Apple told us it had no comment on the matter
and went off to sulk in the corner...
Apple was told to apologise properly to Samsung by three British judges at the UK Court of Appeals this morning. Judge Robin Jacob reprimanded Apple for putting up an "incorrect" and "non-compliant" statement about the patent lawsuit and said it had 48 hours to publish a better one. In line with a court order from July, Apple …
and went off to sulk in the corner...
I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this.
Apple actually spoke to El Reg? The sky is truly falling!!
The thing that gets me is that they wanted to try to blag two weeks without having ANY notice up there.
I think the judges were pretty reasonable and patient in their comments. In their shoes, I'd have had the court officer's hold the lawyer's mouth open while I relieved myself into it.
I would have imprisoned the CEO of Apple for contempt of court....
I dont think the US is as lenient with their extradition policy to crown-controlled territory.
> crown-controlled territory.
It must be a Friday. I initially read that as "clown-controlled". Harsh, but fair...
given this wee gem: http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/11/03/apple-hides-samsung-apology-on-its-uk-site-so-it-cant-be-seen-without-scrolling/?fromcat=all
I suspect that senior staff in Apple UK will find themselves in hot water on Monday morning.
Although it has to be said, many of my fellow commentators here predicted it - I'm surprised the judge didn't.
The judge probably thought that as Apple can clearly afford to spend unimaginable amounts of money filling his courtroom with legal representation, that those legal representatives would have said "Don't do that, it's not a good idea."
Holy Hell this judge deserves a pint. And quite honestly crApple deserved this for what they ended up trying to pull off.
To the judge: sir if you ever find yourself in the state of NY ill buy you a beer. Good man.
Actually, the judges are pompous self righteous fuckwits. They are modifying their original judgement without due process, and their original order was verging on ultra vires in the first place. Rather to full of their own importance.
If those Judges ever darken the doors of my local I would be glad to get a couple of rounds in!
Apple were stupid and infantile, so they treated them as such.
They are not modifying the original judgment. The original judgement told them to put what they put as paragraphs 1 and 5 of their 6 paragraph ramble. They added another 4 paragraphs that contradicted it, which is a clear violation of the judgement.
No, people who don't know the difference between, "to," and, "too," are fuckwits.
"Actually, the judges are pompous self righteous fuckwits. They are modifying their original judgement without due process, and their original order was verging on ultra vires in the first place. Rather to full of their own importance." - AC, at 1940 GMT.
I have not appeared in an English courtroom, but as an American lawyer (put that sharp object down, sir!), I tend to agree with the general sentiment of the first sentence here in application to the judiciary universally. I can tell you that as to the second sentence you have no idea what you are talking about. The third sentence is considered as informative as "water is wet" where I practice. I'd say overall your comment is pretty much what could be expected from an ill-informed corporate apologist.
There really is no doubt the judge(s) had the power and authority to do what they did, and under the fact presented it is not surprising that they exercised that power and authority.
By the way: Tossup between "Judge Jacob said: I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," and "Apple's original statement was not considered to be robust" for biggest LOL.
What those legal representatives would have said to Apple is, "see what you can get away with, it is unlikely to hurt."
"Make it hurt", I say. Contempt of court.
"They are modifying their original judgement without due process."
You don't seem to understand how our legal system works.
...but probably able to distinguish between 'to' and 'too'.
Dittos from Maryland. I'll even see if I can make sure it is one that is supposed to be served warm if you like.
And I'm not a beer drinker.
Maybe a bit off topic but you started it. Americans seem to have a problem with British beer.
It's not served "warm" it served like red wine, as a wine buff would say chambré.
Do you stick your vintage Chateau Lafite in the fridge before serving too?
When I was in the Yukon last Feb our server apologised that she'd not got a chilled Bottle of Yukon Brewing's "Lead Dog" - and do you know, it was as good as a British craft brewery beer. When it's minus 20 outside I really don't want my stomach reduced to the same temperature. I have to say that having taken a purely academic interest in sampling US micro brewery products this year their only fault is US obesession with chilling everything. That is necessary with your mass market beers, the low temperature helps conceal the unpleasant taste but I urge you to try your own craft beers unchilled, they are great. A have had to revise my opinion that all american beer is garbage, there are some US micro breweries producing truly excellent brews.
Pretty much what everyone expected after reading the original "apology".
I'm looking forward to their new one.
I was expecting a little more in the shape of a contempt of court charge. Maybe they decided to give them one last chance to get it right before hitting them with that.
"I was expecting a little more in the shape of a contempt of court charge. Maybe they decided to give them one last chance to get it right before hitting them with that."
Courts are busy places that have better things to do than mess around with time-wasting Apple antics. They aimed for a simple solution, rather than hit Apple with something that they'd undoubtedly appeal/contest/whine about.
> They aimed for a simple solution, rather than hit Apple with something that they'd undoubtedly appeal/contest/whine about
And yet Apple still appealed, contested and whined about it. The original judgement was in July and it was only a couple of weeks ago that their appeal was rejected.
Yes, lets see how many iterations of "apology" we will have. With too many, Apple is stepping on thin ice.
On the other hand more and more people will know about this.
"Yes, lets see how many iterations of "apology" we will have."
They don't even have to apologise: All the Judge requested was a clear statement.
Simples, this is Apple's last chance to get it right. If they screw it up again:
1. Find them in Contempt of Court.
2. As part of that Contempt of Court finding, they must pay Samsung's legal fees (if they aren't already required to do so), and any costs to the court for any appeals taken after this last directive including but not limited to, paperwork costs, court recorder, bailiff, and presiding judge salaries.
3. Interest on said costs to be calculated at standard American Credit Card rates, beginning 24 hours after this order was issued.
That they get a second bite of the Apple.
Now can they swallow their pride soon enough to get the new apology uploaded to their site in time?
...instead of a 9pt link squeezed into the footer...
Which would have been great if they'd written it properly. Sure Samsung could have linked to it, but basically no-one would have noticed. However, now they've dicked about like this, not only do they look bloody stupid, but they've also made front-page news, looking bloody stupid...
That's what's called a legal and PR Ooops! And because of the way Apple normally behave, enormously amusing.
Apple must have hired a Hollywood PR flack. You know, the kind who think the only bad PR is no PR...
From the the BBC:
Lord Justice Longmore told Mr Beloff: "We are just amazed that you cannot put the right notice up at the same time as you take the other one down."
Sir Robin Jacob added: "I would like to see the head of Apple [Tim Cook] make an affidavit about why that is such a technical difficulty for the Apple company."
....Tim Cook could just give him a five minute tour of the Apple Maps app and explain that it took a lot more than 14 days for them to bugger that up.
Though I'd have altered it somewhat:
"I suggest that if you're having difficulty posting a notice within 24 hours, that you draw on the expertise of your army of 'geniuses'. If their collective power is insufficient to answer it in that time frame I suggest we meet up here again next week under the auspices of the trade descriptions act. Also if you're unable to draft a response in that timeframe I'll be happy to create it for you."
So Apple can't edit a simple website page in under 14 days?
Maybe Samsung should think about using that their next laptop ad...
"Why take 14 days to edit your website, the new Intel i7 powered Samsung XYZ can do it in minutes"
If I were the judge I'd have been tempted to hold them and their lawyer in contempt right there. That's just insulting to the intelligence.
Well, its like this your honour: it takes 20 minutes to edit the revised page, 7 days to get our Legal department to OK it and another 7 days to find an Apple executive who's prepared to risk career suicide by signing it off...
"So Apple can't edit a simple website page in under 14 days?"
Well, every time they want to change or add a new product to their store it is replaced with a "we're updating" message for several hours, so I'm guessing no, they probably can't.
...or given their recent departure over failing to apologise over maps ... willing to risk career suicide by NOT signing it off? ;-)
@MK: Excellent post!
PS: Who down-voted your post? I'll up-vote to make it at least even.
I'll see your upvote, and raise you one
"If I were the judge I'd have been tempted to hold them and their lawyer in contempt right there."
Apple couldn't have been far away from contempt. I reckon if they try a similar stunt the second time they'd definitly cop a contempt charge.
The 14 day thing is hilarious - Apple, the biggest tech company in the world (by $$$), leader in innovation are so crap at websites they can't put something on their website in 14 days???
What an insult to the judges intelligence - its like they are begging for a contempt charge.
"What an insult to the judges intelligence - its like they are begging for a contempt charge." - Chet Mannly @ 20:43
I feel you there, but what really surprised me was that the judges were aware that such a change COULD be made within one day. I know a lot of judges that would have simply accepted Apple's representation because they didn't know any better.
> If I were the judge I'd have been tempted to hold them and their lawyer in contempt right there.
Quite. They should have thrown the Apple rep into a cell for contempt and left him there until Apple changed their notice. I expect Apple would have found that they could edit a webpage in 14 minutes, rather than 14 days.
And a huge fine. Make the worms pay.
There are two logical possibilities I can see with the 14 day request.
The first is that Apple want to have their legal department find another, more subtle way to word the statement without admitting they were wrong, working through legalities to push the order to it's limits. This could quite easily take their legal team 14 days, whereas 48 hours will force them to just comply with the order (or risk another trip back to court).
The second is that the bureaucracy within Apple requires so many checks and sign-offs that it really does take that long to comply if they follow company procedure.
I think the first is most likely.
"They should have thrown the Apple rep into a cell for contempt and left him there until Apple changed their notice. I expect Apple would have found that they could edit a webpage in 14 minutes, rather than 14 days."
I hate to break this, but it's worth far more to Apple for them to have no statement on their site for 14 days than it costs to pay a lawyer to sit in jail for that amount of time. They'd have been delighted at being offered such an option.