Apple will have to apologise for its rubbish apology as well its patent infringement claims against Samsung when it publishes a statement on its UK website tomorrow. The three sentence statement that Apple will have to display on its homepage will say: On 25th October 2012, Apple Inc published a statement on its UK website in …
The part that I don't understand...
The ad had to state that the decision has effect through all of the EU. Does that mean that decisions of the German courts that Samsung DID infringe are subservient to British ones that say they didn't? I mean, in the U.S., an individual state's courts -- even a state's supreme court -- can only pass decisions that are binding in THAT state. It takes a Federal court to make rulings that hold across all of the states.
Does the EU actually allow one state to override the decisions of another state's courts across the entire union?
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something here, but that just seems f*cked up.
Re: The part that I don't understand...
No, all the things the Germans judged on had already been decided by the UK court, so everything they spouted was completely wrong and should be ignored.
Judge Birss explained
Apple sued in the UK. That made the UK court into a (European) Community Court for this case. Apple later sued in Germany. That was very naughty. The whole idea of a community court is to avoid getting different verdicts from each member state.
Re: Judge Birss explained
So, Apple originally REQUESTED that the UK court rule as a community court? Or does ANY court ruling in any state automatically become a community-wide decision?
Re: Judge Birss explained
Article 82 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. From the reading of the text and not as advice: If the suit is brought where the infringer sits in the EC, the court may be asked for a verdict for all infringements in the EC by this infringer. If the law suit is brought in a country where there is an infringement (i.e. sale of an infringing device), the court may only be asked for a verdict on this alleged infringement and any infringement in the country of the infringement.
I don't understand the downvotes...
Mike Moyle (in both his posts) is asking legitimate questions. He doesn't appear to be acting snarky; he simply seems confused and is asking for clarification of the issues involved. I don't see why anyone should be downvoted for that.
Re: The part that I don't understand...
"Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something here, but that just seems f*cked up."
Firstly: The plaintiff requested it.
Secondly: The German court kinda screwed up.
Thirdly: What's stupid about part of an economic UNION being able to make binding rulings on economic matters across the Union? It's clearly a massive waste and time for each state in either the US or EU to waste valuable court time making having duplicate hearings on exactly the same case.
Remember: Every day that these corporations drag shit through our courts is a day less time they have to deal with matters pertaining to actual crime. I don't want to see every court in the land tied up with crap like this financed by massive companies, resulting in petty criminals getting let off with cushy deals because the courts are too busy to try them.
Personally, I think Apple made a clever move, with the first ‘apology’ and the second ‘apology’.
They figured there was a good chance the first one would get thrown out, but they garnered some nice points against Samsung. They made a few jokes, at the expense of the judge and Samsung. I’m sure plenty of people read this apology, had a smile at the veiled sarcasm and moved on. All in all a neat first swipe at the ball.
The second apology reads very boring and will most likely be ignored by the vast majority.
Even if the Judge makes Apple do a third apology, the energy of the ruling will have completely exhausted itself and even less folk will read the advert.
Believe me, I’ve read a few blogs by UK barristers…they can be a wry lot, not averse to giving judges a sly side swipe with some of their comments.
Apple would have employed the best UK barristers, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing with both apologies.
I disagree, we haven't even HAD the apology that counts - i.e. the web page.
Only once they've actually published it and they've proven that they are going to heed the court's instruction CORRECTLY can we decide if it 'all worked in their favour'.
Oh and this adventure will not include a third apology in any form. It'll be a fucking huge fine and maybe some clink time for Cook if it has to go around again. When will you fanbois learn that Apple's Reality Distortion Field doesn't work outside the walled garden?
My impression, and based on a sampling of the comments on various tech websites it seems to be the majority opinion, was that they were being dickheads.
Let's not kid ourselves - all of this stuff will be ignored by the vast majority but those who have read about it seem to have generally come away thinking that Apple are being run by children (and poorly behaved ones, at that).
Of course they knew what they were doing - *that's* the problem.
Re: I disagree
You can waste a courts time with rounded corners patent cases, you can bitch about the verdict to the press, he'll you can even call the judge names outside his own court if you like. But Judges get real funny when they issue an order and it doesn't get followed. People that don't do as they are told by a judge generally go to prison.
I agree. Let's be honest, the UK courts don't have the balls to jail anyone and if they fine them, Tim Cook will probably pay the fine twice just so he can put another pop at Samsung on the web site.
"I think Apple made a clever move, with the first ‘apology’ and the second ‘apology’."
No, actually. The average punter (in that degree they have taken any notice of this case) is not especially impressed with "big boys" who take the piss out of a court judgement. They think (naturally enough) that if "I would have do what I was told under those circumstances then so should those bastards".
"Apple would have employed the best UK barristers, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing with both apologies."
The Barristers don't have anything to do with the wording of the apologies. They simply have to stand up in court and try to explain Apple's actions with a straight face, and play with the hand that the marketing gurus who wrote the Notice and the Corporate lawyers who signed off on it dealt them.
Perfect opportunity for Samsung
To create adverts for the Tabs in exactly the same format and location on the page tomorrow morning, telling you where you can buy these amazing products and provide URLs, and cash in on the publicity. Apple haven't identified this as their publication, so there can be no copyright infringement etc.
@ Mike Moyle
UK court was looking at the "Registered Design" - German court was looking at "Patent"
Can I use the phrase "you're comparing apples and oranges" without getting sued?
Re: @ Mike Moyle
A Registered Design is the EU equivalent of a US Design Patent.
The cases were on the same thing, the appeal court judgement makes that quite clear and has some very strong language regarding the German court - almost as close to "You bunch of ****ing morons, you on crack or something?" as it's possible to get.
Re: @ Mike Moyle
My bad - just read it again a bit slower - I jumped to a wrong conclusion there.
So, 24 hours have clearly elapsed....
Because the old link to the disputed page has vanished from Apple's UK home page. But the new text does not yet appear.
If I were Apple I wouldn't tweak the judges tails so much. They're looking at serious contempt of court here.
Re: So, 24 hours have clearly elapsed....
scroll down on the apple.co.uk page. Apple have made it so you can't see the text unless you scroll down.
I'm really hoping they mess it up again and we see some jail time.
Why isn't there a popcorn icon?
Re: Great fun
I'm not so vindictive to wish for jail time for lawyers, who no doubt were just acting on their client's instructions. On the other hand, a massive fine against Apple would certainly not be a bad outcome IMHO, and potentially be a nice injection of cash into the treasury, assuming that's where it would end up...
Given the insultingly infantilistic way they've started addressing their customers (that "Your thumb goes from here... to here" ad) I expect the revised apology to go something like "Judge said we done bad thing. We sorry we done bad thing. Samsung not actually do what we done. GOO GOO GA GA PLEBS."
Did they deliberately use this font just to rub Apple's nose in it or will Apple just smugly cite it as another reason the judges don't know what they are on about? And shurley it should have been Arial Rounded in any case.
Damn right - should have been Comic Sans.
14 days to change a website!
That's the best joke I've heard all day.
Re: 14 days to change a website!
I'm AC'ing this, as at least one of those responsible knows I post here...
Joke you say?, We've been waiting over two effing years for changes to be made to a section of our website, 14 days, how I wish we had such a speedy bloody service.
I could do the job myself, as I used to dabble (I've still got a website that has been up and running since around 1995 - and hasn't been touched since around 1999) but hey, demarcation and all that..
Still in contempt of court
1) Apple was supposed to have run five print adverts by the 25th October
2) The print adverts were supposed to be identified as coming from Apple. The print ads do not make this clear.
3) Previous non-apology on the website was not posted on the front page, it was accessible via a minute link on the front page.
Hopefully the Judges will continue to spank Apple for behaving like a sulking child.
(Oh, and Apple filed in the UK before they filed in Germany therefore even though the ruling in Germany came first, the the ruling in the UK is the one that counts and the German ruling is void. Apple should also be forced to make this clear since they referred the the German ruling in their non-apology)
apple is run by eugenicists
and they hate you
now that i've quit smoking
i'll probably live long enough to tell me grandkids about this and how it felt at the time to see a big tech bully being made to eat crow.
apple ought to fire their lawyers over this.
Re: now that i've quit smoking
"apple ought to fire their lawyers over this"
Well, yes, iff the lawyers advised them that this was a good course of action, I highly doubt that, and suspect that Apple execs at some level either ignored or did not seek legal advice. IANAL but I wouldn't be surprised if you could get struck off for advising a client to behave in a manner that could be considered contempt of court.
Is it a defence?
That an organisation is so permeated and indoctrinated with positive spin that it it is absolutely incapable of apologising or admitting that it is wrong?
And coming next...
Apple's apology for its apology for its apology.
It makes you think the whole company might be turning into one big apology.
Re: Apple's apology for its apology for its apology.
There's supposed to be some bit about moose and llamas in there. You'd better apologise for that omission.
Does Apple care about its image ???
Apple is a company selling high-end products to the richest 5-10% of the world.
They have enough money in their shoebox to buy up most of the countries in this world, so nothing to proof.
It is really strange they don't seem to care about their image, or do they think it actually makes a good impression to fool around with this verdict like a single spoiled child trying to outsmart its parents ?.
If the "rounded corners" patent cases they initiated did not make them look silly, this certainly will.
It is not only silly, but rude and disrespectful to the legal system of England. But actually nothing new, their labor practices in FoxConn already showed they have little relationship with human values.
Re: Does Apple care about its image ???
bollocks, if you compare foxcon issues with court case issues, then you are saying tha tall other companies that work with Foxcon also don't care about human rights.
In the end, its's the end customer that don't care, which isn't the case, it's that it's currently the only way to make consumer products for an affordable price, and millions of people have a income also...
Additionally also Samsung operates in the same user base as Apple does, that same 5%-10% of users with money.
Re: Does Apple care about its image ???
Disrespectful of the legal system of England? Oh yes, still living on past and gone glory aren't we...
The German courts had it right, I think it is rather amusing how Apple is winding up the judge getting his five minutes of fame.
That old foxconn link just shows how little comprehension you have and discredits everything you wrote...
Even Apple can't withstand the power of beak?
Reminds me - I have to pay a stupid traffic fine extortion thing soon - OMG
The number of fandoids downvotes, even for normal and reasonable comments is high on this one.
One from me, but I'm just kidding. :-)
Just checked the UK Apple website. No posting yet, using the site seach on the home page for "uk ruling design" gave me a laugh......
Internal Server Error - Read
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
9:30 on Saturday, and it's there, at the bottom of the front page. With a nice big link to the judgment, difficult to miss. Granted you have to scroll to the bottom of the page, but I don't think the judges will mind that.
Re: It's there!
The judges WILL mind it, as Apple have redesigned their webpage so whatever resolution you view it in, the apology is hidden by default and you have to scroll down to it.
That's not even considering it's been posted on a sham Apple domain that was only bought in July 2012, for this very purpose...
If the point is for people to NOTICE the ruling this does not comply. Under the fold.
Apple's UK apology - does it count if its not seen?
Never shows, unless you scroll down :-)
Interesting that no matter what resolution you choose the small print at the
bottom of the page is never show, unless you scroll down :-)
Re: If the point is for people to NOTICE the ruling this does not comply. Under the fold.
What is this "resolution" of which you speak?
$ lynx www.apple.co.uk
# Apple (United Kingdom)
#home RSS index
iPad mini. Every inch an iPad.
* Watch the keynote
* Watch the video
* iPad with Retina display. Just as stunning. Twice as fast.
* The new iMac.
* MacBook Pro with 13-inch Retina display.
* iPhone 5. The biggest thing to happen to iPhone since iPhone.
Shop at the Apple Online Store, call 0800 048 0408, visit an Apple Retail Store or find a reseller.
* Site Map
* Hot News
* RSS Feeds
* Media Info
* Job Opportunities
* Contact Us
Copyright © 2012 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
United Kingdom Choose your country or region
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
There it is, right on the first screen.
Still playing silly buggers.....
Hiding the correction / ruling - they are handling the scaling differently between the US and UK front pages.
What part of contempt of court do Apple not understand? This only goes to amplify the media furore surrounding their loss in Europe.
I think their barrister was very lucky not to have been jailed there and then for trying to pull the 14 days to make a change stunt.
Just the UK version?
Since the judgement is supposed to have force throughout the EU, why does the "apology" appear on the UK homepage only (not on German/French/Irish/Dutch etc)?
I wonder whether the judges are happy with Apple's persistent truculent behaviour.
Inaccurate might be pushing it a little...
>On 25th October 2012, Apple Inc published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court Appeal of England and Wales. A correct statement can be found at this link.
There's a good case for calling it (for example) "misleading". That it did not comply with the spirit of the order is obvious. Whether it minimally complied with the letter is debatable (all the requested text was there I think). But IIRC nothing on it was actually "inaccurate". The judge did say those things. The US and Germany did rule against Samsung...
Maybe Apple's next move would be to put the page up as requested, but then add a link complaining about the tyranny of the British court. If the judge tries to block that one, now he is violating freedom of speech.
Re: Freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is not an excuse to be in contempt of court.