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

171–180 of 243 posts

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

#171

Post by codeulike »

Its important to understand that they weren't asked to publish an 'apology' or state any beliefs. They were asked to publish a specifically worded statement of fact about the outcome of the case.

What they were asked to publish is roughly the first and fifth paragraphs of what they actually published. They added four other paragraphs.

Points 87 and 88 of the appeal judgement here say what they should have published:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

Which is:

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 (date). A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link [link given]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

Contrast with what they actually published: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

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

#172

Post by DannyBee »

nagrom wrote: post #30

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…

The judge, in fact, included proposed text in the order, and said "use this subject to submissions by either side". Rather than submit anything and argue about it, they just decided to do whatever they wanted.

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

#173

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#174

Post by kemiller »

cageface wrote: post #62
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 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…

Apple isn't in this (the lawsuits) for the money. I'm quite sure they're spending more on the suits than they'd lose to Samsung in the marketplace. It's about credit and fairness from their point of view. They don't want people riding their coat-tails or cheapening what they've created. I don't know that they're right -- I think their brand is strong enough to shake off Samsung, and they should take a page from the fashion industry, where brand is everything and copying is rampant, but nobody sues. But that's how they see it. Notice they're not suing Microsoft over the Surface? I'd bet there's some patent somewhere that would apply. Maybe there's some sort of understanding going on, but I seriously doubt it. I think it's because the Surface is genuinely different.

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

#175

Post by codeulike »

masnick wrote: post #28

Here'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…

What they were asked to publish was just the first and fifth paragraphs of that. See judgement here (point 87) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

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

#176

Post by mikeash »

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.

There are a bunch of examples of American courts ordering apologies in this paper:

http://www.law.arizona.edu/faculty/FacultyPubs/Documents/whi...

(See page 8.)

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

#177

Post by codeulike »

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.

They added 4 paragraphs to the 2 paragraphs that they were asked to publish. See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html point 87

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

#179

Post by drivebyacct2 »

cageface wrote: post #62
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 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…

The same reason their last keynote spent an inordinate amount of time talking about specific Android device(s).

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

#180

Post by erikpukinskis »

tatsuke95 wrote: post #100
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…

> Frankly I just don't get it Apple is the biggest corporation on the planet, and hence has more to lose than anyone else. There are literally trillions of dollars on the line. This while doing business in an intensely competitive space and relying on an incredibly powerful, but fragile, branding strategy. I don't like it, but I get it. And it's fascinating to watch.

> relying on an incredibly powerful, but fragile, branding strategy

Saying Apple relies on a "branding strategy" denigrates several entire fields, particularly interaction design and supply chain management. You don't seem to realize that these are important domains of expertise that can confer immense advantages on companies that do them well.

Post reply on HN