Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#101

Post by safeaim »

takluyver wrote: post #83
rmc wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a large percentage of the population, "mp3 player = ipod" and "smartphone = iphone".

An anecdotal example: a couple of years ago, I mentioned to my mother that I had bought an mp3 player. She sounded puzzled for a moment and asked 'is that like an iPod?'

Here's sort of the flipside of that anecdote:

Me and a group at my school are currently developing a mobile communication app for elderly for a interaction design-course, and we are in close cooperation with two local elderly homes for testing and feedback. During the initial phase we didn't settle on whether we should develop for iOS or Android but focused primarily on how the interaction should work. But after a while the local leader/our contact insisted that we develop for the iPad since the elderly at both homes had been to a iPad-workshop.

2 weeks later she tells us that she's bought two iPads for us that we could use for testing. When we get there, with our low-fi PowerPoint-prototype, it turns out that she's bought two Galaxy Tab's!

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#102

Post by nagrom »

bruceboughton wrote: post #70
nagrom wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were truly told to write an apology, then people are down on them because this isn't one. You cannot really apologise for anything without using the words 'sorry' or 'apologise'.

This is B2B. Corporations do not apologise to each other. They may pay each other compensation, if ordered to. Apologies imply feelings, and corporations do not have feelings.

I agree with you - but I've read in several places that Apple were ordered to apologise. Their feelings (or not) don't come into it.

[BTW - the linked text kind of implies that they do have feelings; the article comes off as surly, resentful and not a little childish...]

[EDIT: Seems like they were never actually ordered to apologise, only to clarify that Samsung did not, in the judgment of the court, infringe on anything.]

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#103

Post by h4pless »

coob wrote: post #60
chrisacky wrote: post #55

This isn't even an apology in the slightest. It's only on the UK site as well. (I've checked .de .com .fr and it's no where to be seen, which makes sense if you are Apple). However, if they are going to display it only in UK, then they should have at least spelt "judgment" correctly. They use "/uk/legal-judgement/" (Over in UK there is only a single "e" not two). Anyway, totally not an apology . It looks more like an…

Is a forced apology ever really an apology? I don't see the point in forcing it. Edit: Apparently apple were never ordered to make an 'apology'. They were ordered to make a 'publicity order'. They used the EXACT wording[1] as ordered by the court, as well as quotes from a judge in the matter. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html#para8...

From Wikipedia: Minimisation is a type of deception involving denial coupled with rationalisation in situations where complete denial is implausible. It is the opposite of exaggeration. 'Minimization is one of the most common ways we reduce our feelings of guilt..."It's not that big of a deal"'.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#104

Post by bennyg »

rmc wrote: post #77
bakedbeans wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody credits them for inventing the smartphone. They invented the iPhone. Nobody credits them for inventing the mp3 player. They invented the iPod.

For a large percentage of the population, "mp3 player = ipod" and "smartphone = iphone".

For an even larger percentage of the population, "tissue = kleenex."

That doesn't mean anything except that they made a damn good product and had A TON of marketing.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#105

Post by SEMW »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #66
chrisacky wrote: post #55

This isn't even an apology in the slightest. It's only on the UK site as well. (I've checked .de .com .fr and it's no where to be seen, which makes sense if you are Apple). However, if they are going to display it only in UK, then they should have at least spelt "judgment" correctly. They use "/uk/legal-judgement/" (Over in UK there is only a single "e" not two). Anyway, totally not an apology . It looks more like an…

So a few things: 1) The order from the court was for the UK site only. This makes sense - it was a UK ruling from a UK court which has no jurisdiction in any other countries. There are separate cases in places like Germany. It make no sense for the UK courts to force Apple to make statements in other countries covering rulings made under laws that don't apply there and which may (and in some cases do) contradict ruli…

> The court is very specific about what has to be said which is that Apple make it clear that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy the iPad

On the contrary. The court was very specific that this case actually has nothing to do with whether Samsung did or did not copy the iPad, and went to some lengths to explain why not.

"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law. Whether or not Apple could have sued in England and Wales for copying is utterly irrelevant to this case. If they could, they did not." (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html at [3]).

Registered design law is not copyright law. You can infringe a registered design without having ever copied, seen, or even know of the design you're infringing on. Conversely, you can copy a design but alter it enough that it "produce[s] on the informed user a different overall impression" from the original and not infringe.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#106

Post by epo »

chrisacky wrote: post #55

This isn't even an apology in the slightest. It's only on the UK site as well. (I've checked .de .com .fr and it's no where to be seen, which makes sense if you are Apple). However, if they are going to display it only in UK, then they should have at least spelt "judgment" correctly. They use "/uk/legal-judgement/" (Over in UK there is only a single "e" not two). Anyway, totally not an apology . It looks more like an…

If you are going to get snotty about spelling (you are wrong by the way, "judgement" is acceptable in the UK, a less common spelling than "judgment" certainly but not incorrect), then it is best not to end with a spelling mistake of your own. The word is "suit" not "suite", in this case the words are not interchangeable.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#107

Post by [deleted] »

nagrom wrote: post #65
bruceboughton wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? It seems about in line with what any corporation would write if ordered to give such a statement. It ackowledges the judgement in the UK but also mentions conflicting judgements elsewhere in the world. Seems pretty balanced to me.

If they were truly told to write an apology, then people are down on them because this isn't one. You cannot really apologise for anything without using the words 'sorry' or 'apologise'.

[deleted]

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#108

Post by epo »

shanelja wrote: post #19
duiker101 wrote: post #5

"A judge said we must apology because we are cooler and so Samsung didn't copy because they aren't cool. But other judges said that we are cooler and Samsung still copied us! So we must be right!" Sincerely: a 6 year old.

I couldn't agree more, Apples response here is childish and to be quite frank doesn't do much in the way of apologizing to Samsung. I for one hope that they get found in contempt of court for this, I doubt very much it's what the presiding judge had in mind.

Oh do pay attention, Apple were not asked to apologise.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#109

Post by epo »

praptak wrote: post #75
duiker101 wrote: post #5

"A judge said we must apology because we are cooler and so Samsung didn't copy because they aren't cool. But other judges said that we are cooler and Samsung still copied us! So we must be right!" Sincerely: a 6 year old.

"The defendant will now revoke the false accusations." "Goldstein is not a crook?! Goldstein is not a thief?!" "This intonation does not sound like a revocation at all." "Your honour, I have read what has been written. The intonation has not been written here." "Well, then at least apologize!" "I apologize that Goldstein is a crook! I apologize that Goldstein is a thief!"

I read this imagining Woody Allen reading it out, excellent.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#110

Post by rmc »

aes256 wrote: post #88
rmc wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from a UK court Pedantically, it appears to be from a English & Welsh court, not UK.

Technically any court with jurisdiction over England and Wales is also "a UK court", in the same sense as you would refer to a German court as a "European court". It's simply describing the general location within which a court resides, not precisely demarcating its jurisdiction.

Yes you are right that you could interpret it as being a mere location, however there are courts that cover all of the UK , e.g. the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kin... ). Likewise, a german court would have no juristicion over the rest of the EU (say).

If it was a german court decision it would be misleading to say "it was a EU ruling from a EU court which has no jurisdiction in any other countries/supranational bodies.", since that implies the court could have power over the whole of the EU. Likewise "UK court" might imply juristiction over all of UK.

Post reply on HN