Live data from Hacker News

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

engadget.com

191–200 of 243 posts

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

#191
post #134

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.

> But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in.

This is not an apology. It's a publication of the facts, as determined by a court of law.

In the US, slander and libel are both illegal, as is defamation, etc. Part of the judicial process is to determine the facts of the case. After the facts are determined and the defendant is acquitted, the plaintiff can't keep publicly affirming the defendant's guilt without risking consequences. This is completely precedented.

Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them. In this case, Apple acted as if they had already won by prematurely advertising a victory ('Samsung copied us!'), so they're being required to retract that.

(Typical disclaimers of UK vs US law and IANAL apply, though my point is that this would not be unusual or unreasonable if it had happened in the US).

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

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a proxy war against Android. For reasons I can not fathom, Android scares Apple. And they lash out against it violently. Samsung is collateral damage.

Because iOS is getting features like "Facebook integration" while Android rolls out 360 degree panoramas on a device that outspecs the iPhone 5 and is less than half the price. I'd be worried too.

I am continually amused at how much emphasis people like you put on spec lists. Most people in the world don't care about specs. They care about the actual experience of using the device.

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

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of them.

Great. It's still a copy. Whether they paid for access to it or not is irrelevant - it's still a copy of someone else's innovation.

Emphasis can be a powerful thing. If you see an array of amazing things (as I'm sure Jobs & Co did at PARC), and then you select a key item to emphasize and popularize, then you have, in fact, contributed value. One could say that this was Steve Jobs' first act of 'technology curation' - an act which has (successfully) been commoditized and monetized via the App Store.

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

#194

In July, 2012, Samsung had won a judgment in the UK to the effect that its Galaxy Tab computers did not infringe Apple's registered design. In spite of this, Apple continued to assert, broadly and widely, that Samsung's tablet computers did in fact constitute blatant copying of Apple's design and was therefore wrongful. Therefore, Samsung went to the court trying to get an injunction barring Apple from making such cl…

Note that regarding the link part, the judgement specifically requested a link among other links on the UK site:

He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled " Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate.

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

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What makes apple what it is is the costumers, in essence the "branding strategy". The person holding the iPhone, they could care less about the rest.

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

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It applies to patents, too.

Not true. In past, there were patented technologies (GIF, MP3) that were allowed to be used freely, until they got widespread. Then the lawyers started asking for the money. It was deliberate strategy, that would not work if the above would be true.

In Troxler Electronic Labs v. Pine Instrument Pine waited 5 years before suing, saying he didn't feel motivated to pursue the claim, and the judge found that insufficient reason. Symbol v. Lemelson found that the submarine patents were invalid due to laches.

It's easy to get lost in the law, though, so I'd love some specific citations that go the other way.

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

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because iOS is getting features like "Facebook integration" while Android rolls out 360 degree panoramas on a device that outspecs the iPhone 5 and is less than half the price. I'd be worried too.

I am continually amused at how much emphasis people like you put on spec lists. Most people in the world don't care about specs. They care about the actual experience of using the device.

Okay? Android's experience has been evolving from day one. iOS is basically the same experience except for major features like multitasking menu, notification menu, etc (and where did those come from).

"Features" are a major part of the experience and was the more important part of my post. Your desire to focus on specs and attempt to dismiss my entire post goes to show the value of lumping "people like me" together and trying to pretend like the specs don't affect the experience. Here's an experience, day-in-and-day-out hearing about people complain about how crashy apps are in iOS.

At least you didn't try to claim that people don't notice a difference between $300 and $650.

I'm very happy to talk experience and features. I mean, come on, did you watch the 4.2 announcement video???

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

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#199

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?

Can't they both be shocking?

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

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But gangrene frequently afflicts extremities. And fish heads are not often replaceable.

Metaphors often (generally?) make poor arguments for why X does Y.

Post reply on HN