Judge Slaps Down Apple For Its Bogus Non-Apology Apology

from the try-again dept

Last week we noted that Apple had put up a rather petulant non-apology apology in response to the UK court order requiring it to advertise to the world that Samsung didn't copy Apple in making its devices. Many people wondered how the court would react to Apple's attempt... and the answer is that the court is not pleased (and is further displeased by Apple's claim that it needs two weeks to come up with something better):
At a hearing in the court in London on Thursday morning, the judge told Apple that it had to change the wording of the statement within 48 hours, carry it on its home page, and use at least 11-point font.

Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that one judge said he "cannot believe".
The full quote from the judge was, apparently:
“I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on. I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?”
Another report shows that the judge reviewing this made his views of Apple's notice abundantly clear:
“I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.”
Apparently, the London appeals courts have some sort of antidote to the standard Apple reality distortion field.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:44am

    Apparently, the London appeals courts have some sort of antidote to the standard Apple reality distortion field.

    It's not a distortion field, Apple is infested with worms!

    Ahem. Good to see Apple being put where it should be. Even though the lawsuit should have been dismissed at the beginning due to "sheer stupidity" by the plaintiff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:52am

    What!?!

    You mean "I'm sorry you feel that way" isn't an apology??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Scote, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:57am

    Grade School Antics by Apple

    It seems that as a corporation Apple hasn't graduated from grade school and thought the teacher wouldn't notice if it sassed back with its plainly contemptuous implementation of the court's order. Nice to see Apple get some comeuppance for their clear disregard.

    /schadenfreude

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:05am

    Hilarious. That's what Apple gets for listening to the online trolls that suggested they should do this.

    As punishment, the judge should let Samsung write Apple's apology, and then force Apple to use that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:10am

    Re: What!?!

    The judge didn't order an apology. He ordered that they display a statement to the effect that Samsung did not infringe on their patents and that this statement link to the court order.

    I say this not to disagree with you or the sentiment, only to clarify. A judge wouldn't order a non-living entity to feel remorse for its actions, and a forced apology isn't really an apology.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Forest_GS (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:15am

    I can change a line of text on a website in less than a minute. That includes logging onto the FTP server and navigating to the file to edit. Ctrl+F, *type type type*, done.

    Want fries with that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:15am

    They should have specified which font type too. He should have said 32 point times new roman font.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Chris Brand (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:21am

    Re:

    According to Groklaw, the judge specified "not less than 11-point font.".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:22am

    Re: Re: What!?!

    > The judge didn't order an apology. He
    > ordered that they display a statement
    > to the effect that Samsung did not infringe
    > on their patents and that this statement
    > link to the court order.

    Exactly. And Apple complied with the order. Apple *did* acknowledge that the court ruled that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's patents. The fact that they did it by also quoting the court's own words regarding Samsung's lack of 'coolness' is hardly out of line.

    Nor is mentioning that other courts around the world have reached different conclusions. The idea that some British court can order Apple as a corporation to never mention or talk about any other judicial rulings save the one in the UK is nonsense.

    It seems to me that the UK judge *did* want to punish Apple by making them put up the statement, but realized he wasn't actually allowed to do that under British law, so he justified his order in terms of 'clearing up consumer confusion'. So now he's angry that Apple cleverly turned around what he intended as a punishment and used it to its advantage.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:26am

    They also have to keep the revised apology up until Dec 14th. This means that Apple are advertising a competitor's products in the Christmas shopping period.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:27am

    Oops

    Any takers for Apple having Streisanded itself here? By not posting the clarification properly first time round, they have inevitably brought more attention to the matter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    Except what Apple ended up saying was "The UK court says they didn't copy, but they totally did, and these other courts agree with us."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    JWW (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:34am

    Re:

    Yeah, the could put the new apology up there in 11 point using Symbol font.

    BTW: this whole apology remedy thing just screams. "Software patents are fucking bogus!!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    kenichi tanaka, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:38am

    I told everyone, a few weeks ago, when Apple issued the statement they did, that the courts in the U.K. would slap Apple down and hold them in contempt. Apple made a big mistake if they thought they could pull the wool over the U.K.'s eyes.

    Apple got SLAPped.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Scote, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:45am

    Don't take credit for guesses

    "I told everyone, a few weeks ago, when Apple issued the statement they did, that the courts in the U.K. would slap Apple down and hold them in contempt."


    And I keep telling people that a tossed coin will come up heads. And when it comes true (half the time) I don't try to tell people I knew it all along and try to take credit for my brilliant prognostication. It was just a guess, with a 50/50 chance, which is essentially what your post was.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Release Manager, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:49am

    Not defending Apple, but...

    If we wanted to get something out on our corporate home page (outside of a rotating content portal), 2 weeks is about right. To do it in 48 hours you'd have to break many internal rules about production content changes. You need a copywriter, a developer, an operations systems administrator, and a legal review.

    On the other hand, if a judge had ordered us to do it, I'm sure we could forego the production change authorization form and director signatures.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:49am

    Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    I think you misunderstood me. The judge could have ordered Apple's corporate charter to be suspended in the UK for all I care.

    My point was that the order wasn't for an apology, it was an order for them to issue a statement publicly stating they had made false claims against a rival.

    The order itself seems to me to be perfectly in line with the UK's bizzaro defamation/libel/slander laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:53am

    Re: Don't take credit for guesses

    The lottery is 50/50! You either win or you lose!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    kenichi tanaka, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 11:57am

    No it wasn't. Apple's statement, their version of an apology, was a non-apology statement. Apple got slapped down for that. And it's about damned time. They're the worst Patent Troll ever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    Exactly, the issue here isn't a really a legal one anymore, the issue here is that Apple has now pissed off a judge. I get the feeling the appeals courts judges think Apple's appeal was frivolous and are punishing them for that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    RD, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 12:10pm

    He's dead, Jim

    "Apparently, the London appeals courts have some sort of antidote to the standard Apple reality distortion field."

    Jobs is dead. His reality-distortion field died with him. You can't "carry on" with something that is so endemic to a single individual and try to shift it to a broad corporate policy. It just doesnt work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 12:19pm

    Re:

    Apple probably realizes if they do this, Samsung can then use Apple's own words against them in their appeal in the US case.

    Samsung: see judge, even Apple says we didn't infringe!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 12:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    Whatever Apple says can be used against it in a court of law. It's for sure a legal issue. The judge is trying to impose his ruling on the US case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    Ha Ha Ha Apple.You are a bully and you are a Patent Troll.And now you can get some of your own Medicine.
    How's it feel Apple ?
    I think you got off easy as the Judge should also have Fined you Money which is just what I would of done if possible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 12:52pm

    Judge Jacob, let me introduce you to Apple

    I figured a formal introduction was in order, since this quote

    “I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.”


    clearly indicates that Judge Jacob has never really met Apple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    kenichi tanaka, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 12:58pm

    Apple is the biggest Patent Troll on the face of the planet. Anybody who supports Apple in this fight is in favor of Patent Lawsuits and even more stronger Patent Laws.

    Apple deserved to get slapped down by the U.K. courts because they have turned into nothing than a bully, thinking they are entitled to the smartphone market. It's an insult.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Dave Xanatos, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 1:06pm

    Re: He's dead, Jim

    You can't "carry on" with something that is so endemic to a single individual

    I'm not so sure. I know a lot of Apple fans who could swear they still see five lights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 1:11pm

    Judge: “I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on."

    Apple: "That will take two weeks..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Dirkmaster (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 1:18pm

    Re: Re:

    but he didn't say which font. How much trouble do you think they'd get into if they used 11-point Dingbat?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 1:22pm

    had the ruling gone the other way and Samsung had have written in the same way as Apple did, Cook and co would have gone ape shit! what Apple wrote was done purposefully to portray Samsung as the twats and Apple as the winner, even though they lost. what should be happening is Apple stopping all this law-suit crap and competing. if people like their products better, they will buy. if something else is preferred, people will buy that. trying to win more purchases by getting other competing products banned in certain countries shows me that Apple know there are products out there that are just as good, if not better (or their products are not as good as made out) and people want to be able to choose

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    DCL, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 1:27pm

    Re: Re:

    I heard (didn't confirm) that they used 11px font on the webpage.

    11 pixels is smaller than 11 point font.

    Has anybody else heard this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Graham J (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 2:00pm

    Re:

    They're not trying to "win more purchases" they're simply pointing out that Samsung ripped them off. And it's working.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    kenichi tanaka, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 2:29pm

    Apple simply has become too much of a lawsuit bully or a thug.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 2:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    > "The UK court says they didn't copy,
    > but they totally did, and these other
    > courts agree with us."

    So? That's true. Other courts *do* agree with them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 2:35pm

    Re:

    > Apple's statement, their version of an
    > apology, was a non-apology statement.

    Apple wasn't ordered to apologize so whether it was or wasn't an apology is irrelevant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 2:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    And that's basically spitting in the face of the judge.

    "But mommy (other courts) said that they were bad, daddy (UK court."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 3:05pm

    We're studying this case at uni at the moment in our marketing course. He uses the Apple lie as an example of how
    easy is it to win over and fool stupid people with marketing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 3:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    > And that's basically spitting in
    > the face of the judge.

    If the judge feels that the truth is 'spitting in his face', then he really needs to get over himself.

    I realize that the UK has different notions of free speech than the US, but just from a moral perspective, as long as Apple isn't saying anything false, what business does any judge have regulating what information they can convey on their own website? (Especially when this statement was expressly *not* supposed to be a punishment.)

    If Apple wants to point out to their customers that they've won similar cases over similar points of law in other countries, then they should be free to do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    JohnParry, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 3:33pm

    Bias

    Author, your anti-Apple bias show up prominently in your article. Journalism 101: FAIL.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 3:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    I realize that the UK has different notions of free speech than the US


    US judges can and do issue rulings like this too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 3:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    How so? The judge issued a ruling on a UK case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 3:51pm

    Re: Re:

    Except that it's far from clear that Samsung ripped them off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 4:02pm

    Does anyone know how long it took between court order and the original "apology" going up? It would be interesting indeed if that took less than two weeks...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 4:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    Except...in the US case, the Jury ruled that the Samsung Galaxy tab didn't infringe on Apple's design.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    lucidrenegade (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 5:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    Now we have Apple shills trolling here?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    lucidrenegade (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 5:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yes

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    lucidrenegade (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 5:54pm

    Re: Bias

    Yeah, Mike hates Big Fruit. Must be his love of Big Search.

    /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Tony, Nov 1st, 2012 @ 7:18pm

    14 days to re-write the apology?

    In school, our English professor would assign a 1,000 word surprise essay at the start of our 50 minute class. We had 20 minutes for the rough draft, 20 minutes to polish it and it was to be turned in at the end of our 50 minute class. Apple saying it needs 14 days to rewrite it, is just playing around with the system more than they already have.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    Absolutely wrong.

    I hate repeating myself from other comments but here:

    The actual statement from the Judge is found in the Judgement :
    [87.] Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
    On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgement of the High court is available on the following link [link given].

    That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
    [88.] In the result I would dismiss both appeals but vary the publicity order as indicated or in such other way as may be agreed or settled by further argument. I would hope that any such argument (and any other consequential) arguments can be resolved by written submissions.
    Nowhere in those paragraphs were the rest of the petulant paragraphs that Apple included, nowhere was there the possibility of them being expanded upon by inserting paragraphs between them.

    The only thing mentioned is that the publicity order may be varied "in such other way as may be agreed or settled by further argument". Guess what? No other agreement or settlement was undertaken nor approved by any parties (well other than Apple itself it seems) so therefore the publicity order they have published is contemptuous.

    I also notice the link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." (found at 85) has NOT been changed further showing that Apple has acted with contemptuous intent on the publicity order
    Also the idea that the UK court does not have jurisdiction over a website that Apple profess to ONLY apply to the UK (their UK site) is absolutely wrong on it's face as well.

    The UK Judge HAS punished Apple, has enacted equitable judgement (it's called a court of equity for a reason) and WAS absolutely allowed to under UK statute law (especially in relation to Trade Practices - and also under EU law too).

    If Apple don't like the order, appeal it... oh wait they did and lost and were ordered to specifically do something, if they want to talk about the other courts, fine, but do it somewhere else on their own site NOT on the order that the court made. Otherwise this is called contempt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    No the Judge is imposing his ruling specifically on the issue before the court that Apple ITSELF appealed on within the UK.

    The Judge goes out of his way to even make sure in the judgement that this in no way affects other court cases around the planet though takes note of the court case in Germany that Apple used specifically to try to affect the original UK Judgement which the Judge in this matter states is absolutely wrongful, and Apple agreed to change it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:01pm

    Re: Bias

    Here have a banana

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 9:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    This is absolutely NOT about free speech, it's about misrepresentation, contempt of a legal court order, and absolute hypocrisy on Apple's behalf (might want to read the original Appeal Judgement about what Apple tried to do in Germany with the original UK order.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    > US judges can and do issue rulings like this too.

    They might be able to require the posting of a statement for consumer education purposes, but they would not be able to order a corporation *not* to talk about other factual court rulings in their favor.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    > This is absolutely NOT about free speech, it's about misrepresentation

    What did Apple misrepresent? They said they won similar cases in other jurisdictions. They have. That's true. It might have pissed off a judge, but it's not a misrepresentation.

    > contempt of a legal court order

    If it was contempt, they would have been charged with it. Even though this judge has his robes in a bunch over Apple's failure to act properly chastened by him, even he realizes that nothing they did rises to level of contempt.

    > and absolute hypocrisy on Apple's behalf

    Hypocrisy is not legally actionable. And name one corporation whose actions aren't hypocritical. If that was the standard, they'd all be in Apple's position.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:19pm

    Re:

    > Does anyone know how long it took between court
    > order and the original "apology" going up?

    Why do people keep acting like the original statement should have been an apology? Apple wasn't ordered to apologize.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:22pm

    Re: 14 days to re-write the apology?

    > 14 days to re-write the apology?

    Apple isn't rewriting any such thing. Apple wasn't ordered to apologize and its first statement wasn't an apology, nor was it intended as such, so whatever they're doing, they're not rewriting an apology.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 10:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    > Now we have Apple shills trolling here?

    How does what I wrote make me either a shill or a troll? Please be specific.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 12:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    Ok, lets clear some things up.

    The UK courts, most specifically the Court of Appeals have authority (some) across the entire EU. Apple's none apology read that Germany had ruled differently, they had. That makes no difference though, The UK ruling stands and Apple was acting like a petulant kid by trying to suggest otherwise.

    Any judge would get annoyed by that..

    I could say more but I wont bother. Apple supporters have obviously come out of the woodwork..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 3:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    Maybe you should do some basic research on British law, and the powers that judges have in the UK before defending Apple's actions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    halfway, Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 3:46am

    Re: Re: 14 days to re-write the apology?

    This is getting fun!

    If we use the word "apology" often enough then the Apple apologist (btr1701 - that's you) should suffer a scanners-style head explosion

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 4:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    I read the original 'link' on Apple's UK website and I must say, it really seemed to go against the spirit, if not only the letter of the order against them. It was basically "We've been told to say this but other courts say in our favour so yah boo sucks!"

    It is very easy to see how this could be seen as contempt. Whether or not the original order is a good idea is one thing, but Apple appealed and lost. Now they have to actually do what they were told. If this had been Samsung pulling this stunt, would Apple have thought this was an appropriate response?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Donglebert the Needlessly Obtuse, Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 4:16am

    I just checked the html on the Apple site.

    UK court ignores everyone else


    We're required to post this even though the UK clearly doesn't know that we're always right.


    Samsung didn't copy Apple's designs. ;) :p



    and the judge smells of spam.



    No idea why the court thought that might suggest contempt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Donglebert the Needlessly Obtuse, Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 4:17am

    Re: I just checked the html on the Apple site.

    bollocks - it stripped out the < sarcastic > tagging.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Luke, Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 4:58am

    Re: Re: Re: 14 days to re-write the apology?

    apology

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    TFP, Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 5:33am

    'I realize that the UK has different notions of free speech than the US, but just from a moral perspective, as long as Apple isn't saying anything false, what business does any judge have regulating what information they can convey on their own website?'

    Erm, they brought their 'copy' bullshit before the judge to judge whether they were right, he made his judgement and judged against them.

    Simples.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 6:06am

    Maybe Tim Cook could file an affidavit

    Maybe Tim Cook could swear in an affidavit to the court that the strength of Apple's (patented) Reality Distortion™ field makes it impossible to place a proper apology notice onto Apple's website without the field lines reshaping it into a snarky marketing non-apology

    Even if the reality distortion field were shut down, a cold start would then take 30 minutes to get it working again -- I canna' change the laws of physics Cap'n. I've got to have 30 minutes!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    The UK judge did not make such an order either, so I'm still not sure of your point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    > The UK judge did
    > not make such an
    > order either, so
    > I'm still not
    > sure of your point.

    He sure seems to have his robes in a snit over it, and has ordered them to rewrite it, leaving that bit out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    Even though this judge has his robes in a bunch over Apple's failure to act properly chastened by him,


    Now you're misrepresenting the judge's position.

    Remember, the judge made the purpose of the order clear -- Apple deliberately misrepresented the situation to the general public all through the court case, which damaged Samsung. The judge's order was attempting to mitigate some of that damage.

    What Apple did was adhere to the letter of the the order, but in a way that attempts to accomplish the exact opposite of the purpose of the order. That is certainly contempt -- at least in the layman's sense of the term if not the strict legal definition. That is why the judge is angry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 12:25pm

    Re: Re:

    True. Apple was ordered to correct the lies they had been putting before the general public. Their statement failed to do that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 12:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    > It was basically "We've
    > been told to say this but
    > other courts say in our
    > favour so yah boo sucks!"

    So there's something wrong with letting the public know the statement is the result of a court order? I don't recall anything in the court's original order that requires Apple to falsely pretend they're making the statement of their own volition.

    > If this had been Samsung
    > pulling this stunt, would
    > Apple have thought this
    > was an appropriate response?

    Probably not, but in that case, I'd be defending Samsung, notwithstanding the idiots here who have called me an Apple shill merely because I haven't jumped on the "Hooray-- cuz Apple sucks!" bandwagon. And as I mentioned earlier, *all* corporations are hypocritical by nature, so if the positions were reversed, not only would Apple be crying foul, Samsung would be claiming they did nothing wrong, which would directly contradict their current 'outrage'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 12:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    > The UK ruling stands and Apple was
    > acting like a petulant kid by
    > trying to suggest otherwise.

    They didn't suggest that the UK ruling doesn't stand. They merely pointed out that other courts have come to different conclusions.

    > Any judge would get annoyed by that..

    It's a good thing then that in a free society, we don't have to worry about whether government officials are annoyed or not. We only have to obey the law.

    > Apple supporters have
    > obviously come out of the
    > woodwork.

    Yeah, because unless I join everyone else here in a chorus of "Boo-yah! Apple got its ass kicked!", that means I'm an Apple supporter.

    Or it could be that I just don't think Apple did anything wrong and cleverly turned a negative into a positive without violating the terms of the order.

    If the positions were reversed and Samsung had lost and done the same thing with its published statement, I'd be defending them as well. I don't care if the company involved is Apple, Exxon, or Mrs. Butterworth's Tasty Maple Syrup.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    Of course, because Apple failed to do what the order intended: to correct a lie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 12:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    Of course, because Apple failed to do what the order intended: to correct a lie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Dave, Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 1:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    This is total rubbish. it's just Apple throwing the toys out of the buggy in a temper tantrum because they didn't get their own way and have been gently mocked by the courts for bringing this time-wasting case in the first place. The sooner they are put in their place, the better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    AzureSky (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 4:36pm

    Re: He's dead, Jim

    I think the reality is, jobs RDF is running out of power trying to make the ipad3/ipad mini sell....as well as some of their other massively overpriced "form over function" products.

    since jobs died the fields been on borrowed time, only the profit prophit could keep that sucker running.

    jobs was a tool, but I will give him credit for 1 thing, He was an amazing salesman, he could take a turd and find a way to sell it by the millions!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    AzureSky (profile), Nov 2nd, 2012 @ 4:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    anybody who talks like that idiot clearly dosnt know the history of apple or even know that jobs himself BRAGGED about stealing ideas....

    "good artists copy, great artists steal" was one of his favorite quotes for decades to justify apple stealing ideas from others and then calling it "innovation"

    http://youtu.be/CW0DUg63lqU

    flat out admits he and his company are thieves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 4th, 2012 @ 10:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    Apple didn't even adhere to the letter of the order since the order was to specifically state two paragraphs with nowhere in that order the possibility of adding, changing, or anything else to the "written statement' the court wrote other than by agreement with opposing counsel and the court.

    That agreement was never given, Apple took it upon themselves to change the text by adding to it and therefore are technically in contempt. This is what the court has now stated and if Apple do not comply fully (the court IMHO is being extremely lenient by warning first) they will be found in contempt with all that goes along with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 4th, 2012 @ 11:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What!?!

    It's a misrepresentation based on the order they were given. Nowhere was the ability to add/change the statement the court ordered. Therefore they have misrepresented the order to the public at large.

    So Misrepresentation to the public, contempt to the court. Both apply. In fact the misrepresentation could find Apple running foul of Trade and Consumer law within both the UK itself and the EU.

    They have been warned that if they do not comply they will be in contempt. The court has deemed that in this instance a warning is appropriate, though if Apple do not comply with the original order after this warning then YES contempt charges will absolutely occur.

    Actually Hypocrisy is actionable if the court deems it contemptuous.. Remember contempt is very subjective (wrongfully in my opinion) also hypocrisy is very much about what the appeals court talked about in regards to Apple visa vis the German court and one of the specific reasons (since the appeal was conducted de novo) why the order was actually not just upheld but amended too. Which Apple in their egotism have tried to massage with puffery and unqualified opinion by adding to.

    And hypocrisy is the nature of Business worldwide, though being Hypocritical to competitors and markets is one thing, being hypocritical to government and courts is an entirely dangerous and risky endeavour, as Apple are now finding.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This