blame your own megalomania, stupidity and greed! Hope, you'll keep fucking yourself in a similar manner many times more in the future.
Both thumbs up to the sane judges!
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 …
blame your own megalomania, stupidity and greed! Hope, you'll keep fucking yourself in a similar manner many times more in the future.
Both thumbs up to the sane judges!
"By now the fire was catching hold and the smell of melting plastic was plainly detectable, but the point of no return may well have been when Mr Carr produced an article from the highly respected online forum The Register (motto: "Biting the hand that feeds IT") commenting on the statement published by Apple,the headline of which read (or perhaps screamed) “APPLE: SCREW YOU, BRITS, everyone else says Samsung copied us….. But we will apologise because the judge said we had to”. While that in itself was not accurate (Apple was not required by the Court of Appeal to apologise) this probably simply confirmed the conclusions which the judges had already reached regarding the overall impression created by the statement. So a well-timed can of petrol, thrown on to the bonfire by Mr Carr, ensured that the nicely warming bonfire turned into a total conflagration."
I like it how the most important part of El Reg are considered the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS HEADLINES and the forums.
Wow, a judge's decision I agree with. Whoda thunk it.
If Judge Jacob was so flippant as to say "Samsung can't be infringing Apple's iPad design because it's not as cool", I don't see how he can complain when Apple post in their apology "Samsung doesn't infringe our patent with their tablet because the Judge says it's not as cool as our iPad".
I mean, he did say it didn't he. It's on record. Apple would be misleading their customers if they didn't point it out. What's his problem?
He didn't actually say it that way.. read the judgement before you comment on it...
The problem, even if he did say it, was that it was in no way any part of the holding or ruling on the case. Such a simple thing, and so hard for some to understand. To say that anyone Apple would hire to represent them can't tell the difference between a casual remark and a decision from the bench would be an insult to the brain-dead. The judge also could have ordered a pastrami sandwich while off the record and it would have had no place in any description or analysis of the ruling. You guys are a pleasure to read - opinionated, bright, funny, well-rounded and full of unexpected knowledge in many areas, but boy, there sure are some klunkers that periodically slouch their way in. You don't have to agree, but at least try to pretend you thought about it first, if only to allow the rest of us to imagine that all that money for public education isn't going directly into the toilet.
"I mean, he did say it didn't he. It's on record."
No he didn't.
No it's not.
Wrong Judge, for a start.
I'm not sure what the problem is - Apple were ordered to put up the court ruling and they did
thats the first paragraph .
They then quote from the judgement against them - did they misquote the Judge ? Apparently not. Its the Judges statement and quite frankly this must have been the best lose that apple could have had - the Judge says how lovely Apple's stuff is and how Samsung's stuff isn't as cool and therefore not a close copy. Samsung must have been really happy when that ruling came down!
Surely if that is the Judges opinion on which he made his ruling then apple have the right to quote it alongside the verdict. Really, did anyone expect anything else.
as for the other paragraphs quoting their wins in other jurisdiction - cheeky but also truth.
Apples posting has to be the only funny thing in this whole patent fiasco
If Samsung had lost the case, been ordered to put this kind of statement on their website and pulled the same tricks - cherry-picked favourable comments from the judge, and a concluding paragraph that contradicts the outcome of the case, wouldn't they deserve a kicking from judges and commentards alike?
Of course - that is the point. This order was not a test of Apple's sense of humor, and certainly not a wish by any of the judges to exercise theirs (I believe American judges largely have their senses of humor surgically removed upon ascension to the bench), but an attempt to actually get a specific result. Apple quite intentionally showed that they did not believe they had to produce that result. That misapprehension has been corrected. I have no doubt that the judges quite honestly hope they will not have to go back for any additional correction. If so, there will be no happy campers.
"I'm not sure what the problem is - Apple were ordered to put up the court ruling and they did"
The Judgement also specified WHY Apple had to put up the ruling (to clear up confusion et al), which the statement is clearly in breach of: To the 'man in the street' it is not clear, and it appears to be saying that 'The English Court is wrong' and 'the judgement doesn't extend out of the UK, because Germany disagreed' (which is also wrong: It supersedes as a judgement).
When a Judge lays out his judgement and the reasoning and intention behind it, it's contempt of court to weasel-word around the first part while completely ignoring the intent. We don't use Civil Law in this country where 'it's what the book says': We use law as interpreted by a degree of common sodding sense (hard to credit sometimes, but essentially true). And common sense clearly shows that Apple were doing their best to making it clear that in the EU the Samsung device does not infringe on the Apple one.
Buying very expensive lawyers only gets you so far in the legal system. The biggest favour you can do yourself in Court is not pi$$ing of the Judge by wasting his time and lying your ass off to him: A lesson Apple clearly haven't learned.
"wouldn't they deserve a kicking from judges and commentards alike?"
Yup. And I'd have happily been there dishing it out.
It's not the fact that it's a particular tech company that annoys/excites me: It's the fact that they're wasting the fucking time of the court and ignoring the judgement of the Courts. As someone who generally respects the laws of the country, I find it pretty insulting. If I thumbed my nose at a Judgement, I wouldn't get away with it, so why should Apple arrogantly do so?
Obviously, putting up a show as part of that powerful Apple image.
Known as bull*hit to some.
"Judge Jacob said:
I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this."
I'll tell you why Mr Judge. It's because apple are arrogant bellends and wanted to stick two fingers up at your authority. You should've had them executed there and then.
Seems another judge is getting pretty sick and fed up of Apple's pathetic whining:
Thanks for that - I hadn't seen it before. Interesting that Apple would make the representation that a sheet of paper that says applications for Android can be had at one location, and applications from Apple may be had at another, is accused of intentionally misleading a reader that the two are the same. Oh, I know that the argument really points to use of the term "AppStore" and that Apple accuses Amazon of trying to mislead consumers into believing that the service is the same in each location, but that's a very uphill battle. Refreshing to see a common-sense approach to such arguments. I have a feeling that Apple has much more to its argument than was presented in the article.
> I have a feeling that Apple has much more to its argument than was presented in the article.
I have a feeling Apple *needs* much more to its argument.
As to whether there is any more or not, ...
First having to apologize for shoddy software , then having to apologize for lying... what a sorry bunch!
I wonder how many Apple owners visit apple.co.uk 0.000001%
More Apple games...
"I wonder how many Apple owners visit apple.co.uk 0.000001%"
Actually, it's 0% - as they now have .co.uk immediately re-direct to .com/uk/
Can't wait to see what the judge does about that...
"Actually, it's 0% - as they now have .co.uk immediately re-direct to .com/uk/"
Strangely enough, the link is also on the page at apple.com/uk
Apple did what I expected of them. Attempt to minimize the UK damage. The quoting of the judge was perfect. If the judge cannot issue a clearly stated order( as to eliminate confusion) then the judge should be replaced, or at least undergo remedial judicial order writing 101. I would have thought that Apple would have had an apology on the apple.co.uk site but that site would have no links to apple.com, but place a cookie one the user's computer so that when someone checked out apple.com after visiting apple.co.uk , they got a page full of acerbic digs at the UK justice system.
> Apple did what I expected of them.
I may seem, however, that's totally irrelevant to the case on hand because no-one cares what you expect of Apple.
Final paragraph of the Apple/Samsung ruling on Apples' own website. F*ckwits! They are sooo gonna get the Judges backs up!
"However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."
Here's to a contempt of court charge.
Fanbois need not bother to reply. Your points are tainted by your emotional attachment. Sorry.
Eh? How is a statement of fact "contempt of court"?
Seriously, do you even have a clue how the law actually works in the UK? I suspect not.
Apple will have written that apology statement on the advice of their UK lawyers. If Apple's UK lawyers – who will be very expensive lawyers indeed – let this through, they presumably have a damned good reason for doing so. Not least, because that very paragraph highlights the inconsistency in how cases like these are tried around the world.
If IP law is to survive, it needs to adapt to changes in its context. Right now, the fact that Samsung can be fined $1bn+ in one country, while it's let off for being "uncool" in another, is really not helpful for global trade. It makes economies of scale much harder to achieve if you have to modify your product for random nation states.
It also means you need to retain an army of lawyers in every nation you intend to sell to. That's a lot of lawyers. Suddenly, your legal department becomes a major cost centre and that's bad for business.
Consider, too, that the original case was over Samsung devices running the 1.x and 2.x Android releases, not the current releases of that OS. Only a blind imbecile could claim that Android, back then, wasn't basically a flagrant knock-off of iOS.
Fundamentally, none of this litigation helps Apple. Some of it is simply legally-mandated (yes, it really is) IP protection, but there's clearly an element of politics here. They're highlighting major flaws in current legal systems the world over. When it takes longer than the product's entire shelf-life just to get your day in court, what's the bloody point of going through such motions? Apple had no chance of stopping Samsung's products being sold and they damned well knew it. So why go through the pantomime of a full court case?
That such legal disputes can drag on for so long in an industry known for rapid change is itself a major point of contention, but most of all, it reveals a number of major weaknesses in national legal systems: they're just not fit for purpose any longer. Major changes are needed.
Apple didn't start this tit-for-tat cycle of litigation. They could easily have settled out of court (or even just bought the plaintiff outright); they certainly have the money. That they haven't done so implies there's something else going on here.
This isn't business. It's politics.
> Suddenly, your legal department becomes a major cost centre and that's bad for business.
Seriously, have you just discovered that?
> Apple didn't start this tit-for-tat cycle of litigation. They could easily have settled out of court (or even just bought the plaintiff outright); they certainly have the money.
Wait, what? Apple buys Samsung what. The hell?
> This isn't business. It's politics.
You mean Apple selflessly highlights problems with the current IP regime? Well, some people believe there are aliens in US army fridges, so who knows?
Sean Timarco Baggaley:
Apple categorically DID start this tit-for-tat cycle; trying to pretend otherwise is just foolish.
As to the bald assertion that early Samsung Android devices were a knock off, (a) not really, but let's pretend they were, and (b) iOS is, itself, a collection of knock-offs of earlier work, including fundamentally AT&T's Unix: Unix was "knocked off" as BSD, which as "knocked off" as iOS.
That's the crux of all this: someone is trying to argue that there is some magic point before which copying is fine and indeed innovative (i.e. Apple's copying), and after which it isn't (i.e. anyone who copied Apple).
Sure, we all know that every single manufacturer of mobile devices looked at the iPhone and the iPad and said "Those are the ones to beat!". But so what? Doesn't every car manufacturer look at the competition and say something similar?
At the end of the day, you're conclusion is fundamentally backwards: this isn't politics, it's business using politics (and the legal system, and notably PR) to try to maintain a competitive advantage. Apple has made a strategic decision that their business model will be based on great PR, flashy products (with even more great PR), and vicious litigation specifically designed to intimidate and damage their rivals. We've seen this sort of behavior before (Hi, SCO).
So you say "Consider, too, that the original case was over Samsung devices running the 1.x and 2.x Android releases, not the current releases of that OS. Only a blind imbecile could claim that Android, back then, wasn't basically a flagrant knock-off of iOS"
About Apple Wikipedia says "The iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad run an operating system known as iOS (formerly iPhone OS). It is a variant of the same Darwin operating system core that is found in Mac OS X. Also included is the "Core Animation" software component from Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard. Together with the PowerVR hardware (and on the iPhone 3GS, OpenGL ES 2.0), it is responsible for the interface's motion graphics."
About Android Wikipedia says "Android consists of a kernel based on the Linux kernel 2.6 and Linux Kernel 3.x (Android 4.0 onwards), with middleware, libraries and APIs written in C and application software running on an application framework which includes Java-compatible libraries based on Apache Harmony. Android uses the Dalvik virtual machine with just-in-time compilation to run Dalvik dex-code (Dalvik Executable), which is usually translated from Java bytecode."
About you I say, see my earlier comment about Fanbois. Emotionally tainted by your attachment.
P.S. I do own a MacBook Pro and it is wonderful! However, I'm not blind to the charms of others and as a result I have a Samsung NP700 and it is wonderful! So, I have a foot in both camps. It's called balance.
Apple already has lots of lawyers and their costs are already well factored in Apple's financial operating model based on recent history.
As for understanding UK/EU law then it is you that shows the lack of knowledge. The Court ordered an action and specified how Apple were to comply. Apple chose not to, hence they lost and had to amend their website.
I almost married a lawyer. This is totally unsurprising behaviour to me. Lawyers absolutely cannot stand to lose an argument under any circumstances whatsoever.
"He should make Apple use Flash as well"
Isn't that cruel and unusual punishment? Seriously, Flash really does need to be taken out and shot. (Not entirely the plaform's own fault, I know, but it does seem the worse offender lately for lousy McProgrammer types kludging bugs together to make something that maxes out the CPU just to achieve pointless visual gimmicks - putting it on the same level as Visual Basic...)
The print advert was in the FT today..
funnily enough it didn't have the extra bits, it was just as the judge ordered.. Now, I reckon this means someone has decided to run two different ones. Now why would you do that if you were confident of one? If that decision has been made, then doesn't that mean they knew of a problem, yet still were cheeky on the website ?
As for 'takes 14 days', well frankly it shouldn't take 48hrs either... Note how the website has changed anyway ( though the ruling is the same) and on the US site theres a ( no problem with this) link to Hurricane Sandy appeal fund.. Obviously that hasn't taken 14 days to do...
Of course the Apple statement was designed to confuse. They knew full well that the judge was sitting as an EU Community judge and his decision would be binding across the EU. To then reference the German decision which was made after this ruling is to obfuscate.
The judges have admonished the German ruling for not abiding by the sitting Community judge's decision. For Apple to make reference to the German decision and to also mention the US ruling (when one of the key the patents in question has been thrown out by the US patent office post jury result, that in turn will in all likelihood see the decision thrown out on appeal) is asinine, childish, but also not unexpected from Apple.
INB4 Apple patents online apologies.
The British judgment made no sense. The effectively said that because the Samsung was clunky even though it had a resemblance to the iPad it did not infringe on Apples design because it wasn't as "cool". Passing off similar looking but poorly functional goods is a technique often used in an attempt to avoid infringement of design copyright and it is usually effectively prosecuted. Street markets are full of such junk. Apple should appeal to the European court . They will win.
No, they'd lose.
Actually, I'm wrong, such an appeal wouldn't even be considered because there is no European court that does that.
You'll notice that Apple haven't appealed and they've had a long time to do so, because their lawyers also know this.
Samsung did not infringe the design in question. It's the end of the line. And no, it wasn't because the Apple product was "cooler", it was simply because Samsung's devices don't look like the registered design. Different shape, different buttons etc.
There is still other IP that they are each accused of infringing, but this one is proven and closed.
Let it lie or we are all f***ed, to put it mildly.
"The British judgment made no sense. The effectively said that because the Samsung was clunky even though it had a resemblance to the iPad it did not infringe on Apples design because it wasn't as "cool"."
That's not what it said at all. Read the actual judgement, instead of cherry-picked media snippets.
Also, it wasn't a 'British' judgement.
Crazy right-wing 'Merkin here who frequently gets verbally lynched for comments expressing those sentiments.
The Brits got this one right and I fully support them. If as other posters have noted he happened to be speaking/ruling for the whole EU community at the time: BONUS!
Not a good advert for Apple is it. "It looks purdy,and it's super fast software means you can turn out a 6 paragraph statement in just 14 days"
14 days to update a website?
Is this the one and only time Apple have not been able to dismiss the slow bits with the phrase "Sequences Shortened" ?
...I'd actually like Apple to withdraw from the UK market in protest. Literally take their toys and go home.
I do use some iDevices, and obviously consider future ones (though I skipped the iPhone 5 and iPad 4 / mini) but I also like popcorn and so would love to see the fallout of that action. It'd be interesting to see whether the government would take some action to retain Apple here; the judgement does seem to be excessive compared to previous examples of similar failed litigations.
Yes, I'd like to see that, too.
Demonstrate to all other customers around the world that "we leave your local market the next day we are inconvenienced by your local legal system".
It would have wonderful effect on sales of Apple stuff.
Sorry to the word we've been such a**holes, suing other companies over stupid things. We see now since we've lost cases in EU, Asia and Mexico that we are in the wrong. We won't sue over stupid things anymore. Go ahead and make rectangular phones with rounded edges, and make phones with icons, its fine we didn't invent them.
While we're here we're so sorry about our mishaps with our phones, Antennagate was our fault, we screwed up. Maps the me the CEO Tim Cook, I told people at apple to let it out sooner than it should have been. We're also sorry about Siri that it doesn't work like in the commercials, we'll take the ads down. Sorry we made the back of earlier iphones out of glass, they broke easily and scratched and sorry the new one scratches as well, and sorry about the iphone 5 camera.
We also stole the notification center from Android, we're glad they haven't sued us. We've stole numerous other things, lets let bygones be bygones.
The mac vs PC commercials were a lie, a spin to get more people to buy apple products. We feel mac OS is no better or worse than Windows.
We'll try and do better, and we'll try and care more about our customers. We know they are people and it was wrong to take advantage of them like we have. We'll make better products to show we are worthy to our fans and to show non-fans we can be nice and not evil.
Please forgive us, I the CEO got drunk with power and I see the error my ways.
Your post brought a smile to my face and I detest Apple, but...
...OS X most definitely is a *lot* better than Windows.
And thats your opinion. I think OS X and ios are the worse OS' I've used in a LONG time. Windows 7 and now Windows 8 blow OS X and ios out of the water IMO.
As of 11:30 (according to my nuclear powered clock) the UK Apple website has no apology at all now.
Having had some experience of courts (both sides) I can say that the Judges will go spare if their wishes get flouted. This will be phrased somewhat more modestly and carefully, but Contempt of Court is a fucking serious offence, newspaper editors tread a very fine line making sure they keep out of jail at times, but they know the score. Marketing twats at Apple may be all gung-ho but their lawyers WILL be advising these hipsters not to stick a finger up at the court as they will be hauled up and, if they don't drop their trousers quickly and take one for Apple, will be sent down for a few days. You do not piss the judges off.
This is so much fun. I really, really want Apple to defy the law and not do what the judges want.
The biggest thing to happen to iPad since the iPad (mini).
Just looked at the decision by the CoA and paragraphs 85 - 87 make interesting reading. These paragraphs lay out the nature of the publicity order. Apple has, so far, failed to comply with the order. Look on their website and you will see that quite clearly.
Also, paragraph 78 is equally interesting as it deals with the EU wide actions and agreements that Apple had made in respect but had failed to follow through.
I'm expecting yet more downvotes but the truth is the truth.
Sorry, forgot the link :-D
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018