Naughty-step Apple buries court-ordered apology with JavaScript
Apple insisted it would take 14 days to publish a three-sentence declaration on its UK website that Samsung had not ripped off the iPad design. But in the 48 hours Judge Robin Jacob instead gave the Jesus mobe maker, Apple has managed to upload both the statement and a wad of JavaScript code that resizes the homepage's central …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Apple is behaving like the kid who throws a strop at his own birthday party.
"The grown-ups and the other kids are all laughing"
Not really. Most people didn't know about about the case, nor the ruling. The local Mac fanatic had to have it pointed out this morning... and then had to have it physically pointed out when they said "It's not here, I can't see anything" because they didn't scroll down... so Apple's obfuscations are actually working, and the typical punter still has no idea that Apple are basically trying to avoid the intent of the judgement.
Re: Apple is behaving like the kid who throws a strop at his own birthday party.
It's up to the likes of us, in that case, to do like I did and post links to it on Facebook, mail it to all our Apple fanboi friends etc!
Did the judge specify the text's colour?
White text would seem to be Apple's obvious next move. Not cluttering the home page is one thing, but rolling out a change to specifically make enlarging the browser window stop its normal behaviour?
Contempt indeed!
The Judge should order Apple to put the apology link at the top of the page so people can see it and the apology should contain Apple's name and logo to authenticate the the apology.
Determined to keep this in the news?
apple seem determined to keep this in the headlines and make themselves look childish.
They've also removed automatic redirect from apple.com to apple.com/uk from UK IPs
Its worse than only having to scroll...
Apple have also removed the automatic redirect from apple.com to apple.com/uk/; when accessing the site from a british IP address. Up until the new apology the redirect was always in situ - why remove now, if not to show clear disrespect for our courts order?
This is clearly a tactic to reduce the audience who will see the apology, the audience the court will have correctly assumed would normally view the apology without apples interference.
Re: They've also removed automatic redirect from apple.com to apple.com/uk from UK IPs
What auto-redirect? It's not been there for a while, if they ever had one.
Re: They've also removed automatic redirect from apple.com to apple.com/uk from UK IPs
No it's never existed. Keep making stuff up people, it REALLY reinforces your point.
IP addresses have never been detected / redirected nor have cookie redirects existed.
The only redirect is from apple.co.uk which has only existed a couple of months since they acquired the name.
But like I say, redirects, apology myths. Keep making it up.
Re: There never has been a redirect loosers
there actually has. always been a redirect.
but fanbois. if you all wish hard enough, maybe there wont have been.
Re: There never has been a redirect loosers
Sorry, that's just not true. I've always had to add an explicit /UK on the URL if I want the UK site, and that's been since ling before this whole Samsung thing.
Re: There never has been a redirect loosers
"I've always had to add an explicit /UK on the URL if I want the UK site"
Just wondering: do you have NoScript or similar installed?
I'm only asking, because some thing it did exist and some that it didn't, so the most probable answer is different settings.
I don't know, as I don't use any Apple products and have never visited the Apple website before this court order.
Re: There never has been a redirect loosers
"Just wondering: do you have NoScript or similar installed?"
No.
UK based and have NEVER been redirected from apple.com to apple.com/uk…
An as the homepages often show slightly different content (no sniggering at the back re: the current subject matter) it would piss me off a lot if I were redirected from the .com to the regional site…
Apple.co.uk redirecting? Now that may have happened (never thought to try it before though)
It'll all end in tears...
As someone else commented, they are playing the bratty child pushing the boundaries to see what they can get away with".
Well it will all end in tears.
Their legal costs will continue to spiral if the Judge needs to recall them to court. And the Judge will simply dictate more specifically how Apple needs to respond - full front page of the UK website with set font size and text, with only one link to "Visit the rest of Apple". Or perhaps even "full front page advert in named newspapers". Or even "prime time TV advert on at least 10 UK mainstream television channels including ITV1 and Channel 4"
Apple already have the TV adverts slots booked, its just they were planning on showing something else.
Re: It'll all end in tears...
Agreed. Apple are imploding.
Re: It'll all end in tears...
I'd agree that Apple are imploding. When a tech company spends more on lawyers than on R and D you can be sure that it has lost the plot.
Having said that, with the cash mountain Apple have this is going to be a long and slow implosion.
Apple will be the next RIM.
Surely this is the correct modus operandi for the reality distortion field?
"It just works"
Seems to me.....
that Apple only do things that THEY like/want......and Apple will fight against anyone who argues that the Apple way is wrong/incorrect/unlawful etc
Personally, I think Apple (in it's legal dealings) has just grown too big for it's boots and is seeking to "boss" anyone it chooses, based on it's own interpretation of "events" - maybe it's time some high-flying big-wig Apple employee was held to account for the contempt they have shown (to the UK Court) and incarcerated somewhere under Her Majesty's Pleasure (sponsored by Samsung/iFone/Google/Viewsonic etc) ;)
When they only pay 2.5% corp tax
Of course they have contempt for both the British Courts and the British people.
They must laugh when then offload their crap gear at massive profits yet don't have to pay tax nor do what the courts tell them.
I would LOVE to know why this is so? Its not like they have a hold over us (the UK) with massive jobs numbers etc. Yeah they are big, but not that big an employer, and if they don't employ thousands, then what's stopping the Govt sorting this out? I can understand them letting Google Starbucks etc get away with it because of the numbers of staff employed, but there aren't that many apple stores.....
I suggest our politicos should learn to only bend over and take it from a company that this country actually gets some tax from, bring in the new tax avoidance laws and make them pay their fucking way.
Also put someone in jail over the contempt.
Re: When they only pay 2.5% corp tax
So it's OK for Starbucks and Google (in your own words) but not others, who you clearly have it in for as opposed to wanting a fair taxation system for the right reasons.
How about you put sweaty pen to paper and canvas the Government (you know, those people who set the rules) and perhaps we can kill many birds with one stone.
Re: When they only pay 2.5% corp tax
LMAO.
Cheers for divert the thread momentarily by stating something completely pointless!
Re: When they only pay 2.5% corp tax
In Gordon's words, he's saying he understands why HMG would turn a blind eye to the likes of Starbucks, Google et al paying as little business tax as possible, not that he's saying he thinks it's OK...
And I can see where Gordon is coming from here - if an offshore company employs someone in the UK, that person gets taken out of the jobseekers queue, they get to pay income tax/NI back to HMG, and they have more money in their pocket at the end of the day (compared to someone on jobseekers allowance) to buy things that they then pay VAT on - more money being returned to HMG coffers. So yes, it's understandable that a company who employs a large number of people in the UK (or a smaller, higher paid and thus taxed, number) might be given an easier time by the taxman when questions start to be asked about why all these big companies are paying so little.
Idle speculation ...
but since this is the *second* attempt one of the biggest firms in the world has had at complying with a court ruling, is it possible the court might seize the .co.uk domain and institute the changes themselves.
We can dream.
On the plus side, it'll be interesting for the little guy in court now. After all, if Apple can't comply, how can they be expected too.
Pathetic strop by apple
This is unreal...
I got curious and rotated my screen 90 degrees to get a vertical resolution of 1920 - the ipad kept increasing and pushed down the two keynote links underneath it until the ipad was the only thing fitting in both borders... didn't stop until the window was around 1700 pixels tall!!!
To me this is blatant contempt of court - Can we send a 'friend of the court' message to the court about this??
I'm surprised they didn't have the link hovering about as you try to click it !!.
Re: Pathetic strop by apple
Nope - you don't have to be though I'm not sure you can present yourself as a friend of the court of your own volition, I think it's mostly for when a court needs an independent witness for specific advice on a specialist area...
Re: Pathetic strop by apple
Looking at it on a laptop with IE I had to set the zoom level to 50% to see the area of the homepage - by which point the statement text was too small to read.
It's off screen on my iphone 3G unless I scroll down a bit to make the url and search box disappear.
Perhaps it can be read on an iphone 5?
The stupid thing is that the performance of the iPhone 5 apparently really is very good indeed, as is the 3rd gen iPad. But I'm never again going to buy anything from a company that so obviously holds everybody who dares to disagree with it in complete contempt.
Contrast this with the reported reaction of Bentley to the Chrysler Bentley rip-off: "Nobody who might buy one of our cars would be confused for a moment".
The Theory of Relativity!
I don't know. From inside the Reality Distortion Field everything looks fine.
JS is on all international homepages
Actually, loath as I am to defend Apple, it does appear this code is used on all the international homepages
For example South Africa
http://www.apple.com/za
Re: JS is on all international homepages
Speaking about international pages of Apple .... seems British court is not the only they hate. Just looked at various national pages including /mx . Mexican was the only one displaying, in largest font readable, iPhone 5. Well, Apple just recently lost court case in Mexico for the right to use name iPhone.
I think I'd rather not deal with a company displaying such attitude towards courts.
Well look at it this way...
All Apple have to do is put up a court judgement...whereas Samsung have to fork over 1 Billion plus interest if they fail in their appeal in the states. Which one do you think they would rather had won ??
Re: Well look at it this way...
Groklaw and some recent relevant factoids thisaway.
IANAL, but I get the distinct feeling Samsung finally has Apple on the back foot. Certainly the possibility of the original ruling being upheld on appeal is looking less likely by the day.
Anyone else notice...
that Apple don't even mention the word iPad in their statement and instead refer to it as ' registered design No. 0000181607-0001'
Re: Anyone else notice...
Yes, because that's what they were told to say and that's what the Court case was about.
One of the tragedies is Apple's implicit (and the Media's actual) attribution of the soundbite "It is a cool design" to the iPad.
If you read Judge Birss's judgement - he wasn't talking AT ALL about the iPad, he was talking entirely about the Registered Design, in particular, the diagrams in Appendix A of the judgement.
The perversion is, If you look at those diagrams, even the iPad, iPad2 and iPad3 don't conform 100% to the Registered Design. Apple was (counter) suing over the Registered Design which, in law, has nothing to do with their iPad models. Sadly, that didn't stop the media (incl. El Reg) from swallowing the soundbite.
Judges are not stupid. To be a judge you do, actually, have to be very intelligent and understand the law. I believe Judge Briss QC selected his words very carefully to justify a 'policy decision'. He new the media would lap them up and this would deflect attention away from the decision he was making on the grounds of policy: to grant in favour of Apple would be to grant a patent on a rectangle with rounded corners and thereby set a dangerous precedent that would hinder competition.
Has anyone checked country redirect?
Can somebody outside the US and UK check if navigating to apple.com normally redirects them to the local version of the page? Just wondering if they have disabled this for the UK to further hide the link from casual UK users who would not normally swap to their localised version manually.
Re: Has anyone checked country redirect?
Not any more... It used to redirect to the Dutch page from .com though...
Re: Has anyone checked country redirect?
Apple.com has (for the past 2.5 years at least) NEVER redirected to apple.com/uk
HTH
Misleading article
The article is mis-leading. The re-sizing of Apple's main page isn't unique to the UK site....it just doesn't happen on the main apple.com site.
Other localized sites do it as well:
www.apple.com/ca/
www.apple.com/it/
Re: Misleading article
And when, exactly, did this resizing start happening?
It may have been done to try and explain it away as "coincidence" but I doubt the judge will fall for that line.
Re: Misleading article
According to Firefox's page into, the JavaScript linked to in the article (this) was modified on the 21/10/2012 21:31:51. A tag to include this script appears on all the regional websites, or at least the five regional websites that I've tried it on (uk, fr, es, it, mx).
So the original ruling was on the 18th of October, the resize code went up on the international websites on the 21st of October, who knows when the regional homepages were all changed to call the Javascript code, the first apology went up on the UK page on the 25th of October, then finally this change to the UK page was made on the 3rd of November (if not the 3rd then the 4th).
Maybe they originally put the resize code up to hide the link (1st apology) instead of the paragraph (2nd apology) or maybe they've decided that Merkins don't like huge re-sizing images but everyone else does and it's a just an enormous coincidence.
By the way, if you go to a regional website you get redirected to www.apple.com/region but if you go to apple.com you don't get redirected anywhere (tested from outside the UK).
On the bright side ...
If the judges can't find the statement on Apple's site they will probably deem Apple not to have complied with the order -- so Apple's little trick will have backfired.
Not that I think for a moment that their Lordships are so technically naïve as to fail to see what Apple have done.
Big Brother, because someone needs to be watching Apple!
Mr Cook, hello?
Something tells me the latest pisstake's been approved by yourself, personally, unless you don't know what's going on in your little British establishment. And it's a very, very fine line with your investors, sir. One moment you can do anything, they're blind and will love you regardless, but before you know it - bang! - they all claim they never had your shares, never planned investing, apples, moi?
p.s. and even if it was a genuine oversight now (ROTFL), you should have made absolutely, 200% sure if wouldn't happen. Did you?
I hear a distant bell tolling...
I read recently [citation needed] that last year, for the first time, Apple spent more on patent purchase and litigation than they did on R&D. Eventually people will work out that buying their computers from a firm of solicitors may not give them the best value for money.
(Note for Americans - a solicitor is a lawyer, not a whore. Err .. hang on a minute...)
Mind you, I'm not holding my breath - it's a very, very distant bell. There are few consumers more gullible than Apple-istas, and the supply of people with more money than sense appears to be ever-increasing.
Re: a solicitor is a lawyer, not a whore
You've got to admit that there's some overlap there.
One of them will do disgusting things for you that no one else will. The only real difference is that there are some things that even whores won't do.
Is this what they mean by 'non-obvious'?
I'd like to be able to say this is the kind of corporatist legalo-nonsense that comes with the special Fear you get when you get as big as Exxon Mobil, but in fact this display is straight from the Steve Jobs Big Book of Adventures for Boys.
Non-obvious, indeed.
Apple's behaviour is in my opinion contemptuous if not “in contempt of court”
I trust & hope that The Rt Hon. Professor Sir Robin Jacob is appraised of this & calls Apple’s solicitors & counsel to appear in front of him with their client’s management to answer what appears to be a prima facie contempt of court.
NJSS
Ho ho he he
I just tried this on my 19inch 1280*1024 monitor in portrait mode. THAT is a damn big iPad Mini advert and is clearly designed to get you to avoid seeing the statement. But also, the statement itself appears to be much larger with font-size: 14.63px;. They are being cheeky but it is hard to find a fault with it. We know it is morally wrong and they should just accept it and get it over with, but are they really in breach of the court order?
Just makes me hate Apple even more. Wish they'd grow up, or go under ffs
This topic is closed for new posts.
