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

51–60 of 116 posts

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#51

Post by bruceboughton »

mtrimpe wrote: post #20
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 hope I will be forgiven a me-too comment for once; but this is a really, really childish response. When your big advantage is that you and your products exude class where others don't, gloating about it like a little kid just feels very wrong.

The people who will read this statement will have already made up their minds.

Casual visitors to apple.com/uk are not going to read this.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#52

Post by jdswain »

amvp wrote: post #21
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.

Didn't the order require the statement to be: 1. Made on the home page itself 2. In a 14pt font which (according to http://www.getallfix.com/2011/11/convert-empxpt-and-in-css/) should be some 19px high. Instead this is a link to the statement (in a div with the class sosume - little gag there) in a 11px font size... not to mention the fact that the additional paragraphs after the statement itself somewhat go against…

The sosumi div is used worldwide, and is the name of the div for legal links on Apples home page, it's not new for this notice. A good historical reference, but nothing to do with this legal judgement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#53

Post by bruceboughton »

shanelja wrote: post #30
pervycreeper wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would think that a company with $.12 trillion in the bank could afford to be classy once in a while.

Apple tends to be fairly ruthless in their dealings with other companies and act without remorse (like many other companies, Samsung of course included) and it's become the only way to survive in the horrific world of IP law suits. Unfortunately, the class you mention tends to be overshadowed by this. Apple can't afford to be classy, if it gives up it's bullying ways for even a short period of time, it will find that…

This is a rather pessimistic view. Companies have always been ruthless towards each other and life seems to continue on regardless.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#54

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

amvp wrote: post #21
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.

Didn't the order require the statement to be: 1. Made on the home page itself 2. In a 14pt font which (according to http://www.getallfix.com/2011/11/convert-empxpt-and-in-css/) should be some 19px high. Instead this is a link to the statement (in a div with the class sosume - little gag there) in a 11px font size... not to mention the fact that the additional paragraphs after the statement itself somewhat go against…

The appeal court revised it slightly - it basically just has to be linked from the home page which it is (by which them mean the Apple UK home page, not the US one - it's a UK ruling). It's down in the bottom navigation with the privacy policy, terms and so on.

They also revised the time it has to be there down from 6 months to 1 month.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#55

Post by chrisacky »

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 accusation and a reassertion how bitter they feel about the verdict, by cherry picking quotes to suite them.

------

(Edit: In the interest of setting the point straight since this is the top comment and it seems to be getting wrongfully upvoted, Apple didn't legally have to "make an apology". They just had to make it clear that Samsung did not infringe Apples registered design [1]. However, I do think that in spite of quoting the judgment extract verbatim, they still fall short of this requirement, since they continue for 3 more paragraph drilling out other points that supported Apple).

     [1] : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html#para87
Sincerity at it's most "righteous":

     So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, 
     other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet,
     Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#56

Post by anaran »

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.

Yep, I don't see how this can be interpreted as an apology. Looks like a rant to me.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#58

Post by arctangent »

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…

Actually, "judgment" is the correct spelling in this context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_(law)

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#59

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

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.

Personally I'd have gone for dry as dust legalese, made the first two paragraphs legal gibberish under the guise of background and by the time you got to the actual meat of the statement no-one would have been reading.

But to be honest given what the judge actually said, he surely can't have expected anything else? Cherry picking was obviously going to be an option for Apple and he frankly gave them the cherry to end all cherries.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#60

Post by coob »

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...

Post reply on HN