Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung(apple.com)
apple.com
Apple posts its UK apology to Samsung
http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/
115 comments
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 rulings made under the laws of those countries.
2) There was no demand for an apology and I'm not sure why you think that there is. The court is very specific about what has to be said which is that Apple make it clear that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy the iPad. They also include wording which must be in there and details on the font size and that there must be a link to the actual ruling.
3) Judgements is a perfectly valid spelling here in the UK, they're used interchangeably. Check justice.gov.uk if you don't believe me - you get significant numbers of hits for both. EDIT: I bow to the greater knowledge of others here - both spellings are common but it seems that judgment is the one used for legal rulings.
Actual ruling here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
(Note that the appeals court changed 6 months to 1 month but upheld the link from the homepage).
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 rulings made under the laws of those countries.
2) There was no demand for an apology and I'm not sure why you think that there is. The court is very specific about what has to be said which is that Apple make it clear that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy the iPad. They also include wording which must be in there and details on the font size and that there must be a link to the actual ruling.
3) Judgements is a perfectly valid spelling here in the UK, they're used interchangeably. Check justice.gov.uk if you don't believe me - you get significant numbers of hits for both. EDIT: I bow to the greater knowledge of others here - both spellings are common but it seems that judgment is the one used for legal rulings.
Actual ruling here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
(Note that the appeals court changed 6 months to 1 month but upheld the link from the homepage).
On your point 3) If I can remember correctly from my law lectures, "judgments" are reserved exclusively for the legal usage (courts, tribunals etc). There is only one correct spelling of "judgment" in the legal sense, everywhere else gives a judgement as to their opinion on a matter, the difference being, that if someone passes a judgment then you know it has come from a legally binding court of law.
I would regularly get a red pen marker through my essays if I used the wrong version (so you quickly get things like this drilled into you). If it's written with the "e" version on justice.gov.uk then they are either using it wrong, or they are using the non legal version (ie "In my judgement this painting looks like a fake", compared to, "In the courts judgment, the painting was a held to be a forgery").
It might seem pedantic, but I guess that's the way law is. For instance, court and Court (when used legally) also mean and can refer to two different things.
On point 2) Do you think that Apple made it clear that the court ruled in favour of Samsung? One line was given to this, whereas 20+ was given to why Apple feel that this judgment was a mistake? I've updated my original comment anyway.
(I agree that they didn't have to include the link for other countries as per your first point).
I would regularly get a red pen marker through my essays if I used the wrong version (so you quickly get things like this drilled into you). If it's written with the "e" version on justice.gov.uk then they are either using it wrong, or they are using the non legal version (ie "In my judgement this painting looks like a fake", compared to, "In the courts judgment, the painting was a held to be a forgery").
It might seem pedantic, but I guess that's the way law is. For instance, court and Court (when used legally) also mean and can refer to two different things.
On point 2) Do you think that Apple made it clear that the court ruled in favour of Samsung? One line was given to this, whereas 20+ was given to why Apple feel that this judgment was a mistake? I've updated my original comment anyway.
(I agree that they didn't have to include the link for other countries as per your first point).
Re the spelling of judgment / judgement I apologise and bow to your greater knowledge.
I certainly think it's debatable whether it makes it clear but I suspect the issue is that the court was very precise in what it said had to be included, how it had to be presented and so on, so as long as Apple ticked all those boxes they can say they've complied.
My point on that was really that the requirement was for a simple informational message. The court made no mention that there should be an apology which would be a very different thing.
I certainly think it's debatable whether it makes it clear but I suspect the issue is that the court was very precise in what it said had to be included, how it had to be presented and so on, so as long as Apple ticked all those boxes they can say they've complied.
My point on that was really that the requirement was for a simple informational message. The court made no mention that there should be an apology which would be a very different thing.
> The court is very specific about what has to be said which is that Apple make it clear that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy the iPad
On the contrary. The court was very specific that this case actually has nothing to do with whether Samsung did or did not copy the iPad, and went to some lengths to explain why not.
"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law. Whether or not Apple could have sued in England and Wales for copying is utterly irrelevant to this case. If they could, they did not." (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html at [3]).
Registered design law is not copyright law. You can infringe a registered design without having ever copied, seen, or even know of the design you're infringing on. Conversely, you can copy a design but alter it enough that it "produce[s] on the informed user a different overall impression" from the original and not infringe.
On the contrary. The court was very specific that this case actually has nothing to do with whether Samsung did or did not copy the iPad, and went to some lengths to explain why not.
"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law. Whether or not Apple could have sued in England and Wales for copying is utterly irrelevant to this case. If they could, they did not." (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html at [3]).
Registered design law is not copyright law. You can infringe a registered design without having ever copied, seen, or even know of the design you're infringing on. Conversely, you can copy a design but alter it enough that it "produce[s] on the informed user a different overall impression" from the original and not infringe.
Apologies, but the point stands that the court didn't demand an apology, it demanded that Apple post and explanation of the ruling including a number of specific points.
from a UK court
Pedantically, it appears to be from a English & Welsh court, not UK.
Pedantically, it appears to be from a English & Welsh court, not UK.
Technically any court with jurisdiction over England and Wales is also "a UK court", in the same sense as you would refer to a German court as a "European court".
It's simply describing the general location within which a court resides, not precisely demarcating its jurisdiction.
It's simply describing the general location within which a court resides, not precisely demarcating its jurisdiction.
Yes you are right that you could interpret it as being a mere location, however there are courts that cover all of the UK , e.g. the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kin... ). Likewise, a german court would have no juristicion over the rest of the EU (say).
If it was a german court decision it would be misleading to say "it was a EU ruling from a EU court which has no jurisdiction in any other countries/supranational bodies.", since that implies the court could have power over the whole of the EU. Likewise "UK court" might imply juristiction over all of UK.
If it was a german court decision it would be misleading to say "it was a EU ruling from a EU court which has no jurisdiction in any other countries/supranational bodies.", since that implies the court could have power over the whole of the EU. Likewise "UK court" might imply juristiction over all of UK.
I live in Scotland, I really shouldn't have got that wrong.
[deleted]
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...
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...
It's not about sincerity, it's about setting the record straight. During the course of these court proceedings, the allegations against Samsung will have been widely publicised.
Such allegations can cause real damage to a company's reputation, and a publicity order publicising the judgment of the court that the allegations were false is a measure to undo some of that harm.
Such allegations can cause real damage to a company's reputation, and a publicity order publicising the judgment of the court that the allegations were false is a measure to undo some of that harm.
From Wikipedia:
Minimisation is a type of deception involving denial coupled with rationalisation in situations where complete denial is implausible. It is the opposite of exaggeration.
'Minimization is one of the most common ways we reduce our feelings of guilt..."It's not that big of a deal"'.
Actually, "judgment" is the correct spelling in this context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_(law)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_(law)
That's what he said - albeit a little unclearly.
If I’m reading the judgment correctly, the court never asked for an apology. The court asked Apple to present certain specific information – which Apple did. That’s all.
If you are going to get snotty about spelling (you are wrong by the way, "judgement" is acceptable in the UK, a less common spelling than "judgment" certainly but not incorrect), then it is best not to end with a spelling mistake of your own. The word is "suit" not "suite", in this case the words are not interchangeable.
"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.
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.
They also revised the time it has to be there down from 6 months to 1 month.
It says websites, it does then go on to give URL's, but these are the top level URLs for various EU countries, so I guess they could argue it is on their website.
Open to interpretation, IMHO, though I would have assumed the judge meant the front pages.
Open to interpretation, IMHO, though I would have assumed the judge meant the front pages.
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.
>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.
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
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.
The statement itself is 14px
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.
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.
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.
Casual visitors to apple.com/uk are not going to read this.
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 Samsung responds not in kind, but will sense weakness and launch an even stronger offence.
What we have now is a case of mutually assured destruction, eventually both companies will be so wrapped up in legal dealings and spiteful actions that they will lose sight on what's really important: giving your customers cool and functional gadgets to play with, which as well as being bad for both of these companies is also bad for the industry and we, the consumers.
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 Samsung responds not in kind, but will sense weakness and launch an even stronger offence.
What we have now is a case of mutually assured destruction, eventually both companies will be so wrapped up in legal dealings and spiteful actions that they will lose sight on what's really important: giving your customers cool and functional gadgets to play with, which as well as being bad for both of these companies is also bad for the industry and we, the consumers.
You can be ruthless AND classy, they're not mutually exclusive.
They were ordered to give an apology, and instead forwarded a conceited, weasley worded temper tantrum. There's nothing ruthless about that, it's something toddlers do every day.
They were ordered to give an apology, and instead forwarded a conceited, weasley worded temper tantrum. There's nothing ruthless about that, it's something toddlers do every day.
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.]
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.]
Oh, there was also the little incident where foreign phones were blocked from South Korea, including the original iPhone for two years.
Can you point me to some news coverage of this?
So far I've found: http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-seeking-block-sales-up... Article claims it was just mirroring of Apple court strategy.
I don't know if that's the same thing here: http://www.firstpost.com/tech/south-korea-court-bans-both-ap... But if so then it didn't turn out particularly good for either of the companies.
There was also a bit of government protectionism in South Korea http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html?mod=... but I think you can't attribute this to Samsung offensive action.
So far I've found: http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-seeking-block-sales-up... Article claims it was just mirroring of Apple court strategy.
I don't know if that's the same thing here: http://www.firstpost.com/tech/south-korea-court-bans-both-ap... But if so then it didn't turn out particularly good for either of the companies.
There was also a bit of government protectionism in South Korea http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html?mod=... but I think you can't attribute this to Samsung offensive action.
This is a rather pessimistic view. Companies have always been ruthless towards each other and life seems to continue on regardless.
But this is a very classy piece of copywriting.
"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!"
"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!"
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.
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.
I don't really get why everyone is so down on Apple on HN (I am a Google/Android user FWIW).
Sure they have pursued some questionable patent cases - but it is hard to deny they are one of the pre-eminent creators and makers in the world today - they have been truly innovative and brought massive change to multiple technology streams. They are about as far from being a hoarding patent troll as one could imagine yet that is how they seem to be portrayed in some parts of social media.
Even if you strongly disagree with their approach to suing competitors, I would have thought the real innovation and change Apple has brought to the scene would count for something and result in some more balanced coverage.
I think some of the specific patent cases Apple is pursuing against Samsung are a bit ridiculous (rounded corners), but I also think when you look at what Samsung has done as a whole, it is pretty clear they were ripping off Apple designs for a while (try and play spot the difference between a Apple 3GS and a Galaxy S1). Maybe Apple had to pursue the more silly specific patent cases because there was no way to patent the overall look-and-feel of a device (no lawyer here).
Anyway just my 2c
Sure they have pursued some questionable patent cases - but it is hard to deny they are one of the pre-eminent creators and makers in the world today - they have been truly innovative and brought massive change to multiple technology streams. They are about as far from being a hoarding patent troll as one could imagine yet that is how they seem to be portrayed in some parts of social media.
Even if you strongly disagree with their approach to suing competitors, I would have thought the real innovation and change Apple has brought to the scene would count for something and result in some more balanced coverage.
I think some of the specific patent cases Apple is pursuing against Samsung are a bit ridiculous (rounded corners), but I also think when you look at what Samsung has done as a whole, it is pretty clear they were ripping off Apple designs for a while (try and play spot the difference between a Apple 3GS and a Galaxy S1). Maybe Apple had to pursue the more silly specific patent cases because there was no way to patent the overall look-and-feel of a device (no lawyer here).
Anyway just my 2c
You could have written the same about MS in the 90s.
It's not just that they're suing folks, it's that their actions seem to be deliberately designed to suppress the market and suppress competition. It doesn't feel genuine.
And while they do innovate, I don't think they do half as much they're given credit for. They didn't invent the smartphone, nor the mp3 player, yet most people likely think they did.
It's not just that they're suing folks, it's that their actions seem to be deliberately designed to suppress the market and suppress competition. It doesn't feel genuine.
And while they do innovate, I don't think they do half as much they're given credit for. They didn't invent the smartphone, nor the mp3 player, yet most people likely think they did.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple has only really gone hard against Samsung over the design patents? There are lots of other Android makers who produce models very different to the iPhone but haven't come under attack (maybe because they aren't as successfully though). So it doesn't really seem right to say they trying to suppress the whole market.
At least with Apple they are trying to protect (justifiably or not) genuine, recent innovation, and they are being open about it. MS is suing more Android makers than Apple over alleged Linux patent violations in Android that it will not disclose (thus prevent Linus from fixing the supposed infringements), but probably relate to some ancient, legacy FAT file-system standard. This is just as dirty as the worst of MS misbehaviour in the 90s and shows they have not changed at all.
At least with Apple they are trying to protect (justifiably or not) genuine, recent innovation, and they are being open about it. MS is suing more Android makers than Apple over alleged Linux patent violations in Android that it will not disclose (thus prevent Linus from fixing the supposed infringements), but probably relate to some ancient, legacy FAT file-system standard. This is just as dirty as the worst of MS misbehaviour in the 90s and shows they have not changed at all.
'(maybe because they aren't as successfully though)'
I think this is the key. Samsung are the target because they're making a huge success of their phones and threatening (even in the US) Apple's position as the perceived 'gold standard' for smartphones. That perception has already faded away in other parts of the world.
Perhaps they are only suing Samsung because only Samsung's designs are close enough to be covered by their design patents. That doesn't mean (to me) anything other than that the patent system is broken. I don't think that proceeding with these lawsuits is the right thing to do. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
I agree MS's android tax is just dirty, btw.
I think this is the key. Samsung are the target because they're making a huge success of their phones and threatening (even in the US) Apple's position as the perceived 'gold standard' for smartphones. That perception has already faded away in other parts of the world.
Perhaps they are only suing Samsung because only Samsung's designs are close enough to be covered by their design patents. That doesn't mean (to me) anything other than that the patent system is broken. I don't think that proceeding with these lawsuits is the right thing to do. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
I agree MS's android tax is just dirty, btw.
Speaking of Apple lawsuits, MS and the 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft
> 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?
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!'
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.
Nobody credits them for inventing the smartphone. They invented the iPhone. Nobody credits them for inventing the mp3 player. They invented the iPod.
Nobody?
You don't read the popular press very much do you?
For a large percentage of the population, "mp3 player = ipod" and "smartphone = iphone".
An anecdotal example: a couple of years ago, I mentioned to my mother that I had bought an mp3 player. She sounded puzzled for a moment and asked 'is that like an iPod?'
Here's sort of the flipside of that anecdote:
Me and a group at my school are currently developing a mobile communication app for elderly for a interaction design-course, and we are in close cooperation with two local elderly homes for testing and feedback. During the initial phase we didn't settle on whether we should develop for iOS or Android but focused primarily on how the interaction should work. But after a while the local leader/our contact insisted that we develop for the iPad since the elderly at both homes had been to a iPad-workshop.
2 weeks later she tells us that she's bought two iPads for us that we could use for testing. When we get there, with our low-fi PowerPoint-prototype, it turns out that she's bought two Galaxy Tab's!
Me and a group at my school are currently developing a mobile communication app for elderly for a interaction design-course, and we are in close cooperation with two local elderly homes for testing and feedback. During the initial phase we didn't settle on whether we should develop for iOS or Android but focused primarily on how the interaction should work. But after a while the local leader/our contact insisted that we develop for the iPad since the elderly at both homes had been to a iPad-workshop.
2 weeks later she tells us that she's bought two iPads for us that we could use for testing. When we get there, with our low-fi PowerPoint-prototype, it turns out that she's bought two Galaxy Tab's!
I'm sure many people think "mp3" means "digital audio file"
For an even larger percentage of the population, "tissue = kleenex."
That doesn't mean anything except that they made a damn good product and had A TON of marketing.
That doesn't mean anything except that they made a damn good product and had A TON of marketing.
The reason a lot of the technology crowd is against Apple is that Apple get incorrectly attributed as innovators. For those that actually work at the innovative frontier of the software industry, seeing the wrong company getting credit for other peoples hard work is infuriating.
One do not see the design crowd being angry at Apple. Those that work with design, tend to agree that apple is innovative in the area of design and user interaction. In the area of design, apple is correct to be attributed for being innovative and thus little hate.
But technology wise, apple has brought forth close to nothing in innovation, and has brought forth a bunch of obvious patent instead. Added, they lock down devices so to almost taunt those that want to innovate. Thus, As an technology developer on the market, Apple is a horrible company. The only positive thing Apple has given to technology developers has been the marketing power, which has opened up monetization for areas like smartphones and other handheld devices.
One do not see the design crowd being angry at Apple. Those that work with design, tend to agree that apple is innovative in the area of design and user interaction. In the area of design, apple is correct to be attributed for being innovative and thus little hate.
But technology wise, apple has brought forth close to nothing in innovation, and has brought forth a bunch of obvious patent instead. Added, they lock down devices so to almost taunt those that want to innovate. Thus, As an technology developer on the market, Apple is a horrible company. The only positive thing Apple has given to technology developers has been the marketing power, which has opened up monetization for areas like smartphones and other handheld devices.
I think in this case, the story is more about Apple's disregard for the spirit of the court order than being down on Apple in general. I'm generally an Apple fan, but this seems kind of petty and oddly antagonistic towards the court.
Really? It seems about in line with what any corporation would write if ordered to give such a statement.
It ackowledges the judgement in the UK but also mentions conflicting judgements elsewhere in the world. Seems pretty balanced to me.
It ackowledges the judgement in the UK but also mentions conflicting judgements elsewhere in the world. Seems pretty balanced to me.
If they were truly told to write an apology, then people are down on them because this isn't one. You cannot really apologise for anything without using the words 'sorry' or 'apologise'.
This is B2B. Corporations do not apologise to each other. They may pay each other compensation, if ordered to.
Apologies imply feelings, and corporations do not have feelings.
Apologies imply feelings, and corporations do not have feelings.
...but corporations are people, and people have feelings!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
I agree with you - but I've read in several places that Apple were ordered to apologise. Their feelings (or not) don't come into it.
[BTW - the linked text kind of implies that they do have feelings; the article comes off as surly, resentful and not a little childish...]
[EDIT: Seems like they were never actually ordered to apologise, only to clarify that Samsung did not, in the judgment of the court, infringe on anything.]
[BTW - the linked text kind of implies that they do have feelings; the article comes off as surly, resentful and not a little childish...]
[EDIT: Seems like they were never actually ordered to apologise, only to clarify that Samsung did not, in the judgment of the court, infringe on anything.]
They may not have feelings, but they usually have more tact than this announcement displays.
[deleted]
I'm pretty sure a significant minority (majority even?) of HN readers make their living by writing software for Apple devices, or use them every day at work and at home as their technology of choice.
I think Apple's problem is, at least in part, one of standards - we hold them up to very high standards, both technology-wise, and also at an ethical level, Apple give out the message that they are "the good guys".
When someone you love turns out to be not quite as perfect as you imagined, the love can turn to hate or anger very quickly.
I think Apple's problem is, at least in part, one of standards - we hold them up to very high standards, both technology-wise, and also at an ethical level, Apple give out the message that they are "the good guys".
When someone you love turns out to be not quite as perfect as you imagined, the love can turn to hate or anger very quickly.
People don't like arrogant corporations. You know like the dystopian 1980's style fictional corporations in Robocop, Gremlins 2 etc.
Apple have tried their best to seek inspiration from the above. That is why people are hard on Apple.
Apple have tried their best to seek inspiration from the above. That is why people are hard on Apple.
Steve Jobs: "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."
Having brought some innovation doesn't give you the right to be an asshole.
> I don't really get why everyone is so down on Apple on HN.
Yeah. Suing everybody around, blocking customers from buying products they want and http://www.5min.com/Video/Apples-Incredible-Great-Best-Gorge...
I wonder why less and less people likes them.
Yeah. Suing everybody around, blocking customers from buying products they want and http://www.5min.com/Video/Apples-Incredible-Great-Best-Gorge...
I wonder why less and less people likes them.
Is there a reason the OP thinks this is the apology? It isn't named as such, the URL doesn't help, and they don't apologise at all. It's just a summary of their legal battles with Samsung. How has the OP come to the conclusion this is the apology (am I missing something)?
You are correct, it just the whiny entitletard fandroids who have imagined an apology was forthcoming. They are as wrong about this as they are in their fantasy that Samsung does not steal product designs wholesale from Apple.
http://www.apple.com/uk/ links to it (at the bottom, the link title is Samsung/Apple UK judgement)
Thanks. Still no obvious signal that is meant to be the apology. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the apology but titling it as such on HN when Apple makes no mention of apology seems like link bait.
<strike>This does not say 'Samsung do not infringe on our patent', which I had thought it was supposed to. It says 'this judge who think s our stuff is cool also thinks Samsung do not infringe'</strike>
Either way the whole thing's ridiculous in the extreme. A flat panel with a screen isn't a novel design whoever made it, the magic is getting all the bits small and low-power and high resolution and bright and powerful enough for it to work.
-EDIT- The actual text as specified by the judge forms the first part of the page, the rest is Apple giving it a little PR spin and casting doubt on the whole thing.
Using the 1 billion US judgement as an example of how ou've been wronged is a bit of a stretch though, that thing's leakier than a colander.
Either way the whole thing's ridiculous in the extreme. A flat panel with a screen isn't a novel design whoever made it, the magic is getting all the bits small and low-power and high resolution and bright and powerful enough for it to work.
-EDIT- The actual text as specified by the judge forms the first part of the page, the rest is Apple giving it a little PR spin and casting doubt on the whole thing.
Using the 1 billion US judgement as an example of how ou've been wronged is a bit of a stretch though, that thing's leakier than a colander.
I wonder if the US office had any say in how this is written.
As someone who has been a guest in the UK for nearly a decade, to me this reads like someone, as the British say, taking the piss.
As someone who has been a guest in the UK for nearly a decade, to me this reads like someone, as the British say, taking the piss.
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.
Sorry, can't help but take the piss about someone taking the piss over someone else taking the piss about Apple taking the piss.
I think it does everything but apologise.
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/
Wow. That's pathetic.
That's definitely not a 14pt font.
From the judgement text:
"The following notice shall be posted and displayed upon the Defendant's Websites currently at..."
Doesn't specifically say homepage. The text is 14px, which arguably isn't 14pt at anything other than 72 dpi.
"The following notice shall be posted and displayed upon the Defendant's Websites currently at..."
Doesn't specifically say homepage. The text is 14px, which arguably isn't 14pt at anything other than 72 dpi.
They do have the link on the homepage.. but I wouldn't call it prominently. :)
The judgement does not mention an apology, only a statement.
Must admit I haven't read the judgement. But still, if that is the case, this statement does everything it can to devalue the ruling.
Does anyone have a link to the actual order? If this is compliant, then the order is a joke.
Here you go: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...
[Edit: sorry, that's the initial judgement. This, I believe, is the order regarding the apology: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html]
[Edit: sorry, that's the initial judgement. This, I believe, is the order regarding the apology: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html]
[deleted](1)
Here is a link to the Appeals Court decision, which modifies the original order. It only requires a link from the UK homepage (www.apple.com/uk).
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
The statement is - down to the word and link placement - as specified in the appeal ruling (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html, paragraphs 84-87).
Apple has added its own extra paragraphs though, which do change the tone.
Apple has added its own extra paragraphs though, which do change the tone.
Well. That left a bad taste in my mouth. It was low and base, sounded like Apple clutching at strings -- trying to make the convince the public through almost-smear tactics.
Im pretty sure they will have to post an actual apology which will be compliant with the court order. Because this has less than nothing to do with that. Try again, Apple.
I thought they were required to in some way make the apology visible on their home page?
It is on the Apple UK homepage - right at the bottom: http://www.apple.com/uk/ ("Samsung/Apple UK judgement" link). Wonderfully its in a 'div' with a class 'sosumi'.
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.
Court said
However, they added that the move need not "clutter" Apple's homepage as it would only have to add a link entitled "Samsung/Apple judgement" for a one-month period.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750
However, they added that the move need not "clutter" Apple's homepage as it would only have to add a link entitled "Samsung/Apple judgement" for a one-month period.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750
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.
>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.
There is actually a minuscule link to the document at the very bottom of the http://apple.co.uk/ homepage, as "Samsung/Apple UK judgement" next to "Privacy Policy" and "Use of Cookies".
If you visit Apple's UK website at www.apple.co.uk, there's a link in the footer.
Apology or not, the fact that we 've come to judge technology products by whether they're cool or not is sad.
This is pretty much what I expected they'd do, but with the over obvious humour turned down and the sarcasm turned up to 11. It's definitely not an apology, and they did cherry pick the judges quotes very nicely.
Did anyone seriously expect Apple to be contrite?
Did anyone seriously expect Apple to be contrite?
Not at all an apology, but I assume you were being sarcastic? :)
[deleted]
Apple is a scam. :)
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).
Sincerity at it's most "righteous":