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

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#91

Post by [deleted] »

rmc wrote: post #76
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

[deleted]

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#92

Post by rb12345 »

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…

Apparently only the print version needs to be 14pt; the web version can be 11pt Arial. At 96 DPI, 11pt Arial is slightly larger than the 14px used on the site. Good luck reading it on retina displays, too, although it's possible that the iPad and friends rescale it.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#93

Post by chris_wot »

hellweaver666 wrote: post #90
russgray wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who was born in the UK and has lived here for all of his 35 years, I can confirm that this is someone taking the piss.

Fellow Brit, definitely someone taking the piss.

Are you sure you aren't taking the piss over someone taking the piss about Apple taking the piss?

Sorry, can't help but take the piss about someone taking the piss over someone else taking the piss about Apple taking the piss.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#94

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

joahua wrote: post #8
dakrisht wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Lol. Aren't they [Apple] supposed to prominently display the judge's order on the homepage?!

It's in the footer… on the homepage, but only scarcely. http://www.apple.com/uk/

That's definitely not a 14pt font.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#95

Post by chris_wot »

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!"

What's that from?

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#96

Post by praptak »

chris_wot wrote: post #95
praptak wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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!"

What's that from?

I vaguely remember the source. It was a book of Jewish humour, unfortunately I don't remember the title.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#97

Post by v0cab »

Nursie wrote: post #87
v0cab wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their actions seem to be deliberately designed to suppress the market and suppress competition But then why aren't people on HN down on Samsung in the same way?

Because it didn't seem to be Samsung that launched a war to get Apple's products banned, it seemed to be the other way around. I agree it is now an all-out war and neither side is going to come away clean, but in the most trivial sense 'They started it!'

But the original iPhone was banned from South Korea for 2 years, almost certainly at Samsung's behest.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#98

Post by josephlord »

scotty79 wrote: post #71
shanelja wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So far Samsung only fights with Apple with whole slew of superior products. Well... also Samsung marketing makes fun of Apple marketing if that counts as a fight.

And brings legal actions around the world wanting injunctions against Apple products for infringing standards essential patents or did you miss that?

Apple is certainly no angel but if you think Samsung is a company with no ethical concerns or that it isn't a ruthless competitor you haven't been looking very closely. [No very large company is completely free of ethical issues. I'm not aware of Samsung being over the line to the extent that I wouldn't work for them on that basis.]

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#99

Post by stordoff »

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…

It was modified in the appeal:

>Mr Carr [for Samsung] realistically recognised that Apple had a genuine interest in keeping it uncluttered. He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate.

Re: Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung

#100

Post by stordoff »

tallanvor wrote: post #24
jofo25 wrote: post #7

I thought they were required to in some way make the apology visible on their home page?

Based on the wording of the order, it would seem that the statement should be on their homepage, not a link to it. Of course, I'm sure Apple's legal counsel has decided their actions are within the scope of the ruling, so we'll have to see if Samsung asks a judge to declare them not in compliance with the order.

The Court of Appeal modified the order so that only a link was required:

>Mr Carr [for Samsung] realistically recognised that Apple had a genuine interest in keeping it uncluttered. He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate.

Post reply on HN