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

201–210 of 243 posts

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

#201

Post by JabavuAdams »

Groxx wrote: post #200
bitcartel wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

More generally, aphorisms and allegory are specifically created to prove a point. They can never constitute evidence, only persuasion.

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese, and all that.

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

#202

Post by vacri »

rimantas wrote: post #99
bigfudge2 wrote: post #79

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.

And Apple added a lot to the original.

Like 'a black rectangle with rounded corners'?

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

#203

Post by michaelfeathers »

chimeracoder wrote: post #191
ksec wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them.

Devil's Advocate -- Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions and the fact that they don't agree with the court?

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

#204

Post by eta_carinae »

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…

> Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves?

Because of Android.

The rise of Android is clearly showing that Apple products can no longer "speak for themselves" and Apple is feeling the pressure on all fronts, some that they used to have a 90% monopoly on (phones and 10' tablets) and some that they are joining late (7' tablets).

I see the proactive litigation as a move to delay the inevitable (iOS devices being relegated to sub 15% market share across the board, which they are on their way to).

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

#205

Post by eta_carinae »

eridius wrote: post #192
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #188

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.

Apple seems to disagree with you since in the past year, all the new products that they have introduced have pretty much been spec upgrades with no innovation (and sometimes, regressions, e.g. maps).

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

#206

Post by vacri »

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.

Really? Demanding an apology be published (in the spirit of an apology) is 'compelling speech' and therefore against 'our freedoms'?

Do you also admonish American parents who tell their child to say they are sorry for an infraction?

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

#207

Post by vacri »

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…

It's interesting just how quickly Apple's style of simplicity and minimalism can be thrown out the window. If the ruling were in their interest, I can't ever see them leading off with that first paragraph, for example.

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

#208

Post by chimeracoder »

michaelfeathers wrote: post #203
chimeracoder wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

> Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them. Devil's Advocate -- Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions and the fact that they don't agree with the court?

> Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions

No, because those jurisdictions aren't relevant once the court has already made a ruling for its own jurisdiction.

> the fact that they don't agree with the court?

There's nothing to 'disagree' about. As far as the court is concerned, once it's made a ruling, it's determined the facts, and you can't disagree with their facts. There's nothing to appeal in an acquittal (because of double-jeopardy), so the courts have had their final word on the matter.

This is a civil case, but to use the analogy in a criminal case: once the defendant in a murder trail has been acquitted, the prosecutor can't continue to say, "The court has determined the facts, but I have a different opinion."

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

#209

Post by eridius »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #197
eridius wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Huh? Your entire post was dismissing one of the features iOS introduced in the same breath as you talked about Android "outspec[cing]" iPhone. And yet you're claiming I'm trying to focus on specs, but you're trying to focus on "features", as if that's any different and better.

Every time someone has tried to hype an Android phone in a discussion I've been a part of, all they do is throw out a bunch of buzzwords and acronyms made up by companies like Samsung to try and market their phone. They don't even try and explain what these damn things are, much less why I should care about them. It seems the goal is to try and overwhelm me with the quantity of "features", even though, were I to actually buy this phone, I wouldn't even use most of the things they hyped.

So please, keep talking about spec lists. Just don't be surprised when not everyone buys into your hype.

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

#210

Post by unfed »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #180
tatsuke95 wrote: post #100

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.

Considering Samsung's undeniable expertise when it comes to the domains you listed, IP and brand strategy are two damn important fronts to fight.
Post reply on HN