×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

UK Court Sanctions Apple For Non-Compliance

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the hope-it-was-worth-it dept.

The Courts 217

drinkypoo writes "We've been following the story that Apple was ordered by a UK court to post an apology to Samsung both in newspapers and on Apple's UK website. After originally posting a non-apology and then hiding a real one, Apple finally complied. Now, PJ over at Groklaw reports on the ruling from the UK court itself, which condemns Apple's conduct in this matter. 'Since Apple did not comply with the order in its estimation, adding materials that were not ordered and in addition were "false," the judges ordered Apple to pay Samsung's lawyers' fees on an indemnity basis, and they add some public humiliation.' The judge wrote, 'Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. ... I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Standby in Three... Two... One.... (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41942475)

Cue the apple fanbois and their out of control apologetics.
This story just wouldnt be complete without their sqealing.

On a more serious note, I agree with the judge. This kind of change could have been implemented in less than one day. Apple probably just wanted more time to try to wrangle some legal way out of putting the directed message on their website in the manner proscribed.

You know what they say-- Tell a lie enough times, and you will begin to believe it yourself. That's the danger of using an RDF.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942519)

I bet that judge has a Nexus 7....

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (5, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | about 2 years ago | (#41942527)

Yah, it sounds like he would make the smart choice.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (-1, Troll)

craigminah (1885846) | about 2 years ago | (#41942677)

The irony is the anti-Apple fanboys got to this story first and seem at least as rabid as the pro-Apple fanbois.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (4, Funny)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 2 years ago | (#41942739)

But, the anti-Apple fanboys have valid arguments so what is your point?

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (1, Redundant)

craigminah (1885846) | about 2 years ago | (#41942919)

Just saying the anti-Apple fanbois spew just as much anti-Apple comments as the pro-Apple fanbois do pro-apple comments. I thought it was ironic and don't think it relevant if the underlying comment was on point or not (it was)...it was the fact he/she was cueing the pro-Apple mob when he already formed an anti-Apple mob (figuratively because torches and pitchfork combo sets don't go on sale until after Thanksgiving...unless you opt for the iTorch and the iPitchfork which will allow the user to prod and protest much more condescendingly).

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943407)

Just saying the anti-Apple fanbois spew just as much anti-Apple comments as the pro-Apple fanbois do pro-apple comments. I thought it was ironic and don't think it relevant if the underlying comment was on point or not (it was)...it was the fact he/she was cueing the pro-Apple mob when he already formed an anti-Apple mob (figuratively because torches and pitchfork combo sets don't go on sale until after Thanksgiving...unless you opt for the iTorch and the iPitchfork which will allow the user to prod and protest much more condescendingly).

With the crucial difference being that when we who are anti-Apple post how much Apple sucks and how they should die, (as a company,) we're RIGHT. The Apple fan is the man whose brains are so soft that they can ignore reality, and buy into the idea that Apple invented all the gadgets they stole from their betters, then polished. By the way, the iTorch costs 300 times what a real torch costs, and although it's made of a burnished aluminum-magnesium alloy, and has a perfectly smooth surface and the holes in the tip are so small that they're not visible to the naked eye, yet a flame flickers out of it looking almost as if the metal itself is on fire, which it isn't, and although it can be be controlled via an iPhone app, allowing the user to vary the size of the flame, color, rate of flicker, temperature, etc. it's still just a torch. Give me an old stick of wood with a piece of oil-soaked cloth wrapped around the head any day. The iPitchfork, I'll admit is a cool take on the pitch fork, and at $109.95 + 64.95 for Apple Care for iFarming iMplements, it's not that badly overpriced.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (4, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41943695)

As one who tends to be anti-apple-- though I wont deny some of their stuff is impressive-- Ill say most of my sentiment comes from the wild fanboyism. Im happy to have apple as a competitor, and producing the stuff they do. It gets me riled up when people come out of the woodworks making absurd endorsements of Apple products as if they are technically superior in all ways and a better value to boot.

If everyone was a bit more realistic and honest about their products, a lot of my issues with Apple would disappear.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942747)

Only to people who are so in love with the idea of moderacy that they'd probably tell us not to judge Nazi's so harshly.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (3, Funny)

boundary (1226600) | about 2 years ago | (#41943553)

I'll take Nazis over poor use of apostrophes any day.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (5, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41942769)

I wouldn't mind apple at all, if apple conducted itself in a manner that wasn't synonymous with being contrite cock gobblers.

Apple's ENTIRE business structure revolves around continual invocation of "The dick move". (We are apple. You want our shiny products! But---- If you want the shiny products, you have to do everything we say! If you dont, we'll break your, or rather, OUR, shiny product to stop your defiance.) [essentially. That and a whole lot more.]

If apple just made products and sold them like any other company, instead of trying to create a bullshit mystique and bullying every other product manufacturer and their own potential user base while lieing through their teeth about being innovative, I wouldnt have any problem with them, much like I dont have any problem with the dozens of other handset makers out there.

I dont have a boner for Google, or Motorola, or HTC, or Samsung, or any of the others. (and, contrary to your seemingly diametrically polarized world view, I actually DISLIKE google for a large number of reasons.)

I just dont like Apple, because Apple conducts itself like a total douche.

It bothers me greatly that such a large number of people are so beholden to Apple, that they would attempt to justify any action it takes, regardless of how horrendous it is, rather than make the personal admission that perhaps their devotion wasnt justified.

I was simply sarcastically pointing out that stories like this draw them out of the woodwork without fail to cast apologetic rhetoric in favor of their preferred tech company.

Companies don't deserve loyalty. They show us absolutely none. They deserve none of ours.

It is as simple as that.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (4, Insightful)

craigminah (1885846) | about 2 years ago | (#41942903)

I like some of Apple's products but also dislike their business practices and I think Steve Jobs was an asshole. I have no brand loyalty...whatever is a bood value gets my money.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943659)

This. I dislike Apple, Sony and a handful of large companies who have done shady shit over the years.

3 years ago, Apple had the best phone - hands down - so they got my money. Even tho I wasn't a fan of theirs, even then, I got the 3GS because it was the best phone.

In the three years since, they've released 3 minor updates (Better proc, screen, camera, etc... same stale OS... Wait... major issues with the OS - Siri, Maps, etc), while the rest of the industry has caught up and passed them (Android, and now Windows Phone. I bet BB10 passes them too, although I think they are DOA).

The only reason people buy Apple now is familiarity, and fashion... and the fashion statement has grown stale since you can buy them in Walmart now.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943169)

Who are all the fanbois you mention who defend apple in such a way? I have never met them and certainly do not see them in this thread. Apple has fanbois because many people enjoy apple products and some court order in the UK will not change that. It is not a matter of defending apple... most people just do not care.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (5, Interesting)

kodekn (2620969) | about 2 years ago | (#41943349)

I agree with you completely. I used to be a mac user for over 15 years, but in the end I just couldn't bring myself to give anymore of my money to Apple or for Jobs for the arrogance and the overall assholeness. It was very liberating to finally to move first to Ubuntu and then to Windows 7 (I use software that's only Windows and Mac) and find that Windows 7 is a great OS. OS X feels in someways suffocating, and perhaps partly it's because of the strict guidelines of the GUI, but probably much more because of the attitude of Apple and of its rabid fanbase.

Using Apple's products is like being in jail all the time, where other inmates are constantly telling with bright eyes how lucky they are to be there. Granted, I still think OS X is in some ways better (e.g. multitasking), but after few years of using Windows 7 I don't miss OS X at all. And I haven't been interested to buy any other Apple's products either. Of course Apple is now with iphones and ipads much bigger, and its userbase is much much larger than only with macs, and probably overall the userbase is not that brand faithful anymore. Apple itself is just getting worse.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (4, Interesting)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41943721)

Some companies do show loyalty-- for instance, off the top of my head, I can mention that Logitech, AMD, and Antec have been awesome to me whenever I have called them about broken or missing parts. Each of them has sent me no-postage, no hassle, no cost replacements for parts that went broken or missing. In AMD's case, they replaced an OC'd processor with non-stock mods and a cracked die-- with no questions. With Logitech, they replaced 2 G9 mouses-- one had had its cord eaten by a rabbit, the other stopped clicking. The rabbit-eaten one was upgraded to a G9x, again without cost.

So I will disagree with you regarding loyalty. They had financial incentive to be loyal-- as now I highly recommend those products from a customer service standpoint-- but they treated me well which is why I treat them well.

at least (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942827)

At least you've found a way to be more rabid than either.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942729)

On a more serious note, I agree with the judge. This kind of change could have been implemented in less than one day

Bullshit.

Their web design team is forced to use iPads.

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (5, Funny)

yacc143 (975862) | about 2 years ago | (#41942851)

You sure? My Apple-logic(tm) that would make super productive, as the iPad is clearly superior to a mere PC for any use, ....

Re:Standby in Three... Two... One.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943765)

Typed on my iPad

Not this time, dude. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943333)

Of course it took them two weeks. Don't you know Apple's MO? They take what someone else made, then spend a while polishing it to a brilliant luster, then pretend they invented the damned thing, let their version sink in, get a few million copies to all their sycophantic, empty-headed fans, cult-members, etc., then sue someone else for "copying" them.

It took that time much time because they first had to wade through other, better apologies than they could come up with on their own, and try to figure out how to make them look slick and futuristic. You can't do that in a day, bro. It takes weeks at least, to polish a turd like that. THAT'S WHY. Shortly, they will seek a patent on a method or technique for making other people believe, using printed words, that you are experiencing sorrow and/or regret or remorse for some action you may have taken in the past.

From the summary:

I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple

No, it's very typical. Apple has no integrity. They steal from others, polish to a high luster, sell it to morons, who stare at each new shiny turd from crApple and say to themselves in hushed tones, "oooh... sparkly!" Then, reality in Cupertino so distorted that they believe their own bullshit, they start suing other people for doing something similar, even if those people have never heard of Apple or seen their products, or even if they were first. Like when they stole the idea for the GUI and the mouse-driven interface, then tried to pretend they invented it, just because they removed a couple buttons from the mouse, then sued someone else for doing exactly what they did. So basically, they're fucking shitheaded assholes who have never had an original idea in their lives. They're the worst kind of thieves, hypocrites who get mad when someone tries to steal an idea they stole first, or worse, they get mad when someone whose idea they've stolen tries to compete with them. Jobs was an embarrassment to all those hokey eastern philosophies he claimed to have learned from when he was out finding himself while failing to fulfill his obligations to his family and his kid. What a piece of dog shit he was. The world really is better off.

Anyway, I really hope Apple will just get banned in the UK, as a punishment. They are ignoring court orders, then playing games with them, rather than complying. Who the fuck do they think they are, Microsoft? You can't just ignore what a court tells you like that. Hey, UK... Apple is saying they don't have to obey your little Mickey Mouse laws. Are you okay with that? Are you going to take that? Apple is saying your court is just a little bitch that they don't have to listen to. Are you seriously going to let them flout your laws in this way? Only a bunch of fags would allow that...

: ) Sorry, just really hoping the judge in this case will pull his thumb out of his ass and slam Apple like they so richly deserve. : )

its ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942485)

theyre getting owned by samsung.

they are fucked anyway... already samsung is outselling them and they are about to release the galaxy note2 which is even better than the s3 with over double the performance

http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxynote/note2/index.html?type=find

The UK judge (5, Interesting)

santax (1541065) | about 2 years ago | (#41942487)

Should force Apple to remove it's homepage with one the Judge himself sees fit. I imagine scaled fonts up to size 340 that tell everyone: HI WE ARE BASTARDS AND LIED AND LOST ABOUT IT IN COURT. SAMSUNG PRODUCTS ACTUALLY ARE MORE VALUE FOR THE MONEY. Something like that. Just to make an example that you don't fuck with a court-ruling. Because what Apple did and still is doing (scrolling to see the court-ruling) is pissing on our all. Our laws, fairness, and rights. Apple is pissing on them and no-one in their right mind should accept that. Especially not a judge. Now fanbois, go ahead. Mod me down, but you know it won't make the truth go away.

Re:The UK judge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943257)

I thought you were joking... people like you and the judge need to grow up.

Re:The UK judge (5, Interesting)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#41943457)

I would just order the Apple UK domain name to be redirected to a government server webpage explicitly stating what I wanted to say with a link at the bottom to the actual Apple server.

Re:The UK judge (1)

santax (1541065) | about 2 years ago | (#41943621)

That probably would be perfect indeed.

Apple and their lawyers were lucky (5, Insightful)

speardane (905475) | about 2 years ago | (#41942491)

not too be in more serious trouble for contempt of court

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (-1, Flamebait)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#41942585)

That's more a matter of opinion. They arguably did the job the first time as I don't believe there was anything that said they couldn't mention the other stuff. The judge isn't stupid and knows he risks his own reputation at the very least if he goes off on a power trip.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (5, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 2 years ago | (#41942617)

They arguably did the job the first time as I don't believe there was anything that said they couldn't mention the other stuff.

When a judge tells you to do something, you do it. No more, no less. Apple and their lawyers were trying to be cute, and in the end still got off a lot easier than they deserved. Turn off the reality distortion field and get some fresh air.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (5, Funny)

TWX (665546) | about 2 years ago | (#41942659)

I have an idea. How about the court holds the lawyers and the titular head of Apple Computer in the United Kingdom in jail on contempt charges until the apology is properly worded and displayed? Call it, "Third Time's The Charm"...

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942733)

I guess they can get away with this in a UK court but in the US, such a ruling would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

There is no way in the US that a judge could gag you from mentioning *other* court cases or for that matter prevent you from stating your own opinion contrary to the judge's.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (1, Insightful)

yacc143 (975862) | about 2 years ago | (#41942879)

Well, lying as such is not covered by the 1st Amendment. Especially if done in the course of commercial activities.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942941)

Mentioning another court case is not lying. Maybe you or the judge disagrees with the other court case, but the existence of those other cases and their opinions are *fact*. How can you be prohibited from mentioning those court cases?

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (5, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41943289)

Because the intent is clearly to undermine that latest ruling. It's almost like being contemptuous, if you will, of the court. Maybe there ought to be rules against that...

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (2)

ooshna (1654125) | about 2 years ago | (#41943557)

To play Devil's Advocate wasn't Samsung barred from showing phone designs they made that predated the iPhone? How can you be prohibited from mentioning those designs?

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (5, Informative)

FromWithin (627720) | about 2 years ago | (#41943739)

Did you even read the on this, Mr. Ignorance? [bailii.org]

Apple lied. I shall quote the ruling here:

21. I turn to the last paragraph. I do not think the order as made precluded any addition to the required notice if that addition had been true and did not undermine the effect of the required notice. But I do consider that adding false and misleading material was illegitimate. For by adding such material the context of the required notice is altered so that it will be understood differently.

22. Here what Apple added was false and misleading. I turn to analyse it. The first sentence reads:

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.

That is false in the following ways:

(a) "Regarding the same patent." No patent of any kind has been involved in Germany or here, still less "the same patent."

(b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published.

(c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the 10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law. But the statement is likely to be read as of more general application.

23. The second sentence reads:

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.

That is misleading by omission. For the US jury specifically rejected Apple's claim that the US design patent corresponding to the Community Design in issue here was infringed. The average reader would think that the UK decision was at odds with that in the US. Far from that being so, it was in accordance with it.

24. The third sentence reads:

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 wilfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

This is calculated to produce huge confusion. The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying, which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying. There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true.

25. The reality is that wherever Apple has sued on this registered design or its counterpart, it has ultimately failed. It may or may not have other intellectual property rights which are infringed. Indeed the same may be true the other way round for in some countries Samsung are suing Apple. But none of that has got anything to do with the registered design asserted by Apple in Europe. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (0)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#41942953)

What 1st Amendment? This is a business in a UK court over a UK matter, US law has nothing to do with it.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (5, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41942899)

I would wager you are very wrong. Mos certainly US courts have ordered similar sanctions and most certainly defying the court order would lead to increasing sanctions. When you lose a case, civil or criminal, you lose a good many protections as they pertain to the case. That is the underlying notion of due process.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943011)

You would lose that wager.

Show me the other court cases where a judge has ordered an individual or corporation *not* to mention another court case outside of the court room. In other words, when has a company been forced to not only issue a specific apology, but been ordered not to mention court cases that contradict that particular court.

Certainly, gag orders have been put in place to protect the integrity of an *ongoing* trial, as 1st Amendment cases have been interpreted to have limitations within certain parameters (the various tests set out by the SCOTUS, go look them up if you're interested). But that's not what this is.

When you lose a case, civil or criminal, you lose a good many protections as they pertain to the case

I won't go into a long discussion on this, but in criminal cases you are correct but incorrect in civil cases. A judge cannot issue an order preventing you from stating that another court somewhere else disagrees with that court.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (4, Informative)

Karzz1 (306015) | about 2 years ago | (#41943117)

I won't go into a long discussion on this, but in criminal cases you are correct but incorrect in civil cases. A judge cannot issue an order preventing you from stating that another court somewhere else disagrees with that court.

I am fairly certain you are wrong in this context. If you read the judgement, the other cases either did not pertain to the same thing Apple suggested or the case had been reversed/dropped. Blatantly misrepresenting the order would certainly fall under contempt in a U.S. court, along with most courts.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41943747)

There is no way in the US that a judge could gag you from mentioning *other* court cases or for that matter prevent you from stating your own opinion contrary to the judge's.

I've got a good idea, why don't you get involved in a court case and try just that. While you're at it, dance a little jig in the courtroom. Let us know how that works out for you.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942819)

They arguably did the job the first time as I don't believe there was anything that said they couldn't mention the other stuff.

When a judge tells you to do something, you do it. No more, no less. Apple and their lawyers were trying to be cute, and in the end still got off a lot easier than they deserved. Turn off the reality distortion field and get some fresh air.

If anyone is caught in a reality distortion field here, it is YOU. You're absolutely right. When a judge tells you to do something, you do it.

However, defining HOW you go about doing "it" is the very fucking basis as to why lawyers are even employed. Get a grip already on how legal interpretation works. Being "cute" or not has nothing to do with the fact that if a judge wanted something done, he should have been as specific and exacting in his instructions as necessary, as he knows damn well how the law can (and will) interpret it.

And if any undue attention (whoring) were to come to this judge, it would likely be questioning whether he knows how to give instructions or not.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (2)

bhagwad (1426855) | about 2 years ago | (#41942961)

You can easily find yourself in contempt of court if you try to be funny. If Samsung paid Apple in coins, they would be in contempt of court regardless of the fact that they paid up. You don't go fooling around with a court order trying to "one up" the court.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942657)

That's more a matter of opinion. They arguably did the job the first time as I don't believe there was anything that said they couldn't mention the other stuff.

In much the same way that if your boss said "I'd like you to put this message on our web site" you might choose to put the exact message he asked for together with contradictory information stating the exact opposite of what he wanted and he'd be happy because you'd done exactly what he'd asked.

The only problem is that nobody is that stupid. Not you, not your boss, not the judge. Why would anyone pretend that doing that would be accepted?

Anything you say may be taken down in evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942661)

Anything you say may be taken down in evidence and used in a court of law against you.

Isn't that the old style warning you got when talking to the police.

Not "Talk any old shite on top of what you need to say".

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (5, Informative)

thebjorn (530874) | about 2 years ago | (#41942703)

According to the judge, what they added was false, misleading, and did not convey the intent of the order -- and he analyzes each added statement in depth. In addition they used too much time to comply when it came to newspapers, where the judge expected "earliest possible time" to mean the next couple of days and not a month. As a punishment they now have to pay _all_ of Samsung's legal expenses (i.e. not only legal fees), they have to keep the notice up for much longer, and they have to put on their home page that they lied in their previous attempt. You don't have to agree with a judge's order, but you do have to follow it. Judges tend to get pissed off if you try to worm yourself around an order -- not something that should be news for Apple's capable legal team.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41942787)

Most people have enough sense not to defy, directly or via playing games, the direct order of a judge. Judges in most jurisdictions, and most certainly in the British and American tradition, are afforded wide powers to force compliance. The Court must be obeyed, otherwise it loses all credibility.

I can only assume Apple overruled or ignored rather lawyers, who most certainly would tell them that playing this kind of game was only going to lead to more severe sanctions.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (2)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#41943549)

Apple is pulling the same kinds of bullshit Microsoft pulled before the anti-trust trial. In the age of too big to fail and when the US President points to Apple as an example of a a successful company during the elections they are so full of hot air they are probably floating higher in their gas balloon than the Red Bull Stratos guy did.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (1, Interesting)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41943851)

I can only assume Apple overruled or ignored rather lawyers, who most certainly would tell them that playing this kind of game was only going to lead to more severe sanctions.

I sense the limp wrist of Tim Cook pulling these strings. By the way, Apple has lost $150 billion of market value in the eight weeks since the iPhone 5 introduction.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943171)

That "legal team" works for a living there, and they'll meet that particular judge, not to mention his friends pretty damned often, I stronlgy doubt any lawyer would intentionally antagonize a judge if they planned to have a long career.

No, I'd say, since they're behaving like this all over the world, it's Apples management to blame.

Thinking about it, it's a poor idea for Apple too, since it seems they like to visit courtrooms all too often.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41942725)

Oh nonsense. The intent of the ruling is clear, and continually defying a judge will lead to ever greater sanctions.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943493)

Lol. You don't mess with a judge dude. They are actually quite lucky. A different judge would send them to jail for contempt of court.

Re:Apple and their lawyers were lucky (4, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | about 2 years ago | (#41942783)

I think the judge has not yet said the final word. This sanction is only for the delayed newspaper ads and the non-compliant website ad. When they find the message in the UK homepage is specially designed to make the message invisible except after scrolling; the judge might impose more sanctions and maybe even fines. The subsequent javascript edit does not hide the fact that the UK page is differently designed compared to other pages.Apple's mischief has not stopped, yet...

Enlighten me (0)

m0s3m8n (1335861) | about 2 years ago | (#41942501)

I admit I am ignorant in this case beyond the headlines. Did the judge order the exact wording of the apology? Did the judge order the exact location on a web site that the apology must appear? Did the judge order the exact page of newspapers the apology must appear? Also, we're the quotes attributed to the judge not accurate?

Re:Enlighten me (1, Insightful)

jsepeta (412566) | about 2 years ago | (#41942525)

Apple doesn't think they're in the wrong. other courts judged in their favor.

Re:Enlighten me (1)

TWX (665546) | about 2 years ago | (#41942685)

Other courts have rule in their favor, but their jury trial ruling in the US is itself in jeopardy based on undisclosed prior legal action on the part of a member of that jury against the defendant in that case, so Apple might find that verdict tossed with either a new trial ordered or else with a new ruling from the judge. This UK finding with the website order could well complicate that American suit.

Re:Enlighten me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942699)

In relation to products in question, that is Galaxy Tabs, other courts, except for Germany, didn't judge in their favor, and german court's ruling deflated when Apple tried to make it EU-wide and higher court decided Tab doesn't infringe.

So yeah, they kinda lied about US court decision and the point of apology was to show there's no injunction standing against Tabs - IIRC, they pressed on european retailers to stop selling them after getting injunction from Germany - just like in US after getting preliminary injunction there, despite this being rather questionable from legal point of view.

Re:Enlighten me (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41943877)

Apple doesn't think they're in the wrong.

Al Capone didn't think he was in the wrong.

Re:Enlighten me (2, Informative)

mamas (468872) | about 2 years ago | (#41942557)

In a nutshell, Apple lied.

But instead of forcing someone else to write it down for you, which you'll have to read anyway, why not go read beyond the headlines?
Here, I'll spare the googling trouble for you this time:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121109130213229 [groklaw.net]

Re:Enlighten me (5, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41942569)

It essentially boils down to Apple trying to "superficially" comply, while actually completely disregarding the purpose behind the order.

For an example, there was recently a sting operation set up to catch a major traffic offender, who routinely drove on the sidewalk to evade stopped traffic from a routine school bus stop that made the news this last week. [huffingtonpost.com]

As part of her punishment, she has to wear a sign declaring that she is an idiot, and that only an idiot would try to pass a school bus while driving a car, by driving on the sidewalk.

The intent behind the order is very clear, and directly tied to the heart of the infraction it was proscribed for.

If the woman had followed after Apple's example, she would have worn the sign alright, but it would have given counter examples as to why driving on the sidewalk like that was perfectly justifiable, and made allusions that the judge that made her wear the sign was mistaken in his judgement, and that 2 other judges in similar cases (which were improperly conducted for different reasons, or later invalidated in their rulings) concurred with her point of view.

Re:Enlighten me (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942691)

OK, no doubt this will be modded to oblivion as a pedantic post by an AC. So be it.
You use the word "proscribed". I do not think you actually meant that. I suspect that you meant "prescribed".

To save you all the google time, here is an explanation:
http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/prescribe_proscribe.htm

The meanings are different. Really. Almost opposites.

Yes, I know language changes, and so forth. This, however, is an example of the way meanings can be completely missed.
It's called "malapropism".

Another example would be "uninterested" versus "disinterested" - but I've pretty much given up on that one.

Actual impoverishment of the language is not the same as shifting meaning.

Re:Enlighten me (4, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41943433)

I admit the mistake. It is however, one that is hard for me to break. :(

When I read "Prescribe", I see it as a compound of the prefix "Pre", meaning "comes before", and "Scribe", meaning "to write or mark."

So, "prescribe" means "Written in advance". (Such as with a doctor's script. He writes down the course of your treatment in advance of your receiving it. A prescription.)

When I see "Proscribe", I see the prefix "Pro", (antonym of "Con") meaning "In favor of / supporting". (Nevermind that 'conscribe' is not a word, or at least not a proper word.)

So, "proscribe" means "Written in support of." (Like with an editorial, citing a proposed course of action; a proscribed action.)

I accept that this is not conserved by actual definition of those words. It is simply a malfunction in my ability to parse language I guess.

As the site linked to points out, this is a very common mistake, for pretty much exactly the reasoning I pointed out. I understand that English has many special exceptions, but "proscribe" is particularly cumbersome in that respect.

I will however, endeavor to correct my usage.

Re:Enlighten me (-1, Troll)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41942715)

If the woman had followed after Apple's example....

Your analogy is quite good. But one thing that disturbs me is that the judge keeps referring to Apple's "false" statements in the original page posted, because the original page posted contained nothing but the summary that Apple had lost the case, quotes from the ruling, and some facts about other cases. There was absolutely nothing false, and that the judge keeps trying to pretend that there was, is to me a red flag warning that he is no longer dealing in the facts of the case and the ruling, but trying to deny his own words.

Re:Enlighten me (5, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41942915)

There was absolutely nothing false

As per TFA

22. Here what Apple added was false and misleading. I turn to analyse it. The first sentence reads:

        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.

That is false in the following ways:

(a) "Regarding the same patent." No patent of any kind has been involved in Germany or here, still less "the same patent."

(b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published.

(c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the 10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law. But the statement is likely to be read as of more general application.

Re:Enlighten me (1)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | about 2 years ago | (#41943405)

The judge laid out his reasoning about why the additions were false and misleading in the opinion. Rather than just call him wrong, and accuse him of "pretending," how about you provide some reasoning, analysis, or evidence that he was wrong. Otherwise, we're left with a bunch of facts and reasoning laid out in a logical fashion on one side, and some guy on the internet saying "Nuh uh!" on the other.

Re:Enlighten me (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about 2 years ago | (#41943065)

And she would have worn the sign under a sweater.

Re:Enlighten me (5, Interesting)

dave562 (969951) | about 2 years ago | (#41942601)

The heart of the issue is that the judge told Apple to "clarify" any misconceptions that Samsung had violated the specific patent in question. The judge was concerned that consumers would be confused about whether or not buying a non-Apple device would lead to problems down the road.

What Apple did is glossed over the apology, and then went on to mention all of their other litigation against Samsung in other country and touted the positive (for Apple) verdicts in those countries. It was basically a marketing piece that said in short, "The judge is wrong, Samsung really is stealing our ideas, look at all of these other countries who think so."

The judge called them out on their BS and told them to comply with the court order to "clarify" the misconceptions. Apple spouted some BS about how it was going to take 14 days to change the message. The judge told them that was a load of crap. Apple then changed the message, but made it much less prominent than the first one they posted. Again, the judge called them out on it.

In short, Apple's legal team is the same as legal teams all over the place. They are a bunch of assholes who think they are smarter than everyone else and will do whatever they think they can get away with.

I dislike lawyers intensely. I really do. I never realized how bad they are until I worked with them. We provide services to them. We are on their side. They still treat us like crap, like we are the adversary. They are constantly trying to trip us up over the slightest things. It's like their brains are hard wired to press any perceived advantage and exploit even the slightest gap. They want systems with five nines up time, yet they are the cheapest, tightest, penny pinching bastards on the planet. I really think they demand the insane SLA so that they have something to dispute with the intention of extracting concessions on the monthly fees. It is to the point where I will not get on the call with a client unless a member of our legal team is on the call. When I do get on the call, I give short, brief and extremely limited answers. I do not explain in detail. I do not think outside the box. I take everything literally. It sucks because I have to become a different person when I deal with them. I cannot even offer constructive solutions because then it turns into a game of, "Why are you only thinking about this now? Why did you not predict this need of ours a year ago? That sounds negligent to me."

Re:Enlighten me (4, Insightful)

Local ID10T (790134) | about 2 years ago | (#41942759)

I admit I am ignorant in this case beyond the headlines. Did the judge order the exact wording of the apology? Did the judge order the exact location on a web site that the apology must appear? Did the judge order the exact page of newspapers the apology must appear? Also, we're the quotes attributed to the judge not accurate?

The thing with judges is that they believe in their own authority. And they don't like it when someone fucks with them. (**Suddenly a mis-quote from "Pulp Fiction" is running through my head...**)

When a judge tells you to do something, they are telling you to follow their intent not to find an alternative interpretation of their words. If you interpret their directives in a way other than what they intended for you to do, they can punish you for it.

Sure, you can appeal that punishment, but then it goes to another judge (or judges) to decide if you were being treated unfairly -and all judges believe that their authority as a judge is sacrosanct: anything that challenges the authority of a judge is a potential challenge to the authority of all judges. Even when a judge disagrees with the decision handed down by another judge, they dislike being forced to admit that any judge may have been wrong as it creates an implied challenge to their own authority.

Re:Enlighten me (1)

ais523 (1172701) | about 2 years ago | (#41943121)

Reading the ruling (it's at the last link in the summary) is quite interesting. Basically what happened is that Apple tried to exploit technicalities in the judge's wording, and the judges found a bunch of technicalities in Apple's statement to find it invalid anyway.

(For instance, the judges focused on the facts that the court case had nothing, technically, to do with the iPad, and that patents weren't involved, both of which contradict Apple's original statement.)

busy with mini (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942511)

To be fair to apple, they couldn't make changes to their website for 14 days because they were busy making changes to show their new mini, and make people think the slow, relatively expensive, poor display device which is easily scratched, was a good deal. They had more pressing problems.

er... what now? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942513)

FTA: "The court also found Apple's compliance with the order regarding newspapers and magazines 'lackadaisical at best'"

What did you expect? Should the court have to order that this be fulfilled with vim an vigor?

This is a case where the UK court is made to look like it has no authority and that it's absurd judgement deserves this mockery and disrespect
And all 3 of those are true.

Apple lost to Samsung in the UK, so be it, but moth parties' cases were with merit. This kind of tar and feathering was inappropriate.

Re:er... what now? (4, Informative)

neokushan (932374) | about 2 years ago | (#41942561)

You didn't read the whole article, did you? Apple's response was "lackadaisical" because they were ordered to put the notice in each newspaper as early as possible, but they dragged their heels for weeks before doing it.

Re:er... what now? (3, Interesting)

ais523 (1172701) | about 2 years ago | (#41943183)

More information on what you said: apparently the notices will be in the newspapers on November 16th. The court was a little surprised that, given that the order was made on October 18th, it took that long to get an advert into the newspapers.

Re:er... what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943393)

I'm the OP to this sub thread, and I don't understand what you are meaning.
So when is lackadaisical equal to noncompliance?

Sounds to me like someone is tried to force feed child... "You'll eat your soup and you'll like it, kid!"

So what if it took 1 month. Did the court give a deadline? A reasonable person might think that it needed to be quicker than that, but since these trials go on for moths and years, a reasonable person could have easily thought that a month was normal.

Lets say the newspapers would have charged Apple a premium rate if they did it sooner... is the judge requiring Apple do this at any expense?

Re:er... what now? (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about 2 years ago | (#41943783)

Everything you wrote becomes a complete waste of time from the point where you failed to read the article here:

Did the court give a deadline?

Yes; the court gave a deadlne. The court said "as early as possible," That basically means "tomorrow; but if you can show you really made a good effort and failed, maybe the day after".

Lets say the newspapers would have charged Apple a premium rate if they did it sooner... is the judge requiring Apple do this at any expense?

Yes; that would be obvious from the fact that he said "as early as possible" rather than "as early as reasonable". This is a judge. Every word he puts in a judgement is written to be parsed very carefully and exactly. Please go and read the fucking article.

Re:er... what now? (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41942835)

Oh crap.. this decision is cutting edge and it was brilliant. This ought to be a new template. The standard in the corporate world these days is to NEVER admit they are wrong and act as arrogant as possible. This is one of the few ways this can that can actually make it on the public record that the corporations actually broke the law and that consumers ought to know about it.

Re:er... what now? (1)

yacc143 (975862) | about 2 years ago | (#41943005)

Well, they lost that one in the UK and the US (funny detail, but then the jury has gone so fast through the verdict that they had less than 5 minutes on average for each question, and that does include the time that they should have spent reading the explanations, guess a "quality verdict"), even the US jury found that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not infringe on the iPad design.

Re:er... what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943073)

Well, I don't know about having no authority, but it is rather silly that the court did not anticipate Apple behaving this way. Apple obviously knew what they originally put up on their website was not going to be approved.. you can tell because they put a much more muted statement on the print ads that came out at the same time. There's no cost to them to change their website.
So if Apple is doing this on purpose, what's the message they think they're sending?

Re:er... what now? (1)

neokushan (932374) | about 2 years ago | (#41943221)

It's entirely possible that different people/teams were in charge of updating the website and publishing the newspapers. Plus, newspapers generally charge more if the ad is bigger so keeping it to a minimum probably suited them better (not that Apple isn't rolling in cash or anything).

Too big to fail, or too arrogant to notice. (3, Insightful)

hessian (467078) | about 2 years ago | (#41942535)

When companies get big, they become a type of clique. Since so many people have to be on-board for any one thing to get done, the company controls them with a kind of dogma or culture.

This reinforces an us-them mentality even where it doesn't need to exist.

As a result, the companies get arrogant not so much from their CEOs, but from the rank and file. That then spreads upward. They have become victims of their own propaganda.

This is why these "too big to fail" companies tend to blow out on obvious issues like this. Did they really just defy a sitting court? How stupid do you have to be to do that?

Their lawyers must be apoplectic. Or just carefully filling out their bills.

Re:Too big to fail, or too arrogant to notice. (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41942817)

I don't think clique is the word. It looks more like tribalism these days.

Apple committing slow suicide, Tim Cook assisting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942713)

Seriously, what is this shit lately ?

The iPad Mini intros with substandard processor and screen res ?

The use of patents to defend what will soon be obsolete anyway ?

Apple is heading for a cliff. It looks like Steve Jobs didn't choose
his successor wisely.

Re:Apple committing slow suicide, Tim Cook assisti (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | about 2 years ago | (#41943035)

Apple is heading for a cliff. It looks like Steve Jobs didn't choose his successor wisely.

Apple was doing this stuff under Jobs as well. It's got nothing to do with Cook.

It's a reaction from a company who make expensive gadgets to a threat which was always going to come, namely that innovation on smartphones has reached a plateau allowing mass market device manufacturers to undercut them with functionally equivalent devices.

Re:Apple committing slow suicide, Tim Cook assisti (1, Interesting)

quibbler (175041) | about 2 years ago | (#41943485)

The fact that Apple is still selling apple products in UK is testament to Tim Cook's more even keel.

How easily you forget the Steve that swore to use Apple's entire cash cache (ha!) to destroy Google. Steve's solution might well have been to pay applicable fines, pull ALL iOS products from the UK, write an open letter to the judge and let public pressure roast the responsible magistrates alive.

Like it or not, Apple IS the big kid in the playground, and they DO make excellent products that generates enormous public demand. Steve repeatedly used that demand like heavy artillery, I don't think he'd hesitate to do so with the little island off the coast of Europe.

The bottom line is that the UK (through consumer demand) needs Apple far more than Apple needs the UK market.

Re:Apple committing slow suicide, Tim Cook assisti (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 years ago | (#41943733)

Or they could just use Android phones. Temper tantrums aren't a good way to run a business.

Re:Apple committing slow suicide, Tim Cook assisti (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943801)

Are you stupid? The public would be angry at Apple, not a Judge if this were to happen.

This behavior is in Apple's DNA (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942717)

Apple has always treated the world, including its own customers, from a superiority position. Apple is all knowing. Apple doesn't follow standards or rules. Apple always knows best and can do no wrong.

So why did anyone expect for Apple to behave differently this time? Arogance is a core value of their corporate culture and its only got stronger since their cash flow surged.

I will be enormously happy when this tumor of a company will die off.

Nice work, Soulskill (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41942859)

I didn't write my submission nearly so elegantly, nor with proper inline links. Now that is what I call editing.

Re:Nice work, Soulskill (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943111)

Oh it was you.
Wondered why we had this old garbage was being posted again rather than something technical that may actually have been of interest.

Re:Nice work, Soulskill (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41943215)

Wondered why we had this old garbage was being posted again rather than something technical that may actually have been of interest.

False dichotomy. The slashdot front page can take more than one submission per day. HTH, HAND.

Re:Nice work, Soulskill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943357)

And yet you had nothing better to do with your precious time than read it all.

Wabam! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41942949)

Skabiddiddowza!

Definition of "Sanction" (2)

Wook Man (79498) | about 2 years ago | (#41943031)

As a verb, as used in this headline, "sanction" means approve of. So the headline here doesn't match up with the contents of the post.

The headline, if it must use the word "sanction", should be "UK court levies sanctions against Apple..."

stop selling the iphone and ipad in England (0)

jsepeta (412566) | about 2 years ago | (#41943481)

see how pissed off brits get if apple just says "fuck you, we're taking our ball and going home."

Re:stop selling the iphone and ipad in England (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41943513)

and see how happy other mobile makers get if major competitor voluntarily removes itself.

Makes you wonder ... (0)

stevez67 (2374822) | about 2 years ago | (#41943499)

... how much Samsung stock the judge in this case owns. Is the UK legal system so under-worked that this judge has nothing more important to do than grade apologies?

How a company *should* apologise... (3, Informative)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | about 2 years ago | (#41943587)

If you are going to apologise, apologise with dignity, damn it!

Dear Apple, learn a lesson from Michael McCain, the CEO of the Canadian food company Maple Leaf Food.

In 2008, there was an outbreak [1] of Listeriosis, which was linked to Maple Leaf products.

What did Mccain do? To quote [2] from The Globe and Mail (a Canadian newspaper of record):

First, it admitted it was the company's fault. It admitted it was responsible. It said, in essence, "it's our fault and we're going to fix it."

Second, Maple Leaf apologized. It wasn't "wordsmithed" or spin-doctored to deny culpability. The company didn't dodge the issue. It apologized up front in every possible media.

Third, it didn't hire a celebrity to deliver the apology, or a blonde actress with very white teeth wearing a lab coat. CEO Michael McCain was the voice and the face of the crisis, and of the apology.

Fourth, once Maple Leaf realized the problem was the company's fault, it acted decisively, and transparently. It recalled more than 200 packaged meat brands (amounting to tens of thousands of individual packages) that were manufactured or packaged at the affected plant.

Which brings me to one of the best quotes about using (or not using) lawyers. CEO Michael McCain said in his apology on TV and on YouTube[3]: "Going through the crisis there are two advisers I've paid no attention to. The first are the lawyers, and the second are the accountants. It's not about money or legal liability; this is about our being accountable for providing consumers with safe food. This is a terrible tragedy. To those people who have become ill, and to the families who have lost loved ones, I want to express my deepest and most sincere sympathies. Words cannot begin to express our sadness for your pain."

(bolded by me)

I am not saying this let's MLF off the hook, but darn it, when it came to apologising, they didn't mince their words.

Dear Apple, just shut and apologise, and get over it already. MLF did it and got over it, so can you.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_Leaf_Foods#Canadian_Food_Inspection_Agency_recall [wikipedia.org]
[2]: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-growth/the-best-legal-advice-is-often-an-apology/article626797/ [theglobeandmail.com]
[3]: (original link in article wasn't working, here is an alternative) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSrazdNo55U [youtube.com]

My wild guess (1)

Psicopatico (1005433) | about 2 years ago | (#41943843)

If called tor a third ruling on the subject, the judges wouldn't be that kind. At all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?