should you act anything but childish?"

Ever hear of being the bigger man? Encountering a child is no reason for an adult to act like a child.

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

#163

Post by rrouse »

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.

They don't have to.

I believe it's done for two reasons.

1). Suspense during their events 2). To keep people from buying the older devices that they are about to discontinue. No reason to have to field support calls for people wanting to cancel/return their newly purchased items.

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

#164

Post by spullara »

Kind of ridiculous. Samsung obviously did copy, the court just ruled that it didn't merit an infringement ruling. I mean, does anyone think, really, that Samsung didn't set out to copy all of Apple's products? Wouldn't it be better for all (except Apple) if it was spelled out that Samsung copied them but it is ok?

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

#165

Post by codeulike »

ksec wrote: post #134
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.

They weren't asked to apologise or say they believed anything. They were asked to publish a certain statement, giving the facts of the outcome of the case. Along the lines of "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that ....".

So they were asked to publish a statement of fact on their own site and in several newspapers. But they added extra stuff to the end, thus changing the tone and context.

I'm trying to find out what they were originally asked to print so we can compare to what they actually did.

edit: Point 87 of the judgement here says what they were supposed to publish: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

"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."

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

#166

Post by oneandoneis2 »

michaelfeathers wrote: post #105

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

Some US courts make judgements that will end a human life, and you think what's shocking is that a UK court can order a company to retract a claim that has been found to be false?

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

#167

Post by wutbrodo »

michaelfeathers wrote: post #105

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

It seems broadly similar to the warning on cigarette cartons. Though now it's explicitly under the label: "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING", for a period of time it simply said "Cigarette smoking is hazardous to your health".

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

#168

Post by sigzero »

vidarh wrote: post #152
michaelfeathers wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 not…

They should have just made it brief and to the point. Done and over.

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

#170

Post by DannyBee »

Hontano wrote: post #5
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.

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.

Sorry, but no, they didn't. The judge didn't fuck up. The court was quite specific in it's order, as someone quoted below:

"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"

Post reply on HN