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

81–90 of 243 posts

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

#81

Post by vidarh »

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.

In this case the UK legal system is pretty much exactly like any other civilized legal system.

The judge in this case is the court, and when he says the original passage doesn't comply with his order, by definition it does not comply with his order. If they choose to continue to fail to comply with this order, the people responsible finds themselves at risk of being found in contempt of court and jailed.

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

#82

Post by bigfudge2 »

nitrogen wrote: post #67
thomseddon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this specifically in reference to the UK legal system or just a blanket statement about practice around the world? If it is the former, I really must disagree with the notion that the legal system in the UK is in any way corrupt. Quite far from it, I think it is one of the things that we can be most proud of. If it is the latter, may I suggest you either be more specific or more correct.

How often does something like the recent extradition of the operator of a site the UK deemed not worth prosecuting happen?

There are other examples, but this is a function of our executive's decision to bend over to US demands and rewrite UK law, rather than corruption of the legal system itself.

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

#83

Post by v0cab »

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?

The original iPhone was banned in South Korea for two years. It seems that this was to give South Korean companies a chance to catch up.

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

#84

Post by clarky07 »

This seems like BS to me. They put the judgement on their site, and then they put other things on THEIR site. As long as the put the piece they wanted them to put, they should be able to do anything else they want. If they think the statements made make for good marketing pieces, why shouldn't they be able to put them on their website.

All this is besides the point that the UK is in the minority in their ruling, and the US case did a pretty good job of showing that Samsung did in fact copy Apple, and said so many times in internal communications.

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

#85

Post by pyre »

BCM43 wrote: post #75
blibble wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The parent was seemingly promoting the idea of Apple personally suing the judge because they don't like his ruling. If this was possible most legal systems would crumble.

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

#86

Post by mkr-hn »

kingnothing wrote: post #76
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…

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.

I thought that only applied to trademarks.

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

#87

Post by thomseddon »

nitrogen wrote: post #67
thomseddon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this specifically in reference to the UK legal system or just a blanket statement about practice around the world? If it is the former, I really must disagree with the notion that the legal system in the UK is in any way corrupt. Quite far from it, I think it is one of the things that we can be most proud of. If it is the latter, may I suggest you either be more specific or more correct.

How often does something like the recent extradition of the operator of a site the UK deemed not worth prosecuting happen?

Presume you're referencing Richard O'Dwyer (tvshack.net), who a magistrate recently found was suitable for extradition to the US. This is quite rare, there have been 99 extraditions since 2006, of which 35 were british nationals, so although extradition is reasonably rare it is not entirely uncommon. Also, you say the UK found the alleged crime was "not worth prosecuting", which is loosely technically true, it doesn't really give the full picture: His actions were found to be legal under UK law and so hence there was no case for prosecution. His operations are, however, suspected of being illegal under US law and so hence the case for extradition was submitted.

To bring this back to the parent discussion: Few would argue that Mr O'Dwyer has been unfairly treated with respect to the current law. Some do, however, argue that it is the extradition statute itself that is unfair, with Mr O'Dwyers case being an example. As a matter of interest, Theresa May has recently announced some changes to the extradition process following the results of the Baker Review. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/gary-mckinnon...)

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

#88

Post by mmcnickle »

saurik wrote: post #50
duiker101 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the court's ruling is not childish. The problem with Apple is their attitude, they think they are over the rules, look at the Italian case of the warranties, the law requires 2 years but Apple would give only one. Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose, name a device and than pay if it breaks some trademark or whatever. I think t…

> Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose... Supposedly, in the UK, Apple pays a £50/day fine rather than posting the required no-smoking signs in the windows of their stores. (I mention this as another example.) http://blog.lewisking.net/post/318110435/apple-store-madness

I can't find any reliable source for this claim. They range from "a friend who works in the Apple Store in Norwich"[1] to a "man who told it in the pub"[2] which makes me doubt its authenticity.

[1] http://blog.lewisking.net/post/318110435/apple-store-madness

[2] http://simonmorley.co.uk/2010/08/13/worlds-busiest-apple-sto...

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

#89

Post by AndrewDucker »

v0cab wrote: post #83
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…

> Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves? The original iPhone was banned in South Korea for two years. It seems that this was to give South Korean companies a chance to catch up.

I can't find any reference to this. Could you point me at a source please?

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

#90

Post by 1SaltwaterC »

bigfudge2 wrote: post #79
jivatmanx wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably?
Post reply on HN