So the Reg's headline landed Apple in hot water. No wonder they hate you :)
Apple must apologise for its surly apology on its website on Saturday
Apple will have to apologise for its rubbish apology as well its patent infringement claims against Samsung when it publishes a statement on its UK website tomorrow. The three sentence statement that Apple will have to display on its homepage will say: On 25th October 2012, Apple Inc published a statement on its UK website …
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 14:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
No XMAS card this year
"We also owe thanks to Gary Moss for reporting the effect of a Register headline when read out in the courtroom yesterday, described as "throwing a petrol can onto the bonfire"
Future coverage of Apple products will continue to come from 3rd hand sources and rumours gleaned from the internet. Surely this is an own goal ?
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 17:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: No XMAS card this year
>Future coverage of Apple products will continue to come from 3rd hand sources and rumours gleaned from the internet. Surely this is an own goal ?
Nah, the free supply of Apple kit is gone forever the first time a journo or publication crosses the criticism line - lack of invites to Events post-Jobs is no great loss either.
Otherwise it's rumours everywhere anyway - Apple themselves don't leak - even to Wired and their other pets.
-
Monday 5th November 2012 09:12 GMT Psyx
Re: No XMAS card this year
"Future coverage of Apple products will continue to come from 3rd hand sources and rumours gleaned from the internet. Surely this is an own goal ?"
Are you saying that it would be better if independent news services censored themselves, towed the company line, and cozied up to corporations, just so they get invited to cocktail parties?
-
-
-
-
Sunday 4th November 2012 11:45 GMT Anonymous Coward
Contempt of court parts 2 and 3
#2 Not identifying Apple as the publisher of the print apology.
#3 When the updated website version appeared Saturday, the front page apology was placed by Apple so as to be invisible when the page is first loaded irrespective of screen size. It gets worse. The UK Apple site (but NOT the USA site) has been redesigned to expand a graphic so the lower part of the home page is never visible on load. A cheap trick which suggests another visit to court and a further apology for attempting to hide the apology.
-
Sunday 4th November 2012 11:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Contempt of court parts 2 and 3
They should now be required to place a fresh apology in a prominant position at the top of the screen in a larger font.
This would be an apology for hiding the apology for making false and misleading statements in the original apology required by the court.
I also suggest Samsung request the court investigate just who in Apple is responsible for these attempts to game the legal system. Clearly it involved technical matters on the website so not just a slip up in wording by the legal people.
-
Sunday 4th November 2012 17:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Contempt of court parts 2 and 3
>Clearly it involved technical matters on the website
Yep, they've added a script to ensure the statement is pushed below the viewport in all resolutions. They've also done this in a case where, perhaps uniquely, the Judge will actually understand the code and it's purpose.
It's not often I feel sorry for lawyers, but Apple's team must be climbing the walls right now.
-
-
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 15:00 GMT Chris 171
That's better.
Though the print copy doesn't really identify as coming from apple enough in my eyes, needs the logo for maximum efficacy.
I wonder who rode roughshod over the presumably sensible advice, re not posting the arcing pacifier that was the first 'we were talking out of our ass' clarification?
Not that I'm complaining, but I am wondering if their seemingly bullet proof shoes are getting a bit threadbare by now.
Bonkers.
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 15:03 GMT bolccg
Education
Someone really needs to tell Apple about the Streisand effect. All this dragging it out has just made it more noteworthy and *much* more humiliating for them. Frankly, for a big multinational, the way they've dealt with this whole thing has been an embarrassment and in completely unexpected and bewildering ways even (the "14 days to change our website" thing was a particular low point).
Honestly someone senior in the organisation needs to get a grip on this whole process before the Court really loses patience.
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 15:30 GMT bolccg
Re: Education
Possibly but tbh I doubt it - most of the people who spend lots more on a device because it is "cool" (ie Apple customers) probably either don't know about this ruling or frankly don't care what a judge thinks.
Some of them may even be a bit put off by the fact that a judge things that the iPad is cool (based on the relatively stuffy stereotype of judges).
Any neutral observer just sees Apple getting spanked in court, behaving in an infantile fashion about it and then being spanked some more because they stuffed it up the first time (with an added helping of "we're so clueless we can't even run our own website" thrown in). I don't claim to be an expert on these things but none of that strikes me as especially cool.
If they'd taken their licks with some dignity in the first place then it would have just faded quickly into the mists of time. As it is, I'm sure I'll not be alone in recalling this pitiful spectacle for some time.
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 11:17 GMT Mystic Megabyte
Re: Education
>>Maybe, although it possibly also reminds people that this was the case where the judge said Samsung couldn't >>have copied Apple because their designs weren't cool enough.
I suppose you think that wearing a logo for Nike or some other brand is cool. Wrong!
Also why are all the Apple shills anonymous? Fail!
-
Sunday 4th November 2012 20:55 GMT The First Dave
Re: Education
It will also tend to make some people question the sanity of the British courts - the tone of Apple's "apology" may not have been what was expected by the Judge, but nor was it factually incorrect. The Judge is now forcing them to lie in print - surely it is now the Judge himself who is in contempt?
-
Monday 5th November 2012 09:18 GMT Psyx
Re: Education
"It will also tend to make some people question the sanity of the British courts"
Only stupid people who don't understand the concept of an actual fair legal system that doesn't just follow a script, and makes allowances for intent. The legal system here is based on reasonable behaviour.
"the tone of Apple's "apology" may not have been what was expected by the Judge, but nor was it factually incorrect. The Judge is now forcing them to lie in print - surely it is now the Judge himself who is in contempt?"
Don't be idiotic. Judges can't be in contempt of their own judgements.
What's the 'lie' exactly?
-
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 15:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
I wonder..
I'm I the only one who's getting a bit tired of all those (IMO:) lame patent lawsuits?
Sure; I can see that if you copy a competitors product one on one and then start to sell it as if it were your own then someone has to put a stop to that because that's simply unfair business.
But to sue for allegedly having a button placed 12cm from the edge of a device instead of 8cm is IMVHO way overdoing it.
I know; if there's an option to make extra money companies will dive into that. Even so; IMVHO its getting out of hand.
-
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 23:13 GMT objectivesea
Esperanto advertisements in the European Union - an idea whose time has come
Yes. A great idea. Here's one suggested text:
La naŭan de julio 2012 la Supera Kortumo de Justeco en Anglio kaj Kimrio regis ke la Galaksiaj Briketokomputiloj de Samsung Electronics (Unuiĝinta Reĝlando) Limited -- tio estas, la Galaksia Tabo dek punkto unu, Tabo ok punkto naŭ kaj Tabo sep punkto sep ne malobservas la dezajnon registritan far Apple ene la Eŭropa Komunumo numerante cent-okdek-unu mil sescent sep, streketo nulo nulo nulo unu.
Kopio de la plena juĝo de la Supera Kortumo disponeblas ĉe la jena ligilo: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.Tiu juĝo havas efikon en la tuta Eŭropa Unio kaj la dek-ok-an de oktobro 2012 estis konfirmita de la Kortumo de Apelacio de Anglio kaj Kimrio.
Kopio de la juĝo de la Kortumo de Apelacio disponeblas ĉe la jena ligilo: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. Neniu ordono en respekto de la dezajno komunumo-registrita havas forton ie en Eŭropo.
-- The pedant, because neither Zamenhof nor Orwell was available for comment.
-
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 15:52 GMT Mike Moyle
The part that I don't understand...
The ad had to state that the decision has effect through all of the EU. Does that mean that decisions of the German courts that Samsung DID infringe are subservient to British ones that say they didn't? I mean, in the U.S., an individual state's courts -- even a state's supreme court -- can only pass decisions that are binding in THAT state. It takes a Federal court to make rulings that hold across all of the states.
Does the EU actually allow one state to override the decisions of another state's courts across the entire union?
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something here, but that just seems f*cked up.
-
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 20:27 GMT Radbruch1929
Re: Judge Birss explained
Article 82 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. From the reading of the text and not as advice: If the suit is brought where the infringer sits in the EC, the court may be asked for a verdict for all infringements in the EC by this infringer. If the law suit is brought in a country where there is an infringement (i.e. sale of an infringing device), the court may only be asked for a verdict on this alleged infringement and any infringement in the country of the infringement.
-
-
-
Monday 5th November 2012 09:25 GMT Psyx
Re: The part that I don't understand...
"Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something here, but that just seems f*cked up."
Firstly: The plaintiff requested it.
Secondly: The German court kinda screwed up.
Thirdly: What's stupid about part of an economic UNION being able to make binding rulings on economic matters across the Union? It's clearly a massive waste and time for each state in either the US or EU to waste valuable court time making having duplicate hearings on exactly the same case.
Remember: Every day that these corporations drag shit through our courts is a day less time they have to deal with matters pertaining to actual crime. I don't want to see every court in the land tied up with crap like this financed by massive companies, resulting in petty criminals getting let off with cushy deals because the courts are too busy to try them.
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 15:54 GMT johnnymotel
Personally, I think Apple made a clever move, with the first ‘apology’ and the second ‘apology’.
They figured there was a good chance the first one would get thrown out, but they garnered some nice points against Samsung. They made a few jokes, at the expense of the judge and Samsung. I’m sure plenty of people read this apology, had a smile at the veiled sarcasm and moved on. All in all a neat first swipe at the ball.
The second apology reads very boring and will most likely be ignored by the vast majority.
Even if the Judge makes Apple do a third apology, the energy of the ruling will have completely exhausted itself and even less folk will read the advert.
Believe me, I’ve read a few blogs by UK barristers…they can be a wry lot, not averse to giving judges a sly side swipe with some of their comments.
Apple would have employed the best UK barristers, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing with both apologies.
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 16:21 GMT bolccg
I disagree
My impression, and based on a sampling of the comments on various tech websites it seems to be the majority opinion, was that they were being dickheads.
Let's not kid ourselves - all of this stuff will be ignored by the vast majority but those who have read about it seem to have generally come away thinking that Apple are being run by children (and poorly behaved ones, at that).
Of course they knew what they were doing - *that's* the problem.
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 16:52 GMT bobbles31
Re: I disagree
You can waste a courts time with rounded corners patent cases, you can bitch about the verdict to the press, he'll you can even call the judge names outside his own court if you like. But Judges get real funny when they issue an order and it doesn't get followed. People that don't do as they are told by a judge generally go to prison.
-
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 13:38 GMT Arctic fox
"I think Apple made a clever move, with the first ‘apology’ and the second ‘apology’."
No, actually. The average punter (in that degree they have taken any notice of this case) is not especially impressed with "big boys" who take the piss out of a court judgement. They think (naturally enough) that if "I would have do what I was told under those circumstances then so should those bastards".
-
Monday 5th November 2012 09:27 GMT Psyx
"Apple would have employed the best UK barristers, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing with both apologies."
The Barristers don't have anything to do with the wording of the apologies. They simply have to stand up in court and try to explain Apple's actions with a straight face, and play with the hand that the marketing gurus who wrote the Notice and the Corporate lawyers who signed off on it dealt them.
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 15:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
Perfect opportunity for Samsung
To create adverts for the Tabs in exactly the same format and location on the page tomorrow morning, telling you where you can buy these amazing products and provide URLs, and cash in on the publicity. Apple haven't identified this as their publication, so there can be no copyright infringement etc.
Simples!
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 16:32 GMT Richard 12
Re: @ Mike Moyle
A Registered Design is the EU equivalent of a US Design Patent.
The cases were on the same thing, the appeal court judgement makes that quite clear and has some very strong language regarding the German court - almost as close to "You bunch of ****ing morons, you on crack or something?" as it's possible to get.
-
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 16:51 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: Great fun
I'm not so vindictive to wish for jail time for lawyers, who no doubt were just acting on their client's instructions. On the other hand, a massive fine against Apple would certainly not be a bad outcome IMHO, and potentially be a nice injection of cash into the treasury, assuming that's where it would end up...
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 16:57 GMT Spleen
Given the insultingly infantilistic way they've started addressing their customers (that "Your thumb goes from here... to here" ad) I expect the revised apology to go something like "Judge said we done bad thing. We sorry we done bad thing. Samsung not actually do what we done. GOO GOO GA GA PLEBS."
-
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 14:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: 14 days to change a website!
I'm AC'ing this, as at least one of those responsible knows I post here...
Joke you say?, We've been waiting over two effing years for changes to be made to a section of our website, 14 days, how I wish we had such a speedy bloody service.
I could do the job myself, as I used to dabble (I've still got a website that has been up and running since around 1995 - and hasn't been touched since around 1999) but hey, demarcation and all that..
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 18:22 GMT stragen001
Still in contempt of court
1) Apple was supposed to have run five print adverts by the 25th October
2) The print adverts were supposed to be identified as coming from Apple. The print ads do not make this clear.
3) Previous non-apology on the website was not posted on the front page, it was accessible via a minute link on the front page.
Hopefully the Judges will continue to spank Apple for behaving like a sulking child.
(Oh, and Apple filed in the UK before they filed in Germany therefore even though the ruling in Germany came first, the the ruling in the UK is the one that counts and the German ruling is void. Apple should also be forced to make this clear since they referred the the German ruling in their non-apology)
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 19:23 GMT John H Woods
Re: now that i've quit smoking
"apple ought to fire their lawyers over this"
Well, yes, iff the lawyers advised them that this was a good course of action, I highly doubt that, and suspect that Apple execs at some level either ignored or did not seek legal advice. IANAL but I wouldn't be surprised if you could get struck off for advising a client to behave in a manner that could be considered contempt of court.
-
-
Friday 2nd November 2012 22:24 GMT naive
Does Apple care about its image ???
Apple is a company selling high-end products to the richest 5-10% of the world.
They have enough money in their shoebox to buy up most of the countries in this world, so nothing to proof.
It is really strange they don't seem to care about their image, or do they think it actually makes a good impression to fool around with this verdict like a single spoiled child trying to outsmart its parents ?.
If the "rounded corners" patent cases they initiated did not make them look silly, this certainly will.
It is not only silly, but rude and disrespectful to the legal system of England. But actually nothing new, their labor practices in FoxConn already showed they have little relationship with human values.
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 02:35 GMT rvt
Re: Does Apple care about its image ???
bollocks, if you compare foxcon issues with court case issues, then you are saying tha tall other companies that work with Foxcon also don't care about human rights.
In the end, its's the end customer that don't care, which isn't the case, it's that it's currently the only way to make consumer products for an affordable price, and millions of people have a income also...
Additionally also Samsung operates in the same user base as Apple does, that same 5%-10% of users with money.
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 06:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Does Apple care about its image ???
Disrespectful of the legal system of England? Oh yes, still living on past and gone glory aren't we...
The German courts had it right, I think it is rather amusing how Apple is winding up the judge getting his five minutes of fame.
That old foxconn link just shows how little comprehension you have and discredits everything you wrote...
-
-
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 07:09 GMT simon 43
Just checked the UK Apple website. No posting yet, using the site seach on the home page for "uk ruling design" gave me a laugh......
Internal Server Error - Read
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Reference #3.aa4a212e.1351926220.6f05a686
-
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 12:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: It's there!
The judges WILL mind it, as Apple have redesigned their webpage so whatever resolution you view it in, the apology is hidden by default and you have to scroll down to it.
That's not even considering it's been posted on a sham Apple domain that was only bought in July 2012, for this very purpose...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/19/apple_gains_control_of_apple_dot_co_dot_uk/
-
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 11:20 GMT SilverWave
If the point is for people to NOTICE the ruling this does not comply. Under the fold.
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 :-)
-
Sunday 4th November 2012 00:26 GMT Jonathan Richards 1
Re: If the point is for people to NOTICE the ruling this does not comply. Under the fold.
What is this "resolution" of which you speak?
===========
$ lynx www.apple.co.uk
# Apple (United Kingdom)
#home RSS index
* Apple
* Store
* Mac
* iPod
* iPhone
* iPad
* iTunes
* Support
Search ____________________
iPad mini. Every inch an iPad.
* Watch the keynote
* Watch the video
* iPad with Retina display. Just as stunning. Twice as fast.
* The new iMac.
* MacBook Pro with 13-inch Retina display.
* iPhone 5. The biggest thing to happen to iPhone since iPhone.
Shop at the Apple Online Store, call 0800 048 0408, visit an Apple Retail Store or find a reseller.
* Site Map
* Hot News
* RSS Feeds
* Media Info
* Environment
* Job Opportunities
* Contact Us
Copyright © 2012 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
* Terms of Use
* Privacy Policy
* Use of Cookies
United Kingdom Choose your country or region
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
===========
There it is, right on the first screen.
-
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 11:43 GMT Robbles
Still playing silly buggers.....
Hiding the correction / ruling - they are handling the scaling differently between the US and UK front pages.
What part of contempt of court do Apple not understand? This only goes to amplify the media furore surrounding their loss in Europe.
I think their barrister was very lucky not to have been jailed there and then for trying to pull the 14 days to make a change stunt.
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 14:27 GMT arkhangelsk
Inaccurate might be pushing it a little...
>On 25th October 2012, Apple Inc published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court Appeal of England and Wales. A correct statement can be found at this link.
There's a good case for calling it (for example) "misleading". That it did not comply with the spirit of the order is obvious. Whether it minimally complied with the letter is debatable (all the requested text was there I think). But IIRC nothing on it was actually "inaccurate". The judge did say those things. The US and Germany did rule against Samsung...
Maybe Apple's next move would be to put the page up as requested, but then add a link complaining about the tyranny of the British court. If the judge tries to block that one, now he is violating freedom of speech.
-
Sunday 4th November 2012 17:01 GMT SilverWave
Re: Inaccurate might be pushing it a little... nope: both 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 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.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121101091853360
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 16:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Apple complies with EWCA Judgement
For the record, so that it's preserved here, here's what Apple has posted on it's web pages today Saturday 3rd November 2012.
On its UK front page at: http://www.apple.com/uk/
"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."
The URL link is to: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/
"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."
The above two paragraphs are exactly as drafted in the Court of Appeal Judgement Paragraph 87.
Why couldn't Apple do this in the first place? Using the words of the Court would never give rise to any problems. It seems to me that it must have been an idiot in Apple marketing that wrote the first notice that had to be taken down, because I cannot imagine that any English lawyer would have approved anything other than complying exactly with the Judgement.
The EW Court of Appeal considered the appeal "de novo", as if a new case, because of material differences introduced by the parties. That allowed inclusion of other jurisdiction cases.
A point to note is that EWCA Judgement included reference to the USA court preliminary decision.
Paragraph 5 of the Judgement starts:
"Other disputes between the parties in other countries have concerned other intellectual property rights. We are not concerned with any of them. So far as this registered design and the three Samsung tablets is concerned I simply (I will have to say more about the August German decision) record the position:"
and it includes:
" The USA
In the Californian proceedings* where a number of patents (both design and invention software patents) were in issue, we were told the jury held that Samsung's products did not infringe the design patent corresponding to the registered design we are considering ("design patent" is the US terminology for what in Europe is called a "registered design")."
Paragraph.6 of the Judgement: " The upshot of all this is that there is now no injunction anywhere based on the registered design or its equivalent. "
(*The jury trial for the US proceedings, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. C 11-1846 & C 12-0630, is listed for March 31, 2014, 9:00 a.m.)
Samsung is appealing the preliminary California Northern District Court decision wherein the jury awarded $1.05bn (£665m) in damages. Contrary to practise of England and Wales common law, the Californian jury foreman has gone on record about what happened in the jury room. A transcript of the BBC interview is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425051
I am not US patent lawyer, but:
1. The jury foreman's legal interpretation of "interchangeability" in relation to prior art would seem to me to have materially mislead the rest of the jury.
2. On the other hand the jury foreman's view of the way that there was no infringement because the code running on Android was different compared to the code running on Apple, belies the fact that the inspected programs could be identical and copied. I write a program and it could be identical for Android and Apple, but the respective SDKs would produce different code. What exactly was the "sealed source code" that the jury foreman used to influence the jury?
3. The voir dire in respect of the jury foreman was materially incomplete and relevant.
So it seems to me that Samsung has more than one substantive appeal ground.
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 16:47 GMT David Taylor 1
Statement is below the fold... whatever size the window
Interestingly, the apple.co.uk homepage now resizes itself to ensure that, no matter the size* of your browser window, the statement and other small(er)-print is not visible unless you manually scroll down.
The apple.com homepage does not go to such lengths to hide its smallprint...
(*Not strictly true, around 2000px it gives up, but who has a browser window that size?)
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Sunday 4th November 2012 16:05 GMT Chris Sake
Re: Statement is below the fold... whatever size the window
var HeroResize=AC.Class({initialize:function(b){this._height=null;this._hero=$(b);
AC.Object.synthesize(this);this.__boundResizeHero=this.resizeHero.bindAsEventListener(this);
if(typeof window.ontouchstart==="undefined"){this.resizeHero();Event.observe(window,"resize",this.__boundResizeHero)
}},setHeight:function(b){this._height=(b<0)?0:b;return this._height},resizeHero:function(){this.setHeight(parseInt(window.innerHeight||(window.document.documentElement.clientHeight||window.document.body.clientHeight),10)-310);
this.hero().style.height=this.height()+"px"}});Event.onDOMReady(function(){var b=new HeroResize("billboard")
});
-
Sunday 4th November 2012 16:11 GMT Chris Sake
Re: Statement is below the fold... whatever size the window
The previous post shows - for posterity - the code that Apple have on the apple.co.uk site.
The code resizes the iPad Mini image so that the user has to scroll to the bottom in order to see the apology - that is of course if one knows it is there and is interested. The normal punters will never see this.
Image: http://i.imgur.com/h63nO.jpg
Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/12kce9/apple_resizes_website_so_that_the_samsung_apology/
In other words, Apple continues to blatantly give the UK court the finger.
FAIL logo for Apple.
-
-
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 17:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
What nonsense
This is real desperation by Samsung... I am sure that it will backfire... Personally I am planning to get a new television. Guess which manufacture I will avoid now... They are just parasites no matter what the judge says. You don't have to be an Apple fan to feel uncomfortable about this behaviour by copycats
-
Saturday 3rd November 2012 18:45 GMT Robbles
Re: What nonsense
I don't understand the desperation from Samsung? This is a court ruling where the judge decided the reparations ( not Samsung ) and based it on Apple's demands if they had won. This is purely a big bully company that has lost in the courts and is acting in a childish manner showing contempt for the court and it's ruling.
-
Sunday 4th November 2012 13:13 GMT toadwarrior
Considering it's mainly sites like the register and slashdot making a big deal of this, I'd guess most people don't realise there was a ruling or that they should look for an apple statement. In fact I doubt they care as that is something only "nerds" would care about. But if it helps people thing android wasn't a cheap blackberry wanna-be that became a cheap iphone wanna-be then this is a big deal.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Sunday 4th November 2012 19:35 GMT etabeta
You have to scroll down to see it....
You have to scroll down to see it....
This is almost a blatant contempt of court as to reach the link you must scroll all the way down the page to see it, even if your monitor is set to 1600x1200. Who is going to see it?
I hope the court orders them to publish it in 20pt font on their homepage, and then provide a link if one wants to continue to Apple's page.
If they still refuse to comply slap these pricks with a £ 50 million/day fine and ban the entire Apple domain from the entire EU until they do.
SHAME on you Apple! ...acting like a bunch of spoiled brats!
-
Sunday 4th November 2012 20:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: You have to scroll down to see it....
yup been mentioned on several sites now.
The judge clearly needs to revisit this yet again. It seems the only options are to specificly define that the text must be immediately visible upon opening the home page - or just find them in contempt and inflict whatever punishments are available.
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
