<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;statement&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:00:02 PST</pubDate>
<title>UK Court Furious At Apple Dragging Its Heels Over Samsung Court Order</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/11005920987/uk-court-furious-apple-dragging-its-heels-over-samsung-court-order.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/11005920987/uk-court-furious-apple-dragging-its-heels-over-samsung-court-order.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've already covered how Apple got in a bit of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121101/07573320903/judge-slaps-down-apple-its-bogus-non-apology-apology.shtml">trouble</a> with a judge in the UK for its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121026/02262320852/apple-publishes-petulant-non-apology-apology-to-samsung.shtml">childish</a> way of posting a statement on its website saying that Samsung <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/13343920753/yes-apple-you-have-to-tell-uk-public-that-samsung-didnt-copy-you.shtml">didn't copy</a> Apple with its devices.  Apple then tried to claim it would take two weeks to fix, but when the court made it clear that was ridiculous, Apple miraculously figured out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121104/22383320928/apple-changes-its-uk-samsung-apology-makes-sure-you-have-to-scroll-to-see-it.shtml">a way</a> to comply -- though people quickly pointed out that it used some javascript to push the notice down the page.  Then, without saying anything, Apple <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121108/11102820973/apple-quietly-removes-need-to-scroll-to-its-samsung-apology.shtml">stopped</a> using that javascript.
<br /><br />
Perhaps it's because Apple is finally realizing that the UK judge <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/09/apple-critcised-samsung-court-order" target="_blank">was really furious at Apple for its handling of this whole situation</a>.  The <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html" target="_blank">full ruling</a> from the judge that made Apple change the statement has been released, and it shows that the court sees that Apple is dragging its feet and doing everything it can to avoid fully complying.  Furthermore, it directly calls out the original statement for providing "false and misleading" information.  As some UK court observers noted, the judges are clearly not happy with Apple, which seemed to think its standard reality distortion field might work on judges as well as the public.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/11005920987/uk-court-furious-apple-dragging-its-heels-over-samsung-court-order.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/11005920987/uk-court-furious-apple-dragging-its-heels-over-samsung-court-order.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/11005920987/uk-court-furious-apple-dragging-its-heels-over-samsung-court-order.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-putting-up-with-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121109/11005920987</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>