Apple snuffs iPhone privacy complaint with Korean peanuts Apple has paid a South Korean user one million won to settle a complaint arising from unauthorized iPhone collection of that user's location information. This is the first time the Cupertino outfit has made such a payout. Although the amount involved is miniscule – ₩1m converts to just under $950 – what's important is the …
Seriously? A Korean lawyer won a privacy case for less than $1000 payout in a Korean court? Was it even worth his time? or the reporter's?
The South Koreans didn't even raid Apple's offices, unlike Google Korea who has had that privilege twice already. Sounds like there's a really strong case here.
"Apple Korea did not respond to the ruling. Following the decision, Apple Korea had refused to pay compensation. The court seized 1 million won from Apple Korea's bank account for payment of compensation to the complainant after deducting 2,000 won in remittance fees."
Having read this, I immediately had an image of Steve Jobs being told that Apple Korea had lost a lawsuit, and thereupon falling on the floor in a frothing-at-the-mouth tantrum, screaming "I won't pay I won't pay I won't pay!".
That a corporation in any country would simply *refuse* to pay court-ordered compensation defies belief. Or it *would*, if it weren't Apple.
It will be interesting to see how the Korean courts react to belittled in this manner.
It's very common for big companies to not appear in such small court cases. At the billable rate of their lawyers it's simple not worth their time to travel 200 miles to some city and defend the case properly.
You'll find plenty of examples, the most popular ones - that show up on the news - are people who foreclose on banks after similar judgments by default.
Whilst it is common for large companies not to bother turning up for court, I would've thought they do pay up when they lose.
Obviously in Korea they do things different, and just took the cash, but, over here I would've thought a summons to the directors for contempt of court would be a more likely outcome?
Well I'm afraid you thought wrong, as I said look up "forecloses on the bank" to see popular evidence of cases where companies ignored the request to pay up and people had to seek further legal help, around the world.
Also happens in shops etc, sometimes bailiffs go in because whatever court judgement got "lost in the post".
Let's say you're a (small) individual and I sue in small claims court. You don't show up and the judge awards me victory by default. You also don't pay. It's fine, you don't go to jail over that.
I then ask the court to contact you to force you make payment. You still don't pay. OK, I ask the court to send in the bailiffs. You don't let them in, etc, again it's well within your rights.
But I know you have a loaded bank account, so I tell that to the court. Court agrees with the asset seize and orders your bank to pay me directly from your account. Just like this case.
It works for individuals and big companies.
I see nothing in the original article to indicate that this was a "small claims" court of some sort. Even if it was, then it is *still* quite brazen, and pointless, of Apple to refuse to pay a court-ordered award - or maybe simply pointless, if it is as easy to collect an award from a large company with many assets as it is here (in the US).
If it was not a small claims court, then it *is* brazen. Courts tend to look at such behaviour as if it were a species of lese majesty. A bit surprising that they were not found in contempt of court, but then again, I suppose that the court might well be satisfied with the award having been successfully collected.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
