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

71–80 of 243 posts

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

#71

Post by appleflaxen »

belorn wrote: post #39
nagrom wrote: post #30

A lot of the posts that are saying something like "The judge didn't say that they couldn't do it like this!" are deliberately missing the point. In the UK, you are expected to comply with the spirit of such a court order, not just the letter of it. Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens. It's entirely possible to be punished for contempt of court to a much greater extent than the…

Annoying a judge is a really bad idea. The court system is normally quite free from corruption, but all that goes out off the window when it become personal and political. See the pirate bay court case, or just any of the police brutality cases. If Apple is going all out with lawyers and legal prowness, instead of competiting with products, they need to get better at it.

Can you give an example of the police brutality cases you had in mind? I'd be interested to ready more about the social dynamic with the judge, if you can point me in the right direction.

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

#72

Post by makomk »

Hontano wrote: post #5
coob wrote: post #3

How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.

Beats me. Apple complied with a sloppy judgment. I'm no great fan of Apple in this, but the appeal judges fucked up by not clearly specifying what Apple needed to do and could not do.

The courts don't work like this, largely because it's a waste of the court's time to figure out every single way some slimy bastard could try and weasel out of their rulings. This is pretty clear-cut too - the court ordered Apple to post a notice saying that Samsung's products had been found not to infringe, and Apple decided to instead post one that argued the court had got it wrong and Samsung were a bunch of evil copycats, which also misrepresented court rulings in other juristictions to make them seem more favourable to Apple in the process.

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

#73

Post by smackfu »

dan1234 wrote: post #16
StavrosK wrote: post #10

Here'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.

Right, the main goal was to make it clear to consumers that even though Apple won a EU-wide case against Samsung in Germany (which got a lot of publicity), that didn't apply in UK after they lost this court case.

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

#74

Post by Hontano »

xutopia wrote: post #58
bstar77 wrote: post #17

Did 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.

There is a huge issue with just giving a fine. Profitable companies can choose to overlook the law if it makes financial sense for them to do so.

The obvious answer is to use progressive fines, making them proportional rather than a fixed amount. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

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

#75

Post by BCM43 »

blibble wrote: post #34
metatronscube wrote: post #11

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.

fighting an institution that makes the law probably isn't the best of ideas

They're not (they're fighting the institution charged with penalizing), and it happens all the time.

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

#76

Post by kingnothing »

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…

If a company doesn't protect its intellectual property, it is liable to lose it. The only thing that's changed is now Apple is leading the market and is in a position where they need to fight these battles.

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

#79

Post by bigfudge2 »

jivatmanx wrote: post #69
cageface wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab. I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

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.

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

#80

Post by andybak »

jivatmanx wrote: post #69
cageface wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab. I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

"Xerox was allowed to invest in Apple in exchange for access to PARC.": http://www.quora.com/Retrocomputing/Did-Apple-need-to-licens...
Post reply on HN