Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/01/apple-told-to-rewrite-samsung-did-not-copy-statement-post-it/

by cskau • 14 years ago

308 233 14 years ago

engadget.com

benologist2• 14 years ago

AOL "journalist" told to reword "The Guardian's article":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsu...

polshaw• 14 years ago

To be fair i don't think they ever claim to be journalists-- the source link is always in their posts.

If there is any wrong doing, it is the people who post links to one aggregator (like engadget) on another (like HN).

I guess in the HN case it is likely because of the url dupe filter.

benologist2• 14 years ago

Aggregators don't replace the original source they point you to it.

Engadget (and similar sites) are just parasites that extract every ounce of value from someone else's work, stuff it full of SEO spam and hope they do it fast enough to usurp the traffic too.

I do agree that they shouldn't be submitted though!

Tyrannosaurs3• 14 years ago

They tend to claim to be journalists the minute they want the protections that go with it.

coob• 14 years ago

How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.

Jabbles• 14 years ago

"The following is not true:<exact wording in the judgment>"

Context counts for a lot.

Hontano4• 14 years ago

Beats me. Apple complied with a sloppy judgment. I'm no great fan of Apple in this, but the appeal judges fucked up by not clearly specifying what Apple needed to do and could not do.

macmac2• 14 years ago

It is only sloppy if you are ignorant of / choose to ignore the law that applies to it.

makomk• 14 years ago

The courts don't work like this, largely because it's a waste of the court's time to figure out every single way some slimy bastard could try and weasel out of their rulings. This is pretty clear-cut too - the court ordered Apple to post a notice saying that Samsung's products had been found not to infringe, and Apple decided to instead post one that argued the court had got it wrong and Samsung were a bunch of evil copycats, which also misrepresented court rulings in other juristictions to make them seem more favourable to Apple in the process.

DannyBee5• 14 years ago

Sorry, but no, they didn't. The judge didn't fuck up. The court was quite specific in it's order, as someone quoted below:

"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 judgment 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. 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"

sanxiyn• 14 years ago

Well, law is not (yet) code, and you are expected to use common sense. Apple didn't.

jbri• 14 years ago

Apple was ordered to make a statement that Samsung had not copied them. Saying "Joe told me to tell you X" is not the same as me telling you X.

Apple trying to pull a fast one by saying "The court of appeals says we should tell you that Samsung didn't copy us" was never going to fly.

saurik3• 14 years ago

"Joe, who thought we were cool and clearly did not think Bill was cool, told us to tell you that he doesn't think Bill copied our amazing coolness. (Of course, Joe is in the minority position on this one, so please ignore him: you should really listen to Sally and Jack.)"

smackfu6• 14 years ago

Some people think legal stuff is all about finding loopholes in the rules, but loopholes usually don't work since intent matters more.

Goronmon• 14 years ago

The point of the order was the court felt that Apple should dispel their previous public accusation that Samsung copied their design.

So when Apple issues a statement that says "Court X ordered us to tell you that Samsung didn't copy us, but Court Y did say they copied us." then it's not really following the intent of dispelling their claim

scott_w• 14 years ago

As noted above, the UK doesn't operate on the exact wording of the law. For example, a judge will sometimes wiggle around the wording of an Act of Parliament if he feels that the intent of the Act was breached.

The case taught to law students is that of the prostitutes soliciting from their windows. The law stated that they could not solicit "in" the streets. The judge in the case expanded this to solicit "to" the street, as the purpose was to prevent people being hassled when they walked down the street.

Similar principles apply to judgements: the point of the judgement was to mitigate the public perception that Samsung was copying Apple's designs. Saying "this judge says they didn't copy... but they really did" goes completely against the point of the judgement.

ksec4• 14 years ago

Thanks, that is finally making some sense to me.

bitdiffusion• 14 years ago

This attempt at being "clever" has definitely backfired on apple. If they had just done what was asked the first time, that would have been the end of it. Now it has to be dredged up and people will be reminded (again) that they lost the case. I find it hard to believe that their lawyers advised them that they would get away with something like this.

Tyrannosaurs3• 14 years ago

They're also in the situation where had they got on with it it would have been done and dusted by mid November.

Instead they're going to have it on their home page for most of the Christmas shopping period.

antidoh• 14 years ago

I'd never heard of this until this. It only confirms my casual (don't own anything Apple) view of Apple as a corporate two year old that makes great products (I've heard), all the while employing armies of lawyers to shout "No fair! No fair!"

Best if they'd just relax back into the big chair and be the adult.

levesque• 14 years ago

This is silly.

StavrosK• 14 years ago

Here's the original page:

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

It's basically "The UK court found Samsung non infringing, but said our products are great, and other courts found them infringing.". Far from an apology.

imglorp• 14 years ago

Mom told me I had to say I was sorry, but you deserved it anyway.

dsirijus• 14 years ago

This. This is exactly what happened here.

dan12343• 14 years ago

No court judgment ever said it had to be an apology. It was supposed to "to dispel commercial uncertainty".

Looks as if Apple have exploited a loophole by adding to the judgment instead of simply posting it.

eli• 14 years ago

Well the judge who issued the order seems to feel pretty strongly that they did not comply.

sageikosa• 14 years ago

Embrace, extend, extinguish?

smackfu6• 14 years ago

Right, the main goal was to make it clear to consumers that even though Apple won a EU-wide case against Samsung in Germany (which got a lot of publicity), that didn't apply in UK after they lost this court case.

vacri4• 14 years ago

That published statement 'dispels commercial uncertainty'? Not to a lawyer, but to the consumer who is its target order? How does it do anything except increase commercial uncertainty?

jolohaga• 14 years ago

Apologize for what?

metatronscube• 14 years ago

The UK legal system is a complete joke. Apple should consider using its considerable resources to take legal action with this demand and simply post " X is not as cool as Y" and leave it at that. I can not fathom why this has been pulled up, and would challenge the appeals court to explain why the original passage is non-compliant and if they cant give a reasonable answer I would be meeting them in court.

blibble• 14 years ago

fighting an institution that makes the law probably isn't the best of ideas

BCM43• 14 years ago

They're not (they're fighting the institution charged with penalizing), and it happens all the time.

michaelhoffman• 14 years ago

Apple already is meeting them in court. Apple lost.

vidarh8• 14 years ago

In this case the UK legal system is pretty much exactly like any other civilized legal system.

The judge in this case is the court, and when he says the original passage doesn't comply with his order, by definition it does not comply with his order. If they choose to continue to fail to comply with this order, the people responsible finds themselves at risk of being found in contempt of court and jailed.

Karunamon3• 14 years ago

So a single person can perhaps issue an order and not be overruled or challenged in any way?

That hardly seems like a "civilized" legal system. In fact it sounds like something in a corrupt banana republic.

awfabian2• 14 years ago

In the US, such orders usually have to be in writing, be pretty specific, and the meaning has to be fairly clear. You would have a very difficult time holding someone in contempt for a court order that's not written. And, so, what's written IS the order, regardless of the judge's intent.

In other words, a third party judge should be able to judge compliance with the order, so it certainly would not be the case that if the original judge thinks something doesn't comply with his order that it necessarily doesn't comply.

chrisacky• 14 years ago

    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".[1]

Clearly the judge hasn't ever submitted an iOS app for review?

And to people who don't understand why Apple are held to be in "non-compliance" despite copying verbatim the extract from the judgment: it was because of how "snarky" Apple were.

- Saying their device is much more popular.

- Signing off by disregarding the purpose of the statement: "Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."

- Saying that Samsung's device is "not as cool".

- Not using the correct font size. (Although, I don't care about this point)

- Dedicating 80%~ of the statement to supporting their claims in other jurisdictions... and brushing past the verbatim copied statement.

Apple were ordered to factually represent the judgment in a statement issued on their website. They cherry picked quotes, out of context and attempted to create confusion in any readers, with the intention of misleading them as to the judges present ruling.

    [1] : http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement

greyboy2• 14 years ago

That caught my eye as an excuse of the super enterprise-y. I don't recall the page they put up after Steve Jobs passed away taking quite near that long.

myko• 14 years ago

To be fair the Steve Jobs memorial was probably designed and created well in advance of his passing.

But yeah this is some Grade-A bullshit. Either that or Apple is worse at the web than I thought (which is pretty bad considering iTunes Connect).

deong4• 14 years ago

Well, they are the only retailer I can think of that has to take their entire site down for several hours to add a new sku.

jivatmanx3• 14 years ago

The last part is really the kicker. It's really not a good idea to question Judge's authority by citing a ruling from another country.

That's also the part where they essentially say "This ruling is false"

cageface• 14 years ago

This episode is the childish and vindictive zenith of an amazing year of childish and vindictive behavior from Apple. Frankly I just don't get it. They make fantastic hardware and their software is usually at least good. Why do they have to lash out like a schoolyard bully at anybody that threatens to put the tiniest dent in their giant pile of cash money? Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves?

If the incumbents at the time had behaved the way Apple is behaving now when Apple was in its infancy there would be no Apple today and we would all be the worse for it.

Only a few years ago I had a lot of respect for them as a company but they've pretty much burned it all away.

jivatmanx3• 14 years ago

Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab.

I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

kingnothing• 14 years ago

If a company doesn't protect its intellectual property, it is liable to lose it. The only thing that's changed is now Apple is leading the market and is in a position where they need to fight these battles.

v0cab• 14 years ago

> Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves?

The original iPhone was banned in South Korea for two years. It seems that this was to give South Korean companies a chance to catch up.

mbesto• 14 years ago

When the authority (i.e. government) treats you like a child (i.e. outdated patent laws) then why should you act anything but childish?

Note - I do realize Apple should publicly take a stance on patent laws. I think they genuinely believe they are outdated.

tatsuke952• 14 years ago

>Frankly I just don't get it

Apple is the biggest corporation on the planet, and hence has more to lose than anyone else. There are literally trillions of dollars on the line. This while doing business in an intensely competitive space and relying on an incredibly powerful, but fragile, branding strategy.

I don't like it, but I get it. And it's fascinating to watch.

Shivetya• 14 years ago

I think Mr. Cook needs to rid Apple of a few more bad ones.

I would hate to think he approves of this level of immaturity, but if he does then he should go too.

kemiller• 14 years ago

Apple isn't in this (the lawsuits) for the money. I'm quite sure they're spending more on the suits than they'd lose to Samsung in the marketplace. It's about credit and fairness from their point of view. They don't want people riding their coat-tails or cheapening what they've created. I don't know that they're right -- I think their brand is strong enough to shake off Samsung, and they should take a page from the fashion industry, where brand is everything and copying is rampant, but nobody sues. But that's how they see it. Notice they're not suing Microsoft over the Surface? I'd bet there's some patent somewhere that would apply. Maybe there's some sort of understanding going on, but I seriously doubt it. I think it's because the Surface is genuinely different.

drivebyacct28• 14 years ago

The same reason their last keynote spent an inordinate amount of time talking about specific Android device(s).

eta_carinae2• 14 years ago

> Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves?

Because of Android.

The rise of Android is clearly showing that Apple products can no longer "speak for themselves" and Apple is feeling the pressure on all fronts, some that they used to have a 90% monopoly on (phones and 10' tablets) and some that they are joining late (7' tablets).

I see the proactive litigation as a move to delay the inevitable (iOS devices being relegated to sub 15% market share across the board, which they are on their way to).

ChuckMcM• 14 years ago

This is true, but I don't think I've ever seen a ruling quite like this one, so the lawyers probably don't know how far they can push it. I expect them to do 'better' but still get it wrong, its a delay of game tactic that makes the judge look like he is being picky. I would agree though that Apple is coming off looking badly (to me at least, and I think I am part of their target market).

macmac2• 14 years ago

“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.”

bstar773• 14 years ago

Did the court seriously think ANY COMPANY would have reacted differently than Apple did? This is a childish and completely unproductive order. Fine Apple and be over with it if you think they did something wrong.

adaml_623• 14 years ago

So you think a monetary fine is appropriate punishment for any type of corporate misbehaviour?

EDIT: The court case counted as negative publicity for Samsung and I don't think the court thought that a fine would counteract that publicity.

bstar773• 14 years ago

For the issue of patent wrangling, which is very much a gray area, yes, I do think monetary fines are the most appropriate.

The court cannot make Apple be sincere in an apology if Apple believes they are in the right. Just the same way Sally's Mother cannot make little Jimmy sincerely apologize for tattling on her daughter when she copied his homework, especially after the teacher already praised him for bringing it to her attention.

DannyBee5• 14 years ago

Yes, most companies would react differently, actually.

The vast majority of companies are not stupid enough to think it's "cute" to piss off a judge in a non-banana republic.

Camillo3• 14 years ago

The UK is not a republic at all.

duiker1013• 14 years ago

I think that the court's ruling is not childish. The problem with Apple is their attitude, they think they are over the rules, look at the Italian case of the warranties, the law requires 2 years but Apple would give only one.

Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose, name a device and than pay if it breaks some trademark or whatever.

I think the judge understood this and wanted to teach them a lesson of humility, which Apple didn't get and showed once again that they think they are more clever and over the rules. But the reality is that the judge has the power and is not a stupid, and I bet he doesn't like to be treated like one.

count• 14 years ago

Attitudes are not illegal.

saurik3• 14 years ago

> Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose...

Supposedly, in the UK, Apple pays a £50/day fine rather than posting the required no-smoking signs in the windows of their stores. (I mention this as another example.)

http://blog.lewisking.net/post/318110435/apple-store-madness

smackfu6• 14 years ago

Honestly, I'm sure Apple's lawyers were very opposed to the text they posted, and were overruled by management. Most other companies listen to their lawyers.

xutopia• 14 years ago

There is a huge issue with just giving a fine. Profitable companies can choose to overlook the law if it makes financial sense for them to do so.

Hontano4• 14 years ago

The obvious answer is to use progressive fines, making them proportional rather than a fixed amount. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

DanBC2• 14 years ago

It is an elegant order. Rather that trying to collapse everything down to a dollar value (and thus have extended bickering between the parties) you have a simple "You accused them of copying. They did not copy. They say they are damaged by your claims. Retract your claims."

The problem with money is that Apple has a lot of it, and thus making them pay for realistic (as oppose to punitive) damages is not a disincentive to further poor behaviour. It just becomes a cost of doing business.

duiker1013• 14 years ago

Act like a 6 year old and you will be treated like one from someone with a little brain. Don't take the judge for a stupid. You'll regret it.

masnick• 14 years ago

Here's what Apple wrote -- somehow I'm guessing this isn't what the court had in mind.

From http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/:

Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, 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 judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

michaelfeathers6• 14 years ago

They presented the facts and they should be allowed to mention that other jurisdictions have other views of the matter. Does anyone think that they shouldn't be able to?

ksec4• 14 years ago

Exactly. I see nothing wrong or made up in that. All the presented information are facts. They are saying in a way, we lost, and here are the facts. In a case May be the the Judge should order the Prime Minister for an Public apology and if he does not like it, apologise until he likes? This is just stupid. And this isn't a Apple's is right or wrong issues with Samsung Copied or not either.

vidarh8• 14 years ago

The purpose of the notice was explicitly to counter some of the damage from Apple's very public claims that Samsung had clearly copied the iPad with their Samsung Galaxy Tab. Apple tried to damage Samsung by taking victory in advance. When they then lose, it is only natural they face consequences, otherwise they would have no incentive not to the same again.

They chose to take the proposed wording, chop it into two pieces, and inject their own paragraphs that are clearly intended to play up Apple and to downplay and dilute the purpose of the message and create doubt about whether or not there was copying by referring to other judgements, and on top that they are misrepresenting the court cases they mention:

The German court did not find that Samsung had carried out any infringing copying of their design. The US jury did NOT find the Samsung Galaxy Tab infringing. Apple's comment is technically correct, but they are on purpose clearly failing to mention that the judgement is mostly irrelevant to the UK case as it deals mainly with other products than the UK case (which only deals with the Galaxy Tab), and in the one instance where it is relevant, Samsung prevailed.

Apple is free to question the judgement, but doing so by diluting the effect of the very message the judges ordered them to put in place is at best a stupid mistake, at worst wilful attempt at doing an endrun around the court. The only reason they got away with this as lightly as they did is because the judges can't prove it wasn't someone just being stupid. So they've given Apple another chance and given them more rope - if Apple tries this stunt again, someone will be in serious personal trouble.

codeulike5• 14 years ago

What they were asked to publish was just the first and fifth paragraphs of that. See judgement here (point 87) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

vacri4• 14 years ago

It's interesting just how quickly Apple's style of simplicity and minimalism can be thrown out the window. If the ruling were in their interest, I can't ever see them leading off with that first paragraph, for example.

nagrom2• 14 years ago

A lot of the posts that are saying something like "The judge didn't say that they couldn't do it like this!" are deliberately missing the point. In the UK, you are expected to comply with the spirit of such a court order, not just the letter of it. Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens.

It's entirely possible to be punished for contempt of court to a much greater extent than the lesser offence. Deliberately choosing to behave in a childish manner and annoy a judge is a dangerous game to play and can be self-defeating. Apple's lawyers should have known this and should have advised them against it. It would have cost them nothing to comply with the ruling properly in the first place; they are now cutting their nose off to spite their face.

belorn2• 14 years ago

Annoying a judge is a really bad idea. The court system is normally quite free from corruption, but all that goes out off the window when it become personal and political. See the pirate bay court case, or just any of the police brutality cases.

If Apple is going all out with lawyers and legal prowness, instead of competiting with products, they need to get better at it.

thomseddon3• 14 years ago

Is this specifically in reference to the UK legal system or just a blanket statement about practice around the world?

If it is the former, I really must disagree with the notion that the legal system in the UK is in any way corrupt. Quite far from it, I think it is one of the things that we can be most proud of.

If it is the latter, may I suggest you either be more specific or more correct.

appleflaxen• 14 years ago

Can you give an example of the police brutality cases you had in mind? I'd be interested to ready more about the social dynamic with the judge, if you can point me in the right direction.

ZoFreX• 14 years ago

> Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens.

That actually comes under the letter of the law: http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/leg...

Not to detract from your overall point though, which is 100% correct.

thomseddon3• 14 years ago

I was going to post this!

TL;DR the link: Coins are only legal tender up to a certain amount. For example 21p in 1p's is not classed as legal tender.

(Is it only me who can only say "legal tender" in a scottish accent > "I think you'll find that's...")

debacle• 14 years ago

In most jurisdictions, you are expected to comply with the spirit of a court order. Lawyers have some wiggle room when it comes to wordings, but it's a fine line between seeming clever and pissing the judge off.

lonnyk• 14 years ago

>In most jurisdictions, you are expected to comply with the spirit of a court order.

In what country are you referring to?

Mordor• 14 years ago

I guess the judge can always ask Apple to replace their front page with a grovelling statement that they were in contempt of court.

DannyBee5• 14 years ago

The judge, in fact, included proposed text in the order, and said "use this subject to submissions by either side". Rather than submit anything and argue about it, they just decided to do whatever they wanted.

denzil_correa• 14 years ago

Judge Robin Jacob's comments on

On Apple's legal notice posted

   “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.”

On Technical Difficulties to take 14 days to change the notice

   “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” their website, Jacob said. “I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-ch...

ashray• 14 years ago

I'm really impressed that he asked for an affidavit from the head of apple. That would've really put apple in deep trouble had they gone that route. Good job on calling their bluff on the 'it will take us 14 days to update the site'. =/

Apple just seems so slimy these days. I absolutely love many of their products but lately they seem quite meh.

smackfu6• 14 years ago

Yeah, there's a world of difference between "we would like 14 days to update it" and "we need 14 days to update it".

kybernetikos• 14 years ago

Did you notice that the css class that controls the link size on the uk home page is called 'sosumi'?

thisone• 14 years ago

That's normal for apple's legalish sections on the web and dates back to their fight with the Beatles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi

meaty• 14 years ago

Well spotted. Someone needs to draw attention to that.

codeulike5• 14 years ago

Although its applied to all the links in the footer, not just that one. Still, interesting.

ceejayoz• 14 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi

DanBC2• 14 years ago

Apple needs to be a bit careful.

Patent claims are civil, and have fines or other gentle punishments attached.

Contempt of court is criminal, and people do get sent to jail for it.

ortusdux• 14 years ago

My first thought when I read the Samsung letter:

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sneaky-restauran...

js2• 14 years ago

The engadget link adds nothing to the original reporting - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsu...

clarky07• 14 years ago

This seems like BS to me. They put the judgement on their site, and then they put other things on THEIR site. As long as the put the piece they wanted them to put, they should be able to do anything else they want. If they think the statements made make for good marketing pieces, why shouldn't they be able to put them on their website.

All this is besides the point that the UK is in the minority in their ruling, and the US case did a pretty good job of showing that Samsung did in fact copy Apple, and said so many times in internal communications.

smackfu6• 14 years ago

The goal of the publicity order was to "dispel commercial uncertainty," not as punishment. If Apple publishes the required statement, but obscures it in a way that it doesn't meet the original goals, should the court really stand idly by?

michaelfeathers6• 14 years ago

The article said that the judge ordered Apple to say that "Samsung did not copy their design." Apple, essentially, said that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy its design.

That is factually correct. I don't see how anyone can be compelled to make the former statement rather than the latter one.

ksec4• 14 years ago

Exactly.

deong4• 14 years ago

Isn't that the whole purpose of a court system? If you insist on calling OJ Simpson a murderer who got away with it, he can sue you for libel. He is, as a point of fact, not legally a murderer, and you would be lying to defame him. Legal truth isn't some abstract concept. It is defined by the court's opinion. The factual statement in UK law is now "Samsung did not copy their design." End of story.

You don't get to flout a court ruling by continuing to behave the same way, only with a disclaimer that says, "Well, the judge said we're wrong, but screw him."

codeulike5• 14 years ago

They added 4 paragraphs to the 2 paragraphs that they were asked to publish. See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html point 87

michaelfeathers6• 14 years ago

Do US Courts ever make judgements like this? It's akin to compelling speech.

ksec4• 14 years ago

Exactly. Again i have difficulty understanding the notion behind it. You can rule, and fine, or what ever you want. But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in.

codeulike5• 14 years ago

They weren't asked to apologise or say they believed anything. They were asked to publish a certain statement, giving the facts of the outcome of the case. Along the lines of "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that ....".

So they were asked to publish a statement of fact on their own site and in several newspapers. But they added extra stuff to the end, thus changing the tone and context.

I'm trying to find out what they were originally asked to print so we can compare to what they actually did.

edit: Point 87 of the judgement here says what they were supposed to publish: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

"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 judgment 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."

chimeracoder3• 14 years ago

> But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in.

This is not an apology. It's a publication of the facts, as determined by a court of law.

In the US, slander and libel are both illegal, as is defamation, etc. Part of the judicial process is to determine the facts of the case. After the facts are determined and the defendant is acquitted, the plaintiff can't keep publicly affirming the defendant's guilt without risking consequences. This is completely precedented.

Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them. In this case, Apple acted as if they had already won by prematurely advertising a victory ('Samsung copied us!'), so they're being required to retract that.

(Typical disclaimers of UK vs US law and IANAL apply, though my point is that this would not be unusual or unreasonable if it had happened in the US).

oneandoneis22• 14 years ago

Some US courts make judgements that will end a human life, and you think what's shocking is that a UK court can order a company to retract a claim that has been found to be false?

grimtrigger• 14 years ago

Can't they both be shocking?

philwelch• 14 years ago

Yes, in the case that one is convicted of extremely heinous murder, not in the case that one loses a patent suit.

wutbrodo• 14 years ago

It seems broadly similar to the warning on cigarette cartons. Though now it's explicitly under the label: "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING", for a period of time it simply said "Cigarette smoking is hazardous to your health".

drizzo4shizzo• 14 years ago

They'll probably put Ironic Hipster quotes around "copy"

pfortuny• 14 years ago

To those saying that Apple "complied"... Do you think Apple would have complied if the text were in #FEFEFE over #FFFFFF in a page including, say "buy iPhone and be happy!" in clear #000000 and a Photo of Steve?

It would be literally complying: The text would be there to be read, anyway.

mokash• 14 years ago

I saw this coming. Their 'apology' was just another thinly veiled stab at Samsung. They're simply coming off as childish and immature now. They're not exactly getting into the good-books of that judge which would have worked in their favour if they ever encountered him again which judging by their history and mantra of 'sue everything' is highly likely.

spullara• 14 years ago

Kind of ridiculous. Samsung obviously did copy, the court just ruled that it didn't merit an infringement ruling. I mean, does anyone think, really, that Samsung didn't set out to copy all of Apple's products? Wouldn't it be better for all (except Apple) if it was spelled out that Samsung copied them but it is ok?

YokoZar• 14 years ago

Not even the American jury thought that Samsung violated Apple's patent on the product in question.

codeulike5• 14 years ago

Its important to understand that they weren't asked to publish an 'apology' or state any beliefs. They were asked to publish a specifically worded statement of fact about the outcome of the case.

What they were asked to publish is roughly the first and fifth paragraphs of what they actually published. They added four other paragraphs.

Points 87 and 88 of the appeal judgement here say what they should have published:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

Which is:

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 judgment 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 (date). A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link [link given]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

Contrast with what they actually published: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

jusben1369• 14 years ago

People. Top post? For hours? 165 comments and counting? For a legal spat in the UK? For every post that claims the top spot there's one that fails to get noticed.

These articles are our "Brad and Angelina" equivalents.

grellas• 14 years ago

In July, 2012, Samsung had won a judgment in the UK to the effect that its Galaxy Tab computers did not infringe Apple's registered design.

In spite of this, Apple continued to assert, broadly and widely, that Samsung's tablet computers did in fact constitute blatant copying of Apple's design and was therefore wrongful.

Therefore, Samsung went to the court trying to get an injunction barring Apple from making such claims because the claims were causing commercial harm to Samsung within the UK and thereby were negating the effect of the judgment won by Samsung.

Alternatively, Samsung sought a publication order requiring Apple to publicize the fact of the judgment on a long list of Apple websites as well as in certain financial publications. The idea of this order was to clear the confusion created by Apple's continued claims of illegal copying notwithstanding that it had lost on this issue in the UK courts.

The judge hearing the follow-up proceeding issued a very thoughtful ruling (found here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html) that in fact denied Samsung's request for an injunction against Apple's being able to claim illegal copying. The judge acknowledged the inherent unfairness of barring a party that had lost in a court proceeding from contesting the ruling and from publicly claiming that the ruling was wrong. It thus agreed with Apple that Apple should not be muzzled in asserting its legal right to speak.

The judge then turned to the more limited request made by Samsung for the publication order and described it as follows: "Samsung say that, notwithstanding the fact that Apple have lost this case, they continue to assert that Samsung infringes and that the damage that was caused and has been described there continues to apply. Accordingly, Samsung seek orders that I should require Apple to put on their websites and to put in certain newspapers references to this judgment and a statement that the court has found that the Samsung Galaxy tablets do not infringe." The judge went on to say that he believed "there is a useful purpose in a clear public statement that a product alleged by a rights holder to infringe those rights does not infringe," reasoning that "[t]he more frequently and the more loudly a rights holder has asserted infringement, the more useful it is to have a clear public statement to the contrary."

So, the whole point of the order was to ensure that Apple made a clear public statement to the effect that a UK court had ruled that the Galaxy Tab did not infringe Apple's registered design. Nothing in the order prevented Apple from continuing to assert that it was right and that the UK decision was wrong. Apple had full scope to make these assertions as and when it wanted and has obviously been making them freely.

At the same time, Apple was required to make the clear public statement called for by the follow-on order. Apple appealed this follow-on order and lost. It therefore had exhausted its remedies within the relevant court system and was left with the requirement that it comply.

That is when it purportedly complied by placing a teeny link buried at the bottom of its UK home page that linked to a text that, within the disclosure itself, bombarded the reader with all the reasons why Samsung really did infringe notwithstanding the UK judgment that had been rendered against Apple.

A few thoughts:

1. This conduct by Apple did not merely violate the "spirit" of the order. It clearly violated the order itself. Where Apple had been ordered to make a clear public statement publicizing the fact of the UK judgment, Apple had in fact offered up an obscure link to a statement full of argumentative statements aimed at creating obvious doubt about the question of non-infringement.

2. Apple did this in a context where the order had given it free scope to argue all it liked about its free speech rights to contest the original judgment and to continue claiming infringement on grounds that it disagreed with that judgment. Instead of accepting the order on its terms, Apple went way out of its way to undercut the limited disclosure that it had been required to make.

3. Lawyers say, "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered," meaning that when a litigant gets too greedy, it risks having its legal proceeding go badly wrong. Apple had been given a reasonable accommodation by the court addressing its legitimate concerns but it was not content to settle for that. It wanted to do nothing that might acknowledge that Samsung had legitimate issues as well - issues that had been found valid by a UK court and affirmed on appeal. Therefore, Apple decided to respond in a way it deemed clever, in effect defying the judicial authorities who had ruled against it.

4. We can each judge for ourselves whether this was smart or not. My view is that it is conduct unbecoming of lawyers (and of Apple as the principal in the case) and, indeed, is an outrageous affront to judicial authority. Courts and judges are not always right but, when they rule against you and you exhaust your appeals, you had better comply. If you think you are above the law in the sense that you need not comply, you will regret it. Those of us who are mere mortals need to live by these rules. So too does Apple.

comex• 14 years ago

Note that regarding the link part, the judgement specifically requested a link among other links on the UK site:

He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled " Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate.

confluence• 14 years ago

It's not like it even matters. Apple is dead, and these are just their final gasps of air.

Apple is pulling the Edison maneuver to protect their rapidly dwindling monopoly on mobile consumer hardware - and they will lose because Tesla (aka Android) is better for both the industry and consumers.

Android is open, Android is iOS equivalent, Android is cheap, Android is backed by the rest of the world's electronic mobile manufacturers. Apple can't win - the world is now chasing their profits with ravenous rage and hundreds of billions of dollars in invested capital. They will be commoditized because all they sell, and all they have ever sold, was glass with a grey backs. The only thing that protected Apple - really protected them was iOS. Those apps made Apple. And the openness of Android will commoditize them.

Apple can shock elephants (ban tablets) and write false accusations about the merits of AC (Samsung sucks) all they want - it doesn't change the fact that their monopoly in mobile hardware is in a terminal and rapid death spiral.

Samsung made Apple. And Samsung will destroy them for the fundamental reason that style can and will be copied vociferously for the betterment of the consumer, but the substance behind it cannot.

Glass with grey backs are commodity. Market saturation is imminent. Competitive equivalence has occured.

stock_toaster• 14 years ago

Ugh. Apple stories really bring out the worst in HackerNews.

makes a note to avoid reading such threads in the future

Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

Related Stories