decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj Updated 5Xs
Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:24 AM EDT

The UK judges have now responded, Bloomberg News reports, to Apple's snarky notice about Samsung not copying (with Apple's additions that it still thinks it does) by ordering Apple to remove the notice within 24 hours and replace it with one telling the world that what it posted was untrue and incorrect:
Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges in a patent lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) for posting a notice on its website that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”

The U.K. Court of Appeal in London ordered Apple to remove the statement within 24 hours and place a new notice acknowledging the inaccurate comments. The Cupertino, California-based company was told by the same court last month to post the initial notice as part of a ruling that Samsung’s Galaxy tablets didn’t copy the design of Apple’s iPad.

“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.”

While Tim Cook is cleaning out executives, maybe he should take a look at the lawyers who are leading Apple into this kind of unnecessary trouble and brand tarnishment by such super-aggressive strategies?

I actually saw at least one lawyer who wrote on his blog that what Apple did was great. Patently Apple viewed it like this:
In a bizarre legal twist, Apple has finally posted an apology on their UK Homepage to Samsung as a UK judgement demanded of them. Yet Apple-Legal decided to play by the letter of the law and used it as an opportunity to set the record straight about Samsung copying the iPad design and more. In the end, Apple took a tough situation and turned water into wine.
Not any more. There are consequences now that are worse than before. Apple tried to argue that they followed the letter of the law in the original notice, as does Patently Apple. But there is something called the spirit of the law too, and if you follow one and thumb your nose at the other, things can go wrong, because people notice. Judges are not stupid. Not that I believe what Apple did obeyed the letter of the law either. Nor did the judge in the UK.

It's never all right to show disrespect to a court of law, and lawyers above all others should take the lead in demonstrating that respect. The rule of law actually depends on it, which is another way of saying that civilization itself depends on it. Otherwise, it's back to pistols at dawn, or worse.

Update: The Guardian has more details now too:

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".

Darren Smyth of EIP Partners said: "The objection was that Apple had added to the statement that the court of appeal had ordered, so did not comply with the original order, and furthermore that the additions were not accurate.

"Apple must now within 48 hours publish a correction on their homepage with a link to the corrected statement in not less than 11-point font."

So now we don't know if it's 24 or 48 hours, but it's pronto and get it right this time, either way.

Update 2: Jacqui Cheng at ars technica has a bit more:

Apple tried to argue that it would take 14 days to post an updated notice on its website, but the request was shot down. In fact, Judge Jacob made it clear that Apple's actions are beginning to make him testy.

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

The notice must be on Apple's UK website until December 14.

Update 3: We finally have a complete blow by blow account, thanks to patent lawyer Gary Moss, EIP, who sent the news from the courtroom to The IPKat. Apple was given 24 hours to remove the incorrect notice, and an additional 24 hours to get the new one up. And here's why the UK court justices orginally thought Apple should have to have a notice:

Followers of the Tablet Wars will recall that on 18 October 2012 the Court of Appeal, having found for Samsung and ruling that it did not infringe Apple’s Registered Designs, required Apple, among other things, to publish on its UK website a clarifying statement. The Court decided that the statement was needed because Apple had chosen to pursue an interim injunction in Germany despite the fact that His Honour Judge Birss QC was seised of the issue of whether Samsung was infringing throughout the entirety of the EU. In the view of the Court, that had potentially caused uncertainty in the minds of the public as to the status of Apple's claims. The purpose of the statement was to clear up any potential misunderstandings....

Michael Beloff manfully attempted to dodge the increasing flames and justify what Apple had done. His primary point was that the earlier order had not prohibited Apple from making additional statements and, indeed, in the course of the earlier hearing Mr Carr had said that Apple could “say what they like”. However the Court clearly thought that that was intended to mean, and was understood as meaning, “say what they like ELSEWHERE”. As Lord Justice Kitchin LJ: what if there had been three pages in between the two paragraphs which they had ordered, or a book? At this juncture the smoke signals were coming thick and fast from the general direction of the judiciary and the heat was rising.

The Court was particularly unimpressed with the fact that, in its view, the paragraphs which had been added were clearly wrong. In particular it will be noted that, in the final paragraph, Apple had said “in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design” [Emphasis added]. The Court took exception to the use of the words “the same patent” since the British action did not involve any patent, being solely concerned with registered design. Similarly, the Court did not like the statement that the Judge Birss had "made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung product" [Emphasis added]. As the Court pointed out, Judge Birss made no findings in relation to the Apple PRODUCT – his findings were in relation to the Apple REGISTERED DESIGN.

So that's exactly why the notice, which referenced the German ruling, was viewed as being so inaccurate, plus another reason I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere. So now it's all pretty clear that Apple did some rather fancy legal dancing, and it didn't work.

The wording of the notice published in The Financial Times yesterday is provided in a graphic on The Register.

Update 4, Sat. 6:10 AM, EDT: Apple's UK site now has on its homepage the following at the bottom of the page:

On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement.
It's on the home page, as ordered, but you do have to scroll down to see it. And some are indicating that Apple may have resized the graphic to ensure that it is not seen unless you scroll down. If anyone has a cached version of the UK homepage from two days ago, I'd love to check that.

The link takes you to this notice:

Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9 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 Community registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available from www.bailii.org/ew/cases/ EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

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


  


UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj Updated 5Xs | 627 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Newspicks thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:30 AM EDT
Please include a link (preferably clickable) so the newspick
can be located after it scrolls down

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj
Authored by: GriffMG on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:35 AM EDT
Nice simple 'do as you were told'

I note from the article that they asked for two weeks to do it... motion denied!

---
Keep B-) ing

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj
Authored by: GriffMG on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:36 AM EDT
"In the end, Apple took a tough situation and turned water into wine"

No, I think they took wine and turned it into what it normally becomes - after
you've drunk it.

---
Keep B-) ing

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Corrections Thread
Authored by: ais523 on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:38 AM EDT
In case PJ has made a mistake. Summarize your correction in the title of your
post, so that people using the default forum layout can know whether your post
interests them or not.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:39 AM EDT
Nothing here should be on topic. In fact, discussing the off
topic thread here would be on topic, so don't do it. This
post is thus on topic for the thread, and thus should not be
allowed here

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:39 AM EDT
I hope that apply realizes what a close shave it has had. UK judges have a lot of patience, but Apply has probably come close to exhausting it. Try that stunt again (or anything other "constructive interpretation" of the judge's orders) and Apple's legal eagles are going to find them selves in deep trouble - head down. The waters of certain well-known creek can be very deep indeed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:40 AM EDT
"there is something called the spirit of the law too, and if you follow one
and thumb your nose at the other, things can go wrong"

Unfortunately, that's generally true both ways round.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:41 AM EDT
Please include the reference in the title, so it's more
useful for PJ and Mark (and sorry for the other thread, I was
writting it, went to check something else, and continued it
as if it was the corrections thread)

[ Reply to This | # ]

LOL - Not a surprise - I hope Apple Double down -:)
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:45 AM EDT
If they keep doing this they are in real trouble.

Silverwav not logged in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

When's the deadline?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:46 AM EDT
So, when's Apple's deadline for fixing this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Technical Difficulties - LOL - Keep yourself in digging deeper :-)
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:52 AM EDT
Technical Difficulties
“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?”

Silverwav not logged in

[ Reply to This | # ]

Linking ruled out. Must be on Home Page!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 10:01 AM EDT
Quote:
The UK court of appeal has reprimanded Apple over the wording
of the statement on its website acknowledging that Samsung
did not infringe the iPad tablet's registered design, and
ordered it to put an altered statement on its homepage –
rather than tucked away in a linked page – until 14 December.

Silverwav

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT
I personally was hoping for the judges to order that the person who read and
sanctioned this given 14 days in jail. Would certainly stop any sort of this
shenanigans happening again even if the jail time was overturned on appeal.

However no information was given of what would happen if Apple didn't take it
down in the alotted 24 hours (it is still there)...

[ Reply to This | # ]

All trolls and Apple lawyers here
Authored by: pem on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 10:11 AM EDT
To any human, it was pretty obvious that Apple didn't do the right thing and
would be taken to task. But a lot of trolls in the previous article seemed to
believe differently.

If you disagree with the judge's new ruling, can you politely and succinctly
explain why, in a way that a human could understand, the judge should have been
satisfied with Apple's previous response?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Word Smiths
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT

It seems Apple choose to ignore the concepts involved and instead choose to focus on the words.

This is the kind of game we're used to seeing US Lawyers play in US Courts. As such, Apple's response doesn't surprise me for that reason.

However, I would expect Apple's UK Court appearances to have been made by UK Legal representatives. As I'm not as familiar with how UK Lawyers behave, and I do expect them to behave better then US Lawyers for some unknown reason, their response is a bit of a surprise for that reason.

To follow the specific words and ignore the spirit is to pretend you received your instruction in a vacuum with no other information available. This is easily proven wrong with Apple knowing what they were supposed to do.

To repeat what I laid out in response in another thread:

  1. Apple knew of their public campaign.
  2. Said public campaign was deliberately selected in order to harm Samsung. For example - Apple deliberately going to the distributors in the US and telling them (allegedly wrongfully) that the order preventing Samsung from bringing new devices in also prevented the distributors from clearing their stock.
  3. Said public campaign was specifically built on Apple's Court Claims.
  4. Said Court Claims were specifically dealt with by the various Courts.
  5. Said UK Court handling such an instance recognized the public harm caused by Apple.
  6. Said Judge clearly outlined the problem and Apple's deliberate harm.
  7. Said Judge clearly outlined the fact that Samsung is Legally cleared of wrongful behavior.
  8. Said Judge clearly outlined the harm to Samsung needed to be corrected.
  9. Said Judge clearly outlined Apple had to publicly clear Samsung's name of "wrongful doing"
Yet Apple - and those attempting to argue what Apple did was acceptable - would apparently have people believe Apple didn't understand the concepts expressed in the order. As though Apple wasn't a part of all that history.

That's like catching your kid shop lifting a candy bar. You make your kid apologize to the shop keeper for shoplifting and your kid says:

    I apologize for shoplifting!
Then you tell your kid:
    I better not catch you shoplifting candy bars again!
And moments later you catch your kid shoplifting a soft drink and s/he says:
    But you said not to shoplift candy bars!
I mean: seriously? Additional punishment is applied because you know the child knew the problem was shoplifting, not the article that was being shoplifted.

We expect children to understand the concept being expressed and face punishment for such behavior.

Yet an Adult Lawyer is going to try and argue along those very lines? Seriously? An adult is going to behave in a way that we punish children for?

And this is why a lot of people the world over are heavily disappointed in Lawyers: there's too many of them that are word smiths willing to play loose and fast with what's available and far too few of them are actually punished for such behavior.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

These guys over at Patently Apple aren't too bright...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT

It is obviously some kind of fan site, because it says at the top "Celebrating Apple's Spirit of Invention". Do they also celebrate Apple's misuse of a broken patent system to compete?

In October, a judge in the United Kingdom had delivered a stinging rebuke of Apple, ordering them to run ads publicly apologizing to Samsung.

They keep on talking about some supposed "apology". Apple was never told to apologize to Samsung, nor is that word to be found anywhere in the appeal court's decision and order. What the court order says is...

The grant of such an order is not to punish the party concerned for its behaviour. Nor is it to make it grovel - simply to lose face. The test is whether there is a need to dispel commercial uncertainty.

Apple accepted that the German injunction should be discharged altogether and undertook to this court forthwith to apply to the German court for it to be discharged.

How then does all of that affect the decision as to whether or not there should be a publicity order? The grant of such an order is not to punish the party concerned for its behaviour. Nor is it to make it grovel - simply to lose face. The test is whether there is a need to dispel commercial uncertainty. No more than that which is proportionate is necessary.

If these guys are really lawyers, I wouldn't want them to represent me, because they lack basic reading and comprehension skills. The article at Patently Apple says...

I'm sure that Samsung-legal will be pulling their hair out this morning as well as yelling and rending their garments. They were fully expecting a groveling Apple statement of apology and instead got spit in the face.

Why would they think Samsung-legal were fully expecting a "groveling Apple statement of apology", when the judge specifically said such was not the case? I suppose if Samsung were represented by these clowns from Patently Apple they might have ended up with such an expectation, but they have have real lawyers guiding them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apologies thread
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT
Those that claimed on Groklaw that Apple was following the judge's order to the
letter may post a retraction here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj
Authored by: albert on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT
Many (well, several) of us have commented on client wishes vs. lawyers advice.
It's mind boggling to think that _any_ lawyer would have OK'd Apples response to
the courts order. I'd like to think that Apple did it in spite of advice to the
contrary.

I'm also amused by the court's response; essential giving Apple a ladder to get
out of the hole they're in. Water into wine? No, ladder into shovel. I can't
wait for the next move; it's like a soap opera!

[ Reply to This | # ]

forbes - LOL - “Not pleased”: allow me to translate that from judicial English English for you.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT
Quote:

“Not pleased”: allow me to translate that from judicial
English English for you. They are incandescent with rage at
the idea that anyone would so flout their stated wishes and
are looking for someone to fine or jail in the absence of
still being allowed to sentence to a horsewhipping.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/01/apple-
must-apologise-to-samsung-again-and-properly-this-time/

[ Reply to This | # ]

The printed version
Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:10 PM EDT
Apparently the Apple advertisement is on page 4 of today's Financial Times, has
anyone seen it?

---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thread for those betting (or hoping) that Apple will once again flub this up ...
Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT
This thread is for those who think that Apple will once again
fail to follow either the spirit or letter or both of the
most recent court order.

Count me as one of those. I am uncertain however, as to
how badly or how far Apple will mess this up.

One possibility is seeming to more closely following the letter,
but having Apple still make unfounded claims on their web site,
but just not directly interspersed with the court ordered notice(s).

Another possibility is Apple being more careful with their web site,
but issuing a press release that goes entirely counter.

Naturally there are still more possibilities that I have either
overlooked, or consider unlikely.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are there then no significant consequences?
Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:23 PM EDT
Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me as if Apple is somewhere between
unpunished and lightly-rewared for their contempt of the EU court system. With
some days of Apple asserting and spouting the Apple version of (crotcheted and
distorted) reality, they now have 48 hours to go back and follow the court's
instructions. It looks to me as if they effectively got to ignore the court's
directive with no consequences. Yes, Apple has gotten a some bad press, but I
really don't think see how that should have bearing on a court making clear that
judges' instructions are to be followed. The kind of publicity Apple would
receive was a gamble, and they seem to have expected the general public to have
the same response as the Apple loyalists. That was a gamble, though, and it was
not one that Apple was to have the privilege to make. Now, anything that Apple
posts will have significantly less impact, since, given what they posted last
week, they have already made clear that they do not mean it one bit.

If this is all that will happen, I have to say that it isn't just Apple that has
contempt for the EU court system. I'm feeling a bit of contempt, myself.

Regards,
mc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe Tim Cook could file an affidavit?
Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:24 PM EDT
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.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why I think Apple will be looking for new UK lawyers.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT
I want to be fair to the whole legal team. Hired lawyers, UK team, EU team, US
team all the lawyers, paralegals, secretaries, shoot even the janitors all
probably told TPTB at Apple not to do this. TPTB decided they knew more so blew
all of them off.

I expect TPTB to keep trying to screw with the courts order.
I then expect the legal firms representing Apple to boldly announce that since
Apple is no longer taking their advice they see no way they can continue to
represent Apple.

Mouse the Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | # ]

Say you're sorry Apple... this time like you MEAN it • The Register
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT
QUOTE:

This very public humiliation for Apple by the UK courts is
unprecedented says Khurram Aziz, news editor at Intellectual
Property Magazine.

It was already an unprecedented decision by the UK Court of
Appeal to force Apple to put a statement on its website
saying that its rival Samsung does not infringe the design
of its iPad. Defendants which have lost a patent case have
had to do this before, but this was the first time a
plaintiff which failed to win the litigation has had to
release such a statement.

The fact that the judges weren’t happy with Apple’s first
statement and are asking it to immediately replace it with a
much more strongly worded message, shows just how damaging
they believe Apple’s suit against Samsung could have been.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/01/samsung_case_apple_t
old_to_apologise_again/

[ Reply to This | # ]

At least 11 point
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT
Get out your microscopes people. The previous order said 14pt,
which Apple, with Puckish disregard for the typography so
beloved of the late Steve, by sleight of stylesheet and
display scaling, turned into 10.5pt text with 14pt leading.

It would be useful to read the actual ruling. The Guardian report says
> 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.
and
> "Apple must now within 48 hours publish a correction on their
> homepage with a link to the corrected statement in not less
> than 11-point font."

Apple's homepage stylesheet currently lists the link to the
judgement notice as font-size:10px;

The notice still looks unchanged as of 20121101.1808UT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers or PR Department?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 02:14 PM EDT
While Tim Cook is cleaning out executives, maybe he should take a look at the lawyers who are leading Apple into this kind of unnecessary trouble and brand tarnishment by such super-aggressive strategies?

The statement on Apple's web site looks more like something from Apple's PR department rather than something the case lawyers dreamed up. At most, I would imagine that the lawyers may have been shown a draft and asked as to whether it met the letter of the law, but I have my doubts about that either. If it was the lawyers, they would be much more likely to simply print the judge's order verbatim. The lawyers would not be likely to take the initiative to write a PR message, nor would they have direct access to Apple's web site to publish it.

The tiny link and the distorted message looks like PR department tactics. Given the seriousness of the case it would probably have been approved fairly high up in Apple as well.

Simply printing the judge's order or something similarly obscure in the first place would have killed the story fairly quickly. As it is, now Apple has made it look as if they had something shameful to hide. I suspect however that a low level employee will get the blame and a non-apology will be issued.

[ Reply to This | # ]

14 days by sailing ship across the Atlantic
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT
There is the little question of where is the server, and who actually
administers its content?

[ Reply to This | # ]

(Sort of) Court Report
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 02:33 PM EDT
There is a court report of sorts on the IPKat blog: Beloff baked, Apple roasted, Britons unscrewed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 03:31 PM EDT
If they want Apple to have to say a particular thing to the public, they need to
dictate exact text. I foresee another failure here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why does the statement only appear on the UK site?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 03:33 PM EDT
As noted by a commenter on the ipkat blog, the judgement is
valid throughout the EU.

Did Apple decide to display only on the UK site, or was that
from the judge? If the former then I would expect to see
another round of this when they do the same again...

Stevos

[ Reply to This | # ]

Beloff baked, Apple roasted: The sacrificial guy on this occasion was Apple's counsel
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 03:48 PM EDT
Quote: The event in question was yet another hearing in the long-running tablet wars saga. The sacrificial guy on this occasion was Apple's counsel, none other than the Honourable Mr Michael Beloff QC. The guest Kats use the word "sacrificial" advisedly [though perhaps "fall guy" would do just as well] since the unfortunate Mr Beloff had not appeared for Apple at the previous hearing (that "honour" had fallen to Lord Grabiner QC) but Mr Beloff was nevertheless given prominence at the top of the bonfire on this occasion. To say that he emerged somewhat singed would be an understatement.

Beloff baked, Apple roasted

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

100% proof that the first notice perpetuates confusion
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 03:53 PM EDT
Chief Apple cheerleader John Gruber of Daring Fireball
(from Samsung filing) “It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts.”

Of course, the UK court is out of step with other courts.

As far as I can tell, the UK court is 100% in step with other courts on this issue, unless one believes vacated rulings from junior courts, or looks at verdicts on different issues. This looks like the very confusion that the UK court was trying to avoid, and it seems clear that their concern was warranted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It is pitch black.
Authored by: BJ on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT
Apple are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Or, with Halloween just barely past us,
we should send in esr.


bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT
Apparently the maximum sentence for
contempt of a crown court is 2 years, so
its obviously regarded as a serious matter.
Suppose Apple is foolish enough to flout
this latest court order, could Tim Cook be
extradited?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe we can help edit their HTML
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 07:02 PM EDT
<sarcasm>It is a very complicated process after all</sarcasm>

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's now wonder their maps app wasn't ready...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 08:20 PM EDT

...if it takes two weeks for Apple "geniuses" to change a webpage.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple UK home page
Authored by: johnE on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 11:05 PM EDT
As of now (0300 UTC 2012 Nov 2), Apple has not complied.

The home page contains still the link at the bottom,
with the original (as quoted in the article) contents.

Time moves on ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspaper advertisement
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 06:33 AM EDT
The newspaper ad has now appeared. From page 5 of today's Guardian:

Advertisement

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of
England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics
(UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely
the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not
infringe Apple's Community 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.
That Judgment has effect throughout the European
Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal of
England and Wales on 18th 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 Community registered design in
Force anwhere in Europe.

The text appears in a box about 11cm square at the bottom of the page.

[ Reply to This | # ]

First print apology spotted
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 08:08 AM EDT
It's less snarky, but looks like something a high-school student put together as homework 5 minutes before class...
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/apple-apology-to-sa msung-pops-up-in-logo-free-print-version-50009663/

[ Reply to This | # ]

a picture is worth a Thousand Words
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 09:11 AM EDT
As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.. and this picture to be quite apt, in the spirit of the discussion.

http://featheredangels.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/organic- apple-ci der-vinegar.jpg

[ Reply to This | # ]

HAHA apple thread
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT
now post what funny stuff apple has done with litigation.
Start with a funny reply about suing in mexico and losing....

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT
Strange: Now any reference on the court case has disappeared
from the homepage!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Suggestion M' Lords. "Tell That It Was Untrue" {{IN A SUPERBOWL COMMERCIAL!}}
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT
And Right Before Half Time!!

So what did the "Notice" cost them? Maybe $1000? $5000?
The Newspaper Ads? A Grand or Two at the outside?

As this is the Modern Version of The Pillory, perhaps
Tim, et al, should become acquainted with the modern version
of NOT COMPLYING WITH THE COURT'S ORDER THE FIRST TIME!

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT
The judge may have a much more effective remedy if Apple
continues to ignore the court: ban Apple from selling its
products in the EU until it complies with the order. At that
point what Apple's UK website says would be irrelevant.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Current status?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT
Going to http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ redirects me to
apple.com/uk, and there's no hint of any of this.

No link, no text ...


Pm

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Javascript redirect - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT
  • Current status? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT
UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj Updated 3Xs
Authored by: Arthur Marsh on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 07:28 PM EDT
So when should we see the notice that should appear after one types

http://www.apple.co.uk/

into one's browser?

---
http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe Samsung can go back to the UK court and ask for it to be ABOVE the fold?
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 07:11 AM EDT
Apple's UK apology - does it count if its not seen?
Never shows, unless you scroll down :-)

Interesting that no matter what resolution you choose the small print at the
bottom of the page is never show, unless you scroll down :-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

If the point is for people to NOTICE the ruling this does not comply. Under the fold.
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 07:13 AM EDT
Maybe Samsung can go back to the UK court and ask for it to be ABOVE the fold?

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT
UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj Updated 3Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT
Seriously, either that is snarky genius, having the iPad Mini
graph resize to ensure the Samsung statement stays off bottom
screen (grab the bottom right corner of your browser and
shrink/expand it), or that graphic was previously doing that
auto-resizing thing and it's just bad luck for Samsung.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple still acting in bad faith after update
Authored by: jimrandomh on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 12:24 PM EDT
So, the corrected notice is up. You have to scroll down to see it.

Resize your browser window to any size at all, and you still have
to scroll down to see it. And no matter what size you choose, the
big product icons at the "bottom" will neatly align with the
bottom of the window, to make it as non-obvious as possible that
there's more below the fold. Scroll down slightly, and the first
thing you see is a fairly standard looking page footer - which for
many people will make them stop scrolling.

Looking at the page more closely, I found that it references
http://images.apple.com/metrics/scripts/s_code_h.js, which
contains a function getPercentPageViewed which measures exactly
how many people will scroll down. I did not dig fully through the
code obfuscation, but I am reasonably sure that this information
is included in the s_ppv field of the connection cookie which is
sent to Apple on later requests. A look at the Wayback machine
indicates that this tracking code is not new.

Therefore, if my interpretation is correct, Apple had and still
has the exact fraction of people who would fail to scroll down and
see the notice. And it possibly can measure what effect seeing the
notice has on going on to buy. They may or may not have realized
they had this information.

Samsung should ask Apple what fraction of users scroll down to see
the notice. Additionally, they should ask Apple whether they
considered this issue arose in any internal discussions
surrounding the notice. Apple is still acting in bad faith.

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj Updated 3Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 08:58 PM EDT
CNET has posted an article about the auto-resize feature, but
it's really sloppy journalism. It misstates the year
archive.org last captured their page, and it fails to mention
that other foreign apple sites have the same feature.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Forbes: Yet Even More Apple Samsung Apology: When Is A Page A Page?
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 08:59 AM EST
Yet Even More Apple Samsung Apology: When Is A Page A Page?

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

First time I have seen Apple described as such :-/
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 09:19 AM EST
Apple Hides Its Latest Samsung Apology With Some Clever Code

Language Warning

But it’s a reminder that these endless patent wars and their repercussions aren’t always the result of companies acting in their best interests. Just like the rest of us, sometimes they’re just pouty little snots.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Judges Respond to Apple's Snarky Notice: Take It Down and Tell That It Was Untrue ~pj Updated 5Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 04:40 PM EST
They are at it again.
To see the new notice on this newly redesigned page you have to scroll all the
way down to even see it. In fact there's code that hides the text from being
seen at all !

Reference :
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/11/03/apple-hides-samsung-apology-on-its-uk-sit
e-so-it-cant-be-seen-without-scrolling/

I hope the judge will now condemn them to jail and super heavy fines.

Blatant disregard for the spirit of the Judge's order.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )