RSS
Apple Changes Its UK Samsung 'Apology,' But Makes Sure You Have To Scroll To See It
from the but-of-course dept
Apparently Apple didn't need two weeks to put up a new "apology" statement on its UK website after the first obnoxious one was deemed not good enough by the UK courts. As you may recall, Apple was told by the court that it had to tell the world that Samsung didn't copy Apple's design on some of its devices, after a judge ruled that Apple's devices were simply much cooler.
Apple has now put up its new statement and linked to it from its UK home page in a large font. The full statement is a lot shorter and doesn't include anything about how "cool" Apple's products are or the other court cases around the world. It has also admitted that the first statement was "inaccurate and did not comply" with the original court order:
Of course, it appears that Apple couldn't resist an attempt to continue to be slightly petulant in doing this, though it did so in a way that it hoped the judge wouldn't notice, by hiding it in the javascript. However, as the eagle eyes at Hacker News and Reddit quickly pointed out, Apple had added a bit of javascript to make sure that, no matter how big you enlarged the browser window, the link to the apology and the statement about it were below the fold. That is, there is no way to view that statement without first having to scroll down on the Apple page.
To be honest, I find it a little silly that the judge is requiring this statement at all. It seems to be going beyond what's reasonable already (and it seems wrong to require Apple to put a statement on its own website). Anyone who really cares about this stuff will see the news. That said, I find Apple's response to this ridiculous and that much more perplexing. Each attempt to somehow not fully comply with the judge's demand just calls that much more attention to the situation and the fact that Apple lost and Samsung didn't copy it. If Apple had just complied normally, this story would already be over.
Apple has now put up its new statement and linked to it from its UK home page in a large font. The full statement is a lot shorter and doesn't include anything about how "cool" Apple's products are or the other court cases around the world. It has also admitted that the first statement was "inaccurate and did not comply" with the original court order:
To be honest, I find it a little silly that the judge is requiring this statement at all. It seems to be going beyond what's reasonable already (and it seems wrong to require Apple to put a statement on its own website). Anyone who really cares about this stuff will see the news. That said, I find Apple's response to this ridiculous and that much more perplexing. Each attempt to somehow not fully comply with the judge's demand just calls that much more attention to the situation and the fact that Apple lost and Samsung didn't copy it. If Apple had just complied normally, this story would already be over.
I’m looking for research...
Geography Of The App Economy
Who Are App Developers?
I have a business...
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
Why and How Developers Use Mobile Payments: Infographic
I have an app...
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
App Developer Conversations: What Does The iPad Mini Mean For The App Economy?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Defending Apple...
According to this place, the site re-design happened a couple of days after the first Court of Appeal ruling, but before they put the first notice on it - and a couple of days before the latest iProduct was announced. A quick check of some of the other national sites seems to indicate that the same re-sizing is happening on all of them (aside from the raw .com/ version).
The effect of the change seems to be to bury all the general legal blurb and links below the bottom of the screen and, if there isn't room for everything, make sure the main advert takes up as much space as possible. It strikes me as a very "Apple" thing to do anyway (clean / minimalist etc., keeping the workings out of sight).
While the timing is suspicious/convenient, I'm not sure Apple's behaviour is quite as silly as some people are making out.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Tasering a corporation
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Defending Apple...
I believe they did this specifically to ensure this court ruling cannot be seen without extra effort by the site visitor.
It's sad and it's pathetic. And what's worse, if it weren't for the sorry state of patent law, this wouldn't even be happening.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Um, yes, but...
Don't be so quick to find evil everywhere - Apple does enough scummy things for real without having to reach to find them
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
If this was Samsung...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Not that silly at all...
Who cares if the people who care about patent lawsuits know it already? They were never interesting to begin with. It's the general public, the mainstream consumer that might notice this that counts. Because from the interested few the story of 'check that link there and laugh about Apple' might get viral and get quite a few laughs at Apples expense. And the internet famously will not forget. You might be able to see this years later in some archive. That is why Apple is fighting so hard, and that is why this is, in my opinion, important. Because the possibility of such judgements might be an effective deterrent against the constant threat of going nuclear patentwise.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Um, yes, but...
(or maybe they just forgot about the new layout and didn't think to put the notice at the top of the page or something so it wouldn't be hidden)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The judge was right to order Apple to apologize
It is one thing to file a patent lawsuit and lose.
It is a different thing to file a patent lawsuit, go on a very public rampage, make very loud and repeated public statements to damage a competitor in the market, and then lose.
Way back in SCO vs The World we learned a technique that SCO used. Make loud public statements damaging a competitor by citing things you said in court documents. Hey, it's court documents - verbatim. And those documents are public. It isn't defamation to say bad things, even untrue things, about a competitor in a court filing. Neat trick.
The judge isn't trying to make Apple feel contrite or repentant in some way. The court is trying to get Apple to undo the public damage it has done. Apple, being Apple, is too arrogant to have any interest in anything resembling basic fairness. Therefore, requiring Apple to do this sends them a message to possibly rethink things better than a mere monetary penalty could ever do.
A long time ago, I was once a long time Mac developer and card-carrying Apple fanboy. I understand the arrogant elitist attitude Apple fans have. I've been there, done that myself.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The last company to try and fob them off was NewsCorp, whose management of the British arm ahs been eviscerated in the wake of phone hacking.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The judge was right to order Apple to apologize
But yes, the reasoning is more or less the same:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The Apple Effect?
The more they drag this out, the more of us who didn't really care one way or the other (me!) get interested enough to go look.
It's interesting to see how much Apple can act like a little kid forced by parents to appologize when their heart ain't in it. Lawyers+Public Relations*arrogance=entertainment*amazement/irritation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
not that they cant track visitors to the page with the statement itself, they can, but this way they can see how many people are scrolling down at all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Although judging by recent actions, I'm sure he'd just grow his hair long so you couldn't see it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, OMG they are horrid. The MAIN reason I don't own any Apple devices... well... is their fans.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This seems a little conspiracy theory to me
If you were in charge of the layout of the Apple homepage, what would you prioritize? The new product your bonus is most likely tied to selling, or some legal statement?
IMO, after the previous lame and petulant statement, Apple has finally complied, let's move on.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Defending Apple...
The Court should have specified the Color, Point and Location (Top of Page). Since, at least in my opinion burying the notice 'below the fold' is not in keeping with the spirit of the order.
When you add this to the lawsuit lost by Apple over 'iFone' in Mexico, and other Apple rantings, I see a dull future for Apple. I didn't think it was possible to make Microsoft look good, but Apple is managing to do just that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Next?
Unfortunately you need a mouse to experience this properly - it won't work on an iPad.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Make sure to specify Type Color, Size and Location as well that it must be well lit and uncovered, and visible from at least 30 feet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Defending Apple...
Apple is so bent on protecting its reputation that its overzealous efforts to do so are actually what's ruining it. It can't ever admit to any mistakes, even in the case of clear and obvious public evidence, and so when these obvious and publicly open mistakes do happen their response is sometimes the only thing that ruins their reputation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Waiting for something important to start the week...
So why repeat it here, Mike? You've added nothing. In fact, you subtract with either misunderstanding or just not wanting to see a corporation pay for its crimes: "It seems to be going beyond what's reasonable already (and it seems wrong to require Apple to put a statement on its own website)." -- Apple is being "punished" (very little so far) for libeling Samsung, and then again for weaseling on the notice so that it appeared the ruling didn't apply to entire EU.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Waiting for something important to start the week...
Blue might possibly be on to something here.
After all, he is pro when it comes to adding nothing to a conversation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Apple Effect?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Um, yes, but...
But why did they use the javascript footer to show the link to the statement? they could have put it anywhere else on the page.
I don't think this is even a slight stretch, let alone a reach.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This seems a little conspiracy theory to me
In a case like this, I'd prioritize whatever the legal team told me to prioritize. I guarantee the web developers did not make this decision.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Defending Apple...
Until I visited the site and noticed that if you resize the page to smaller than the minimum vertical height, it clips off the navigation menus from the top yet still maintains the bottom of the page at all times being just above the statement.
Apple sacrificed their navigation menus? That just doesn't strike my as part of an unrelated design change, it's very un-Apple...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Waiting for something important to start the week...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This seems a little conspiracy theory to me
"We gotta put this statement on the homepage."
"In the footer again?"
"Yep"
The result of:
"We need to add this to the homepage, be sure it's below the fold"
would look different from a coding perspective.
Further, in my experience, that nuanced a thought with respect to web page layout and "folds" is beyond most corporate lawyers.
Finally, back to what I hope is not a misstatement of your point (again, pls correct if wrong) "the legal team told the web team to prioritize the ipad mini product launch over the statement wrt samsung" I would say "yes" and "so what?"
They posted it on their homepage. It was (finally) a decent statement. While they played silly games earlier, this seems to me to be completely in line with the spirit and letter of the ruling (unless I missed something which I grant is possible).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This seems a little conspiracy theory to me
It may be within the letter of the ruling (but then, the original statement was as well), but it's certainly not within the spirit of it.
The whole purpose is to get Apple to correct the misleading things they'd been publicly saying about Samsung. Hiding the statement is not in the spirit of that at all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This is just hilarious.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
If they wanted an apology they should have just made them do it on the news.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment