Apple script resizes iPad banner and pushes Samsung verdict out of view(ssl.apple.com)
ssl.apple.com
Apple script resizes iPad banner and pushes Samsung verdict out of view
https://ssl.apple.com/v/home/n/scripts/hero_resize.js
30 comments
I really hope they get reamed by the judge again for this. It would be great to see them forced to place the verdict at the top of the page. Unfortunately, the judge probably has no idea what JS is.
How about reamed by geeks?
I for one decided my recent seven inch tablet purchase and now my upcoming ten inch tablet purchase based on Apple's bad behavior. This just reinforces the idea in my head that I made the right choice. The Nexus tablets offer an incredible amount of features at a price point Apple doesn't even try to compete at and all without the Assholiness of Apple
I for one decided my recent seven inch tablet purchase and now my upcoming ten inch tablet purchase based on Apple's bad behavior. This just reinforces the idea in my head that I made the right choice. The Nexus tablets offer an incredible amount of features at a price point Apple doesn't even try to compete at and all without the Assholiness of Apple
> The Nexus tablets offer an incredible amount of features at a price point Apple doesn't even try to compete at and all without the Assholiness of Apple
I like how you posted you BS reason and then followed it up with the real reason, pricing is more of a concern to you and you hate Apple.
Yeah, something tells me even if this whole incident had never happened, you would end up with a Nexus tablet and not an iPad. Call it a hunch.
I like how you posted you BS reason and then followed it up with the real reason, pricing is more of a concern to you and you hate Apple.
Yeah, something tells me even if this whole incident had never happened, you would end up with a Nexus tablet and not an iPad. Call it a hunch.
>> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4737400
That's the second time you post an almost identical comment in a thread about people not buying apple products due to their behaviour and you're telling them they are not truthful.
What reason would someone have to say anything whatsoever about a decision they've made? It's not as if they have Samsung stock or are shorting Apple. They are simple statements of fact. If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide.
That's the second time you post an almost identical comment in a thread about people not buying apple products due to their behaviour and you're telling them they are not truthful.
What reason would someone have to say anything whatsoever about a decision they've made? It's not as if they have Samsung stock or are shorting Apple. They are simple statements of fact. If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide.
> That's the second time you post an almost identical comment in a thread about people not buying apple products due to their behaviour and you're telling them they are not truthful.
Actually I was arguing that they aren't buying Apple products because of this particular incident, not their overall behaviour. That I buy, it's a small segment of the population but it does exist.
However I'm seriously skeptical that anyone would actually choose an Android tablet instead of an iPad because of this particular incident. It's a ridiculous prospect, and indicative of a consumer that has no real preferences about the device they buy, they're just running purely on spite.
GP basically just came right out and said that.
> If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide.
I'm not allowed to apply critical thinking skills to statements others make about themselves? That's pretty ridiculous. And since when did I argue against that? I'm sure he does know his motivations better than I. That doesn't mean for a second that he's being honest with us or himself about those motivations.
Actually I was arguing that they aren't buying Apple products because of this particular incident, not their overall behaviour. That I buy, it's a small segment of the population but it does exist.
However I'm seriously skeptical that anyone would actually choose an Android tablet instead of an iPad because of this particular incident. It's a ridiculous prospect, and indicative of a consumer that has no real preferences about the device they buy, they're just running purely on spite.
GP basically just came right out and said that.
> If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide.
I'm not allowed to apply critical thinking skills to statements others make about themselves? That's pretty ridiculous. And since when did I argue against that? I'm sure he does know his motivations better than I. That doesn't mean for a second that he's being honest with us or himself about those motivations.
> However I'm seriously skeptical that anyone would actually choose an Android tablet instead of an iPad because of this particular incident. It's a ridiculous prospect, and indicative of a consumer that has no real preferences about the device they buy, they're just running purely on spite.
People make decisions based on many factors:
- price
- utility
- brand loyalty / brand image
I have several Apple devices in my household, until they better their ways on the legal front there will not be another. In my case that meant that I bought one device from an Apple competitor, and held off on another purchase because I can't find something that suits my needs that does not have an Apple logo on it.
You can apply your critical thinking skills to statements of facts where you are in possession of the facts. In this case you are essentially calling people liars when you are not in a position to know their minds or circumstances and where you don't have all the relevant facts.
Giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to them stating their reasons for acting or not acting in some particular case is typically a decent thing to do, even if you personally would not behave in that way.
So, the OP is likely honest with you and all those visiting here about their motivations, as am I. And we do employ our critical thinking skills in evaluating where our next purchases are being made.
People make decisions based on many factors:
- price
- utility
- brand loyalty / brand image
I have several Apple devices in my household, until they better their ways on the legal front there will not be another. In my case that meant that I bought one device from an Apple competitor, and held off on another purchase because I can't find something that suits my needs that does not have an Apple logo on it.
You can apply your critical thinking skills to statements of facts where you are in possession of the facts. In this case you are essentially calling people liars when you are not in a position to know their minds or circumstances and where you don't have all the relevant facts.
Giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to them stating their reasons for acting or not acting in some particular case is typically a decent thing to do, even if you personally would not behave in that way.
So, the OP is likely honest with you and all those visiting here about their motivations, as am I. And we do employ our critical thinking skills in evaluating where our next purchases are being made.
Judge will work it out. You do not fuck with a legal judgement in the UK - they will start pulling the big guns next. Place your bets: frozen assets or criminal charge?
Where in the legal judgement did it say it had to be "above the fold"? They could have specified this if they'd wanted it.
It's a spirit of the law issue, again.
Judges aren't friggin robots. You don't get to fuck around and have them go "BEEP BOOP WELL TECHNICALLY NOT A VIOLATION BEEP BOOP".
The whole point of a judge is to, well, use his/her judgement. If this judge thinks Apple is fucking with him AGAIN, I can't imagine he'll be at all lenient. Apple is holding his authority in contempt.
Judges aren't friggin robots. You don't get to fuck around and have them go "BEEP BOOP WELL TECHNICALLY NOT A VIOLATION BEEP BOOP".
The whole point of a judge is to, well, use his/her judgement. If this judge thinks Apple is fucking with him AGAIN, I can't imagine he'll be at all lenient. Apple is holding his authority in contempt.
I believe the GPs point is that judges do not take kindly to cat-and-mouse games, where you technically follow the court order by the letter but twist and turn it in such a way that it's spirit is violated. The order is not intended as a challenge on how to best wriggle out of it, and just because the court did not explicitly specify every last detail of how the message must be displayed does not mean that it will tolerate any tricks.
By that token, though, the court did specify what they wanted: a link, 11pt text. So they'd not afraid of specificity. If they're wanted something more attention-grabbing, they could've said it must include, e.g. "a graphic at least x pixels by y pixels."
I think another way of looking at it is this: if they don't request a particular location for the link, do they think Apple's going to put it anywhere other than the bottom of the page? And if so, the consequence (where this javascript exists or not) is that on a great number of devices you won't see it unless you scroll down.
I think another way of looking at it is this: if they don't request a particular location for the link, do they think Apple's going to put it anywhere other than the bottom of the page? And if so, the consequence (where this javascript exists or not) is that on a great number of devices you won't see it unless you scroll down.
They don't have to also specify that the text should be in a color different than the background and is not covered by a black rectangle.
There are rules for contempt of court. They include jail time. They should be applied for such repeat contempt.
[deleted]
What would that achieve? The people making the decisions are in the US, outside of the UK's jurisdiction. So the court would have to go after some minion in the UK office, punishing someone for the sake of punishing someone rather than for the sake of justice.
Oh please, are you really going to use the Nuremberg defense?
That wouldn't be a case of the Nuremberg defense, which is the excuse that "I was just following orders". It's entirely possible that none of the Apple employees in the UK were involved in the decision or implementation of how to post their court-mandated apology. In that case, the only employees in the UK's jurisdiction would be guilty only of working for the guilty corporation.
Yes, because an court order to make a statement is a lot like the Holocaust...
That's not what the term "Nuremberg defense" implies in the least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
From the link: One of the most noted uses of this plea, or "defense," was by the accused in the 1945–46 Nuremberg Trials, such that it is also called the "Nuremberg defense". The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the main victorious Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany.
You don't get it. The phrase "Nuremberg defense" is not a reference to the trials, it's a reference to the type of defense. So, if you here that in conversation, they aren't equating the situation to the holocaust, but rather the type of defense used (I was just following orders).
The only person equating anything to the holocaust was you.
The only person equating anything to the holocaust was you.
technically follow the court order by the letter but twist and turn it in such a way that it's spirit is violated
Isn't doing this the main reason we have lawyers in the first place?
Isn't doing this the main reason we have lawyers in the first place?
This is a very slippery slope to go down.
It's arguments like these that cause you to end up with laws that have lists of thousands of things in them.
Would you rather have fair use be a list of 10 things, and only those 10 things, or something that you should follow the spirit of?
Would you rather have fair use be a list of 10 things, and only those 10 things, or something that you should follow the spirit of?
Indeed. Do we need studies that show people do scroll below the fold? I noticed that on the Apple homepage the modules cut off at the bottom (on my resolution) it's clear there is more to the page. Seriously, it's 2012. Do we still have to fight about 'the fold?'
In the UK the judges will not be ammused. But this aspect of legal terminology does cover such matters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
[deleted]
I don't know how things work in the UK, but I wonder whether the equivalent of contempt charges will be forthcoming.
Toss a few of them in prison for a bit, and see whether that improves cooperation.
Toss a few of them in prison for a bit, and see whether that improves cooperation.
While I was being ascerbic, I was not being facetious.
We have a similar problem in the U.S.; in corporations, effectively no one ends up being personally responsible.
However, if an individual personally fails to implement a judicial ruling, that anonymization and "monefication" of penalty may dissolve.
I'm of very mixed opinion and feeling about several laws that may be involved -- both aspects of IP law and aspects of UK libel law.
But I also rather dislike unbridled corporate arrogance.
We have a similar problem in the U.S.; in corporations, effectively no one ends up being personally responsible.
However, if an individual personally fails to implement a judicial ruling, that anonymization and "monefication" of penalty may dissolve.
I'm of very mixed opinion and feeling about several laws that may be involved -- both aspects of IP law and aspects of UK libel law.
But I also rather dislike unbridled corporate arrogance.
I don't really care one way or the other, but I'm curious why Apple is being "shamed" in a sense. There are copyright rulings all the time but I haven't noticed or read about too many websites with notices posted on them.
Was this a condition of the plea bargain, or is this just something that is common in the UK?
Was this a condition of the plea bargain, or is this just something that is common in the UK?
First this is patent, not copyright law.
And the issue is that Apple has effectively committed libel against Samsung in the UK with its repeated claims that the Samsung tablet is a copy of the iPad. This claim has turned out to be legally false, and now Apple is obliged to correct any turn of public opinion against Samsung that it instigated by making this false claim in the first place.
And the issue is that Apple has effectively committed libel against Samsung in the UK with its repeated claims that the Samsung tablet is a copy of the iPad. This claim has turned out to be legally false, and now Apple is obliged to correct any turn of public opinion against Samsung that it instigated by making this false claim in the first place.
So it's the same libel laws that we were regarding as batshit insane just a few months ago, when they were being used to silence scientists and journalists. But since they're now being used against a company some people don't like, the tune has changed to "you don't mess with the UK courts", "they had it coming", "my judge can beat up your judge", and similar outbursts of vicarious machismo. I find the tribalism in the tech community reprehensible.
You're right, a critique of the UK libel laws is not subject to simplicity since it cuts both ways. Not everything boils down to black & white thinking.
This is not a case of abusive use of libel laws. This is actually a case of libel where they were proven in a court of law to be lying.
The reason people are upset about the oppressive libel laws is that they suppress true factual speech. Libel is supposed to be about falsehoods.
The reason people are upset about the oppressive libel laws is that they suppress true factual speech. Libel is supposed to be about falsehoods.
Thanks for the reply, the libel issue makes sense. I've never seen that particular type of penalty before, is that something that happens often? I've personally never noticed it before, but then again I probably have not paid attention to that kind of thing either.
Totally worth a billion dollars. :-)
It's not libel because it's true.
This just shows how much of a joke the UK legal system is.
And you guys getting excited about where the notice appears on the page shows just what petty and petulant jokes you are.
This just shows how much of a joke the UK legal system is.
And you guys getting excited about where the notice appears on the page shows just what petty and petulant jokes you are.
It's not libel because it's true.
the contrary, the court has explicitly found that Samsung did not infringe, so it is indeed libel.
This just shows how much of a joke the UK legal system is.
That "joke" provides the foundation for the American legal system as well as that of all commonwealth countries, are those legal systems jokes too? If the court had ruled in Apple's favour would you still be posting here calling the UK legal system a joke? (this is a rhetorical question)
And you guys getting excited about where the notice appears on the page shows just what petty and petulant jokes you are.
Hello pot, meet kettle
the contrary, the court has explicitly found that Samsung did not infringe, so it is indeed libel.
This just shows how much of a joke the UK legal system is.
That "joke" provides the foundation for the American legal system as well as that of all commonwealth countries, are those legal systems jokes too? If the court had ruled in Apple's favour would you still be posting here calling the UK legal system a joke? (this is a rhetorical question)
And you guys getting excited about where the notice appears on the page shows just what petty and petulant jokes you are.
Hello pot, meet kettle
this is not 2001. Plenty of judges know this stuff (heck, some been favorized Facebook by slightly skewing their decisionsm, because FB helped them connect with further family) and I am sure well presented and explained case will make it through. I hope they get punished hard.
THe judges a couple of days ago already lambasted Apple for the wording, details such as JS will not phase judges. It is the output and end result and if somebody smells something a miss then the judges will be told. They may not be the fastest or most aware, but they do look at the end result and if they see shinangigans or even a hint of it then they will ask what is going on. If they are not happy with the answear then they bite and they can bite. Generaly there pretty firm but fair so apple needs to play ball and stop trying to be clever as it will only work against them.
I think you too have no idea what JS is.
The script basically resizes the window based on weather you're on a touch device or not. It has nothing to do with the Samsung apology.
I'm using a fairly long screen and I can see the verdict fine. I don't think this was specifically put to get rid of the apology. More likely, the top image is always suppose to be fairly large and fit the screen well.
I wouldn't put it past Apple to make things look nice.
I wouldn't put it past Apple to make things look nice.
Except when it comes to the text of the message, for some reason.
[deleted]
> I think you too have no idea what JS is. The script basically resizes the window based on weather you're on a touch device or not.
Actually, you're the one who has no idea what JS is. I just resized a Chrome window with http://www.apple.co.uk/ loaded in it on my Windows desktop PC. As I changed the height of the window, the content above the Samsung apology was resized so that the apology would be hidden unless I scrolled down. It is most definitely not restricted to touch devices.
Actually, you're the one who has no idea what JS is. I just resized a Chrome window with http://www.apple.co.uk/ loaded in it on my Windows desktop PC. As I changed the height of the window, the content above the Samsung apology was resized so that the apology would be hidden unless I scrolled down. It is most definitely not restricted to touch devices.
Same here, 1440x900px screen. You have to make the content tiny before you see the statement above the fold.
[deleted]
I really disagree. Forcing someone to say something they don't agree with is a violation of free speech.
First, a corporation is not someone.
Second, forcing a corporation to repair the damage they done is the right thing to do.
Regardless of "corporate personhood," this still amounts to forcing individual people to say something they disagree with.
They should still be forced to pay damages. In this case, sufficient damages for Samsung to publicize the ruling.
Forcing people to say something they disagree with is very dangerous. Reminds me of the ancient Catholic Church and their struggles with scientists.
They should still be forced to pay damages. In this case, sufficient damages for Samsung to publicize the ruling.
Forcing people to say something they disagree with is very dangerous. Reminds me of the ancient Catholic Church and their struggles with scientists.
Forcing people to say something they disagree with is very dangerous. Reminds me of the ancient Catholic Church and their struggles with scientists.
What legal remedy do you feel should be available to Samsung in this case? Apple made a claim in its advertising that was found to be untruthful under the law. Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction?
Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.
What legal remedy do you feel should be available to Samsung in this case? Apple made a claim in its advertising that was found to be untruthful under the law. Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction?
Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.
What legal remedy do you feel should be available to Samsung in this case?
Again, monetary damages. Sufficient for Samsung to publicize their point of view.
Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction?
The loser in a case like this may not necessarily agree with the judge's conclusion. The judge forcing them to say something, is tantamount to forcing them to tell a lie.
Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.
I'm not saying that Apple has a free speech right to make false claims. I'm saying that they have a free speech right to not be forced to make claims by others that they may not agree with. That's a novel way of looking at free speech.
People should not be forced to say things. That's wrong. Regardless of jurisdiction.
Again, monetary damages. Sufficient for Samsung to publicize their point of view.
Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction?
The loser in a case like this may not necessarily agree with the judge's conclusion. The judge forcing them to say something, is tantamount to forcing them to tell a lie.
Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.
I'm not saying that Apple has a free speech right to make false claims. I'm saying that they have a free speech right to not be forced to make claims by others that they may not agree with. That's a novel way of looking at free speech.
People should not be forced to say things. That's wrong. Regardless of jurisdiction.
> The loser in a case like this may not necessarily agree with the judge's conclusion. The judge forcing them to say something, is tantamount to forcing them to tell a lie.
But by doing business in that jurisdiction, you agreed to the laws. And part of that agreement is to abide by the rulings of the judges in the land they choose to do business with.
Having an opinion doesn't inherently make you right, and because what they were discussing were purely legal incarnations, believing anything other than a legal ruling with regard to a legal status is a bit crazy.
While Apple might believe they were in the right, the facts of the case are founded on legal rulings. It's one thing to be forced to change your opinion, but to be asked to state fact?
Regardless, it comes down to this: People should not be forced to say things.
I still think it's an important distinction that people did not say things, Apple did. And corporations are not people. And I really think that is an important distinction.
But by doing business in that jurisdiction, you agreed to the laws. And part of that agreement is to abide by the rulings of the judges in the land they choose to do business with.
Having an opinion doesn't inherently make you right, and because what they were discussing were purely legal incarnations, believing anything other than a legal ruling with regard to a legal status is a bit crazy.
While Apple might believe they were in the right, the facts of the case are founded on legal rulings. It's one thing to be forced to change your opinion, but to be asked to state fact?
Regardless, it comes down to this: People should not be forced to say things.
I still think it's an important distinction that people did not say things, Apple did. And corporations are not people. And I really think that is an important distinction.
People should not be forced to say things. That's wrong. Regardless of jurisdiction.
Hmm, OK, I see what you're saying. That sounds like a reasonable point.
Hmm, OK, I see what you're saying. That sounds like a reasonable point.
So, no "say you're sorry"?
Americans fetishise free speech beyond all reason. Yes, freedom of speech is important, but it's one right amongst many. Does Apple's right to free speech trump Samsung's right to pursue their legitimate business without being harassed?
Americans fetishise free speech beyond all reason. Yes, freedom of speech is important, but it's one right amongst many. Does Apple's right to free speech trump Samsung's right to pursue their legitimate business without being harassed?
Please name an individual person who has been forced.
In this case, literally everyone who works for Apple or holds Apple stock.
Would it help to imagine a company in Apple's position that was a sole proprietorship with no employees? So the company was just one guy?
What about a company with 5 shareholders who work on the business, and no employees?
Would it help to imagine a company in Apple's position that was a sole proprietorship with no employees? So the company was just one guy?
What about a company with 5 shareholders who work on the business, and no employees?
If I want to market a soft-drink containing cyanide, do you think free speech means I don't have to mention the dangers of my drink?
What if I disagree with the required warning?
What if I disagree with the required warning?
This is a red herring. If you market a soft drink containing cyanide, you are (rightfully) put in prison and stopped from producing it.
To address a better version of your argument. Should cigarette makers be forced to include health warnings on their products? Well, marketing a product as safe that is not safe is fraud, so if they do not do this voluntarily, then yes. The case at hand (Apple v. Samsung) is not remotely like that, though.
To address a better version of your argument. Should cigarette makers be forced to include health warnings on their products? Well, marketing a product as safe that is not safe is fraud, so if they do not do this voluntarily, then yes. The case at hand (Apple v. Samsung) is not remotely like that, though.
But not, apparently, required to tell anyone who's bought it not to drink it.
This did pretty much happen in the US and was partly why the FDA was founded. Someone created a medicine which used a solvent known to be toxic to humans because they were too lazy to check, refused to tell the pharmacies they'd sold it to to withdraw it, and couldn't legally be forced to until someone spotted a technical violation of labelling law. They called it an "elixir", and legally only stuff that used alcohol as a solvent could be named that; if they'd labelled it as "medicine" instead there'd have been no way to force a recall at all and people would've just kept on taking it.
This did pretty much happen in the US and was partly why the FDA was founded. Someone created a medicine which used a solvent known to be toxic to humans because they were too lazy to check, refused to tell the pharmacies they'd sold it to to withdraw it, and couldn't legally be forced to until someone spotted a technical violation of labelling law. They called it an "elixir", and legally only stuff that used alcohol as a solvent could be named that; if they'd labelled it as "medicine" instead there'd have been no way to force a recall at all and people would've just kept on taking it.
Your original claim was that it infringes on my free speech to be forced to say something I don't agree with.
So, if a cigarette manufacturer doesn't believe his products cause cancer, your original argument would suggests that requiring a label infringes on his right free speech.
The cyanide example seems like it is a red herring because it is ridiculous. But it follows logically from your original claim.
It is legal to buy/sell cyanide. In practice, you couldn't sell it as a soft drink... but if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for.
So, if a cigarette manufacturer doesn't believe his products cause cancer, your original argument would suggests that requiring a label infringes on his right free speech.
The cyanide example seems like it is a red herring because it is ridiculous. But it follows logically from your original claim.
It is legal to buy/sell cyanide. In practice, you couldn't sell it as a soft drink... but if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for.
if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for.
I don't know why you're claiming I argue that, because in my last post, I pre-emptively explained why I am not claiming that (because to do so would be fraudulent).
Let me reiterate.
The basic principle is: The only time force is acceptable, is in order to undo or prevent someone else's initiation of force or fraud.
You likely don't agree with that principle, but I think everyone ought to. That is what freedom actually consists of, and it's a necessary and sufficient condition for human flourishing.
How does that apply here? The government should not tell someone what they cannot (or must) say, excepting cases where that person is initiating force by what they're saying. Selling someone cianide would be such a case. Disputing whether someone copied someone else or not in a design is not such a case.
I don't know why you're claiming I argue that, because in my last post, I pre-emptively explained why I am not claiming that (because to do so would be fraudulent).
Let me reiterate.
The basic principle is: The only time force is acceptable, is in order to undo or prevent someone else's initiation of force or fraud.
You likely don't agree with that principle, but I think everyone ought to. That is what freedom actually consists of, and it's a necessary and sufficient condition for human flourishing.
How does that apply here? The government should not tell someone what they cannot (or must) say, excepting cases where that person is initiating force by what they're saying. Selling someone cianide would be such a case. Disputing whether someone copied someone else or not in a design is not such a case.
It's unclear whether you are failing to read the example, or whether you are using your own definition of fraud that you haven't shared.
Fraud requires intentional deception. My example is unequivocally NOT fraud, since the seller believes they are telling the truth.
Fraud requires intentional deception. My example is unequivocally NOT fraud, since the seller believes they are telling the truth.
except there is no free speech in UK. free speech only exists in USA. but at the same time you can say the equivalent of fck or sht on a public tv in France, so ... i dont mind free speech...
Just for the record.
var HeroResize=AC.Class({initialize:function(b){this._height=null;this._hero=$(b); AC.Object.synthesize(this);this.__boundResizeHero=this.resizeHero.bindAsEventListener(this); if(typeof window.ontouchstart==="undefined"){this.resizeHero();Event.observe(window,"resize",this.__boundResizeHero) }},setHeight:function(b){this._height=(b<0)?0:b;return this._height},resizeHero:function(){this.setHeight(parseInt(window.innerHeight||(window.document.documentElement.clientHeight||window.document.body.clientHeight),10)-310); this.hero().style.height=this.height()+"px"}});Event.onDOMReady(function(){var b=new HeroResize("billboard") });
var HeroResize=AC.Class({initialize:function(b){this._height=null;this._hero=$(b); AC.Object.synthesize(this);this.__boundResizeHero=this.resizeHero.bindAsEventListener(this); if(typeof window.ontouchstart==="undefined"){this.resizeHero();Event.observe(window,"resize",this.__boundResizeHero) }},setHeight:function(b){this._height=(b<0)?0:b;return this._height},resizeHero:function(){this.setHeight(parseInt(window.innerHeight||(window.document.documentElement.clientHeight||window.document.body.clientHeight),10)-310); this.hero().style.height=this.height()+"px"}});Event.onDOMReady(function(){var b=new HeroResize("billboard") });
var HeroResize = AC.Class({
initialize: function (b) {
this._height = null;
this._hero = $(b);
AC.Object.synthesize(this);
this.__boundResizeHero = this.resizeHero.bindAsEventListener(this);
if (typeof window.ontouchstart === "undefined") {
this.resizeHero();
Event.observe(window, "resize", this.__boundResizeHero)
}
},
setHeight: function (b) {
this._height = (b < 0) ? 0 : b;
return this._height
},
resizeHero: function () {
this.setHeight(parseInt(window.innerHeight || (window.document.documentElement.clientHeight || window.document.body.clientHeight), 10) - 310);
this.hero().style.height = this.height() + "px"
}
});
Event.onDOMReady(function () {
var b = new HeroResize("billboard")
});I don't see the Samsung verdict anywhere on the page or in the source.
It only shows up on http://www.apple.co.uk, since the ruling was made in the UK.
I wonder if I go to http://www.apple.com/ if it redirects to the UK site if I'm in the UK?
It doesn't, but this has always been the case. Apple didn't even own apple.co.uk until recently; the official site was apple.com/uk
Most likely not. Apple generally does not redirect people to their locale-specific version of their site. I'm in Canada, and I can visit apple.com without being redirected to apple.ca, for instance.
Man, this just keeps getting better... You think after the first time they would just have accepted the loss, put up the message, and gone on with things. It's amazing the extent they are willing to go to subvert the verdict. Of course, this is only if the script is indeed meant to push the ruling out of view...
I think even without the script story it's plain that Apple is acting like a child here.
really? Don't you think that trillion dollar valuation gave every exec @ Apple some steel balls?
Apple products are so loved by masses that I bet ya if, for example, a judge would ban sell of Apple products in the city like New York, you would find some idiot on a manslaughter mission.
Apple products are so loved by masses that I bet ya if, for example, a judge would ban sell of Apple products in the city like New York, you would find some idiot on a manslaughter mission.
Additionally, there is a script to measure what fraction of people scroll down. That script is not new; Apple knows exactly how many people this will prevent from seeing the notice.
Do we know whether or not this was the behavior on the site prior to them having to post this ?
Judging from the fact that this same behavior does _not_ occur on the apple.com site, which is running the same exact promo of the iPad mini, my guess is that this is something new and not the existing behavior.
[deleted]
Can someone explain though, non-code, under what conditions is the resizing taking place?
The onresize event fires whenever you change the sized of your browser window. Eg it occurs when you maximize the window or when you click-and-drag on the corner of the window in order to make it smaller or larger. See also https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/window.onresize
and when you zoom out.
It resizes the height of the "hero" element (the iPad mini promo at this time) so that it takes up the whole height of the browser window, pushing the footer below the fold.
so thus pushing the verdict out of view without scrolling down....which if they make it take up the whole space, most people dont bother scrolling down...
It's interesting that without javascript the menu is less spaced-apart, and the iPad Mini image is smaller. You can see the elements shift up and down the page as you turn on/off javascript.
I do suspect that this is nefarious because the US version of the front page does not exhibit the same behavior -- i.e. disabling javascript does not move elements (and thus, the judgement) up and down the screen at all, nor does it resize the iPad mini image.
I do suspect that this is nefarious because the US version of the front page does not exhibit the same behavior -- i.e. disabling javascript does not move elements (and thus, the judgement) up and down the screen at all, nor does it resize the iPad mini image.
Suspiciously, this auto-resizing action is not available on apple.com, but only apple.co.uk.
[deleted]
The statement can be found on http://www.apple.co.uk for anyone wondering.
This behaviour is the same on apple.de or apple.jp, so it's not just the UK site. Moreover, it was added only 2 days after the judgement was upheld:
HEAD /v/home/n/scripts/hero_resize.js HTTP/1.1
Host: www.apple.com
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Apache
**Last-Modified: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:31:51 GMT**
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 632
Content-Type: application/x-javascript
Cache-Control: max-age=600
Expires: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 17:04:23 GMT
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:54:23 GMT
Connection: keep-alive
Well, theres a screenshot here:
http://i.imgur.com/KH555.jpg
They fudged with the sizes, through this script here or not.
http://i.imgur.com/KH555.jpg
They fudged with the sizes, through this script here or not.
This only seems to occur on apple.com. The resizing behaviour happens on all country specific sites I've tried.
The US site alternates between two different promotions, the iPad Mini and the iPad with Retina Display. Every other language's site (I've tried quite a few) which promotes the iPad Mini is showing just a single promotion and exhibits the resize behaviour.
Yep. Here's an example from the Japan site, where you can see the repositioning of the iPad Mini graphic when the browser window is made larger. The UK site has the same behaviour. I don't think there's anything dodgy going on.
Before: http://imgur.com/5GgX3
After resize: http://imgur.com/8BW3T
Before: http://imgur.com/5GgX3
After resize: http://imgur.com/8BW3T
I don't see how it matters that the behavior was added before the text itself. It's more relevant that it was added after the judgement.
So anything, any time, that alters the vertical spacing of the Apple homepage around the world, even if it's only 2 days before a major product roll-out is related to an 15pt font paragraph at the bottom of their UK homepage that no-one except the lawyers will even click on? Moreover, given that they've pissed off the judge once, their own lawyers won't have signed off on 5 times over?
I find that rather implausible, though I guess it's not impossible.
I find that rather implausible, though I guess it's not impossible.
In other words, plausible deniability in action.
[deleted]
Considering the original snarky wording of their non-apology, I find it highly implausible that it's related to anything but.
You won't find the same behavior on the identical "hero" and product elements of apple.com; far more likely that they want nothing leaking below the fold, on the non-US sites, and inviting users to scroll.
http://apple.de – http://apple.fr – http://apple.it – http://apple.pl
http://apple.com is the outlier, always has been. It’s no surprise that it’s different.
http://apple.com is the outlier, always has been. It’s no surprise that it’s different.
Hum... I donno. My understanding is that apple no longer redirects to .co.uk for UK users since the ruling. This seems a little convenient to me.
That never happened anyway. Going to apple.co.uk, however, redirects to apple.com/uk
Well, that at least is fairly new. apple.co.uk was until recently an illustration agency: http://web.archive.org/web/20110517201243/http://apple.co.uk... (Now apparently http://www.appleagency.co.uk/.)
I don't see what the big deal is. When I go to http://apple.co.uk I see a statement about Samsung in reasonably sized, clear print:
"On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement."
Screenshot, in case you see something else: http://imgur.com/79bBm
Edit: Oh, I see...the statement gets pushed below the first visible page so you have to scroll to see it, which most people don't. Still, so what? Where did you guys expect them to put it? Tattooed on Tim Cook's forehead? Joe the plumber doesn't care about intellectual property disputes between electronics companies.
"On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement."
Screenshot, in case you see something else: http://imgur.com/79bBm
Edit: Oh, I see...the statement gets pushed below the first visible page so you have to scroll to see it, which most people don't. Still, so what? Where did you guys expect them to put it? Tattooed on Tim Cook's forehead? Joe the plumber doesn't care about intellectual property disputes between electronics companies.
Joe the plumber may not care, but then Joe can't hold Apple in contempt.
Neither can the Judge. The exact wording is right there. So what if you have to scroll to see it. That isn't contempt.
If the intent is for it to be readily visible, then it may be contempt; they could have set the text colour to be #FFFFFF and it would still be the right words on the front page....
They are really playing with fire...
I could have seen this being unrelated and just a UX polishing touch, but then they didn't think to put it on the other versions of the site to at least try and make it less suspicious.
Pushing past the limits of acceptability now, they should face some fairly serious punishment for this.
Pushing past the limits of acceptability now, they should face some fairly serious punishment for this.
The sleezy-ness of Apple is completely unacceptable as of late
This stuff makes this company so incredibly unlikable.
Maybe some uninformed consumers don't see it, but for informed people Apple loses sympathy every day with this behavior.
Maybe some uninformed consumers don't see it, but for informed people Apple loses sympathy every day with this behavior.
As someone who wants to like Apple (and owns a bunch of iOS gear), I agree. But the fanboys are loving it. I'll never understand that kind of corporate partisanship.
Realistically, 99% of potential customers won't even know about this sort of thing. But sometimes I do wish Apple would just make the tiny bit of effort to step on to the moral high ground.
Realistically, 99% of potential customers won't even know about this sort of thing. But sometimes I do wish Apple would just make the tiny bit of effort to step on to the moral high ground.
>I'll never understand that kind of corporate partisanship.
It's no different from sport and patriotism. It's exactly the same mentality. Everyone* has their team.
It's no different from sport and patriotism. It's exactly the same mentality. Everyone* has their team.
But with sports, at least there's a purpose. It's not very interesting if you don't care about the outcome, so you pick teams to support. Preferably local ones so you can go to games. And it's fun.
With companies, you gain absolutely nothing by "supporting" them in the same way. You're just ceding objectivity that's useful when making purchasing decisions.
With companies, you gain absolutely nothing by "supporting" them in the same way. You're just ceding objectivity that's useful when making purchasing decisions.
> But the fanboys are loving it.
I see that it's problematic to point at people on the internet - but is there any proof of this? I get the impression that the whole internet knows that "Apple fanboys are like that" when there are only 2.5 people somewhere deep inside MacRumors who actually confirm the stereotype.
I see that it's problematic to point at people on the internet - but is there any proof of this? I get the impression that the whole internet knows that "Apple fanboys are like that" when there are only 2.5 people somewhere deep inside MacRumors who actually confirm the stereotype.
This whole thing is turning into a PR disaster for Apple... Some variation on the Streisand Effect.
When Apple first posted the "apology" Gruber et al all whooped up how clever Apple was. A bit of blowback now.
When Apple first posted the "apology" Gruber et al all whooped up how clever Apple was. A bit of blowback now.
> This whole thing is turning into a PR disaster for Apple... Some variation on the Streisand Effect.
Hardly a PR disaster. 99% of Apple customers don't have a clue this is even going on.
Hardly a PR disaster. 99% of Apple customers don't have a clue this is even going on.
> Some variation on the Streisand Effect.
In this case, the variation is "a bunch of nerds try desperately to make a mountain out of a molehill and nobody cares except themselves".
Maybe we should come up with a new name.
In this case, the variation is "a bunch of nerds try desperately to make a mountain out of a molehill and nobody cares except themselves".
Maybe we should come up with a new name.
The "Kardashian Effect"?
After all, nobody gives a fuck about her :)
After all, nobody gives a fuck about her :)
Oh, such a disaster. The UK legal system is shown to be the joke it is, sowing contempt among thinking people everywhere.
The mindless apple haters whoop and cheer and continue their petulant childishness.
Samsung, and android, still fail in the marketplace, which, at least for now, values technical innovation over counterfiet crap.
The mindless apple haters whoop and cheer and continue their petulant childishness.
Samsung, and android, still fail in the marketplace, which, at least for now, values technical innovation over counterfiet crap.
You think Samsung and Android are failing in the marketplace? boggle Samsung alone has double the smartphone market share that Apple has...
You can safely ignore any comment that nirvana makes to any thread where Apple is mentioned.
Careful, you'll break the reality distortion bubble!
This script was already used in september for the iPhone 5 homepage. This is simply called vertical responsive design. See these screenshots for exemple : http://www.flickr.com/photos/shawnblanc/7980347228/in/photos...
It has nothing to do with the Samsung trial's verdict.
It has nothing to do with the Samsung trial's verdict.
It is not used on the US site which does not feature the statement.
If it did I might agree with you, but in the current state of affairs it looks really fishy.
If it did I might agree with you, but in the current state of affairs it looks really fishy.
> It is not used on the US site which does not feature the statement.
But the resize is used on apple.de, apple.co.jp, apple.ca, and a lot of othe country-specific sites, none of which display the statement.
But the resize is used on apple.de, apple.co.jp, apple.ca, and a lot of othe country-specific sites, none of which display the statement.
The US site has the iPad 4 featured on the homepage. All the other sites have the iPad mini featured. I'm pretty sure that once the other countries switch to the iPad 4 feature, the script will disappear as well.
I guess the judge will soon design the Apple frontpage himself with MS Paint, if Apple doesn't stop this behaviour in the next few days.
While a bit deceptive, I think it's rather funny and cute. I almost get the impression that Apple is intentionally mocking the court. I know it doesn't make business sense, but it seems like they had to know they're taking a bit of a risk in not complying in full-faith.
I went to the page to see what all the bother was about and ended up buying an iPad mini (to replace nexus 7). Thanks Samsung. You can't pay for this publicity.
Plausible deniability or no, Apple was very dumb not to put themselves above reproach here.
If a CSS/JS behavior interferes with your ability to comply with a court order, that just means you have two problems.
I for one don't believe Apple is being contrite and forthright about the harm they were judged to do to Samsung in the marketplace. These judges will clearly lean on Apple until they get the message.
If a CSS/JS behavior interferes with your ability to comply with a court order, that just means you have two problems.
I for one don't believe Apple is being contrite and forthright about the harm they were judged to do to Samsung in the marketplace. These judges will clearly lean on Apple until they get the message.
This post's title is a little off.
Apple is using a script to push the verdict "below the fold".
Apple is using a script to push the verdict "below the fold".
unfair!
They are also using a 'sosumi' comment, guess they still want to tweak someone's nose.
$ curl -s www.apple.com/uk/ | grep -A 1 /sosumi
</div><!--/sosumi-->
<p class="statement">On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website...That's actually for the div for Apple's copyright notice, which has a classname of sosumi.
Did they just update the homepage on apple.com? Shows the iPad 4th gen now.
Samsung is a soul less copy cat. Of course I push any word of them below the fold.
Unfortunately in trying to be clever, they destroyed the page when trying to zoom in and out.
http://i.imgur.com/ssKsU.png
So they sacrificed accessibility for what, trying to be childish and clever in the execution of a court order?
http://i.imgur.com/ssKsU.png
So they sacrificed accessibility for what, trying to be childish and clever in the execution of a court order?
They've still got the deliberate line break between "do not" and "infringe". That trick is designed to blunt the impact of the message:
do not</span> <span class="nowrap">infringeThis is just a trick by Apple who don't want to admit to doing anything wrong. Expect the judge to notice this and issue another order that the text must be readable and not covered up with Javscript tricks.