The UK legal system is a complete joke. Apple should consider using its considerable resources to take legal action with this demand and simply post " X is not as cool as Y" and leave it at that. I can not fathom why this has been pulled up, and would challenge the appeals court to explain why the original passage is non-compliant and if they cant give a reasonable answer I would be meeting them in court.
Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
11–20 of 243 posts
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#12How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.
Apple was ordered to make a statement that Samsung had not copied them. Saying "Joe told me to tell you X" is not the same as me telling you X.
Apple trying to pull a fast one by saying "The court of appeals says we should tell you that Samsung didn't copy us" was never going to fly.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#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]
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 much more popular.
- Signing off by disregarding the purpose of the statement: "Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."
- Saying that Samsung's device is "not as cool".
- Not using the correct font size. (Although, I don't care about this point)
- Dedicating 80%~ of the statement to supporting their claims in other jurisdictions... and brushing past the verbatim copied statement.
Apple were ordered to factually represent the judgment in a statement issued on their website. They cherry picked quotes, out of context and attempted to create confusion in any readers, with the intention of misleading them as to the judges present ruling.
[1] : http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statementRe: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#14Here's the original page: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ It's basically "The UK court found Samsung non infringing, but said our products are great, and other courts found them infringing.". Far from an apology.
Mom told me I had to say I was sorry, but you deserved it anyway.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#15“I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.”
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#16Here's the original page: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ It's basically "The UK court found Samsung non infringing, but said our products are great, and other courts found them infringing.". Far from an apology.
No court judgment ever said it had to be an apology. It was supposed to "to dispel commercial uncertainty".
Looks as if Apple have exploited a loophole by adding to the judgment instead of simply posting it.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#17Did the court seriously think ANY COMPANY would have reacted differently than Apple did? This is a childish and completely unproductive order. Fine Apple and be over with it if you think they did something wrong.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#18Here's the original page: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ It's basically "The UK court found Samsung non infringing, but said our products are great, and other courts found them infringing.". Far from an apology.
No court judgment ever said it had to be an apology. It was supposed to "to dispel commercial uncertainty". Looks as if Apple have exploited a loophole by adding to the judgment instead of simply posting it.
Well the judge who issued the order seems to feel pretty strongly that they did not comply.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#19AOL "journalist" told to reword "The Guardian's article": http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsu...
To be fair i don't think they ever claim to be journalists-- the source link is always in their posts. If there is any wrong doing, it is the people who post links to one aggregator (like engadget) on another (like HN). I guess in the HN case it is likely because of the url dupe filter.
Aggregators don't replace the original source they point you to it.
Engadget (and similar sites) are just parasites that extract every ounce of value from someone else's work, stuff it full of SEO spam and hope they do it fast enough to usurp the traffic too.
I do agree that they shouldn't be submitted though!
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#20How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.
Some people think legal stuff is all about finding loopholes in the rules, but loopholes usually don't work since intent matters more.