back to article 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 …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Buzzword

    So the Reg's headline landed Apple in hot water. No wonder they hate you :)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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 ?

      1. Callam McMillan

        Re: No XMAS card this year

        Judging from their motto, I would say this fits the bill quite well. Besides, if you're going to go and kick a Hornets nest, isn't the best time when they've all had their stingers removed?

      2. NogginTheNog

        Re: No XMAS card this year

        Yes you're right, all news outlets should therefore make sure all their coverage of companies is favourable so as not to lose favour with those companies.

        Apple shunned the Reg long, long, before this latest tantrum.

        1. Spoonsinger

          Re: No XMAS card this year

          "Apple shunned the Reg long, long, before this latest tantrum."

          Apple shunned Leo Laporte years and years ago.However, If you have ever wondered what an Apple fanboi looks like, he's it. (not dissing him in anyway - he might come and stab me in the eye or something).

      3. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        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 ?"

        As opposed to advertising and spin? Egads!

      4. Anonymous Coward
        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.

        1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

          Apple don't leak?

          Except for the prototypes left "accidentally" in bars ...

      5. 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?

    2. Markl2011

      It can't be this Register it say's it's "highly respected"

      1. Gazareth

        Correct, they're referring to the online lesbian magazine.

    3. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Apple are far more petty than that, it was 'Jagwire' ten years ago that put them on their shitlist.

  2. FartingHippo

    Take it away George...

    If you're gonna do it, do it right...right

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          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.

          1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

            Re: Contempt of court parts 2 and 3

            So in addition to the entry

            Recursion: see Recursion

            we can now add

            Apology: see Apology

            to the IT dictionary

            1. Rawling

              Re: Contempt of court parts 2 and 3

              They've also placed the new wording at the same URL as the old wording, which means (at least in my case) that browsers will still show the old version unless you do a hard refresh.

  3. Richard 8

    Is it just me, or does the print ad look like it's a defensive ad from Samsung, rather than an apology by Apple... I thought it had to be clear WHO was paying for an advert, not just that it was one?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Is it just me, or does the print ad look like it's a defensive ad..."

      You're holding it wrong...:)

    2. DF118

      Yeah - thought the advert had to show the Apple logo or some such. Or am I confusing one of the many comments I've read on the subject with something the judges actually said?

  4. Lee Dowling Silver badge

    Typo in the quote, or the retraction?

    Court *OF* Appeal of England and Wales, surely?

  5. 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.


  6. bolccg


    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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.

      1. 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.

      2. 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!

      3. 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?

        1. Monty Burns

          Re: Education

          Because, Dave, over here we have something called "the spirit of the law" as well as the "the letter of the law". This attempt by Apple was clearly not in the spirit of the law.

        2. 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?

  7. Only me!

    Lets face it

    Some one is certainly taking the mick.....two weeks!!!

    If I had lead times like that to do a bit of work, I would be a happy man as by now on a Friday I would be emptying this


    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Lets face it

      They're probably delegating adding of new info to the site to some of their "geniuses"

    2. Paul Webb

      Re: Lets face it

      Yes, and you'd have been doing so since Monday... that would almost qualify you to work for El Reg X)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Lets face it

      The web team is probably very busy creating next year's compulsory Steve Jobs video for the website.

  8. Richard Tobin

    Maybe more trouble for Apple

    The court required Apple to make the announcement (rather than leaving it to Samsung) because it had to come "from the horse's mouth". The newspaper statement does not say that it's Apple who is making it, so they may be in for another hard time from the judge!

    1. sueme2
      Thumb Up

      Re: Maybe more trouble for Apple

      True, there is nothing on that ad saying which horse has spake.

  9. Lars Silver badge

    They held up their hands and admitted that

    Cook decided to go golfing, Forstall said "newer as long as I work for Jobs" and Ive did not approve the font.

  10. g e

    Appleogise, verb

    To apologise with extreme hubris

  11. Bob Vistakin

    Just one more thing

    Want to buy an iPhone in mexico? Think different:

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Choice of titles

    I wonder how the selection was made - did Apple have to produce demographics of its customers against what they read, or Samsung's audience tabloid of choice?

  13. Anonymous Coward


    How do you like THEM apples, Apple!!!!

    So much win to see crApple being brought down a peg or two......

  14. 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.

    1. Psyx

      Re: I wonder..

      "I'm I the only one who's getting a bit tired of all those (IMO:) lame patent lawsuits?"

      Everyone got tired of those long ago, regardless of allegiance.

      Now we're tired of Apple wiping their arse on judgements laid down by the courts, too.

  15. Onid

    Highly respected online forum????

    Are we talking about the same register??

    "From the highly respected online forum The Register"

    Hadn't realised the register was a forum ... or respected or highly !!!

    So there we have it - the register declared highly respected in a court of law !!...

    1. Bob Vistakin

      Re: Highly respected online forum????

      I've always tried my best here to make it so.

    2. Ted Treen

      Re: Highly respected online forum????

      "...the register declared highly respected in a court of law..."

      So are lawyers - and these days, the degree of comprehension, veracity and useful information is much the same from both.

      Troll? to 'honour' Leach - the Troll Queen if ever there was one

  16. Jediben

    I don't believe this is the publication by Apple

    It doesn't have rounded corners...

  17. David Webb

    Next up, Apple find a loophole in that it's an EU wide judgement so they can put the page up in any language from the EU, bets are in and Welsh is odds on favourite. Actually I'd love to see that.....

    1. bobbles31

      My guess is that they would go with the language of Europe, Esperanto.

      1. 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: 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: 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.

  18. 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.

    1. Jediben

      Re: The part that I don't understand...

      No, all the things the Germans judged on had already been decided by the UK court, so everything they spouted was completely wrong and should be ignored.

    2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Judge Birss explained

      Apple sued in the UK. That made the UK court into a (European) Community Court for this case. Apple later sued in Germany. That was very naughty. The whole idea of a community court is to avoid getting different verdicts from each member state.

      1. Mike Moyle

        Re: Judge Birss explained

        So, Apple originally REQUESTED that the UK court rule as a community court? Or does ANY court ruling in any state automatically become a community-wide decision?

        1. 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.

    3. Shooter

      I don't understand the downvotes...

      Mike Moyle (in both his posts) is asking legitimate questions. He doesn't appear to be acting snarky; he simply seems confused and is asking for clarification of the issues involved. I don't see why anyone should be downvoted for that.

    4. 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.

  19. 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.

    1. Jediben

      I disagree, we haven't even HAD the apology that counts - i.e. the web page.

      Only once they've actually published it and they've proven that they are going to heed the court's instruction CORRECTLY can we decide if it 'all worked in their favour'.

      1. Jediben

        Oh and this adventure will not include a third apology in any form. It'll be a fucking huge fine and maybe some clink time for Cook if it has to go around again. When will you fanbois learn that Apple's Reality Distortion Field doesn't work outside the walled garden?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I agree. Let's be honest, the UK courts don't have the balls to jail anyone and if they fine them, Tim Cook will probably pay the fine twice just so he can put another pop at Samsung on the web site.

    2. bolccg
      Thumb Down

      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.

      1. 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.

    3. Arctic fox
      Thumb Down

      "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".

    4. 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.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    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.


  21. Colin Millar

    @ Mike Moyle

    UK court was looking at the "Registered Design" - German court was looking at "Patent"

    Can I use the phrase "you're comparing apples and oranges" without getting sued?

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      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.

      1. Colin Millar

        Re: @ Mike Moyle

        My bad - just read it again a bit slower - I jumped to a wrong conclusion there.

  22. simon_brooke

    So, 24 hours have clearly elapsed....

    Because the old link to the disputed page has vanished from Apple's UK home page. But the new text does not yet appear.

    If I were Apple I wouldn't tweak the judges tails so much. They're looking at serious contempt of court here.

    1. Raphael

      Re: So, 24 hours have clearly elapsed....

      scroll down on the page. Apple have made it so you can't see the text unless you scroll down.

  23. Sandpit

    Great fun

    I'm really hoping they mess it up again and we see some jail time.

    Why isn't there a popcorn icon?

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      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...

  24. 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."

  25. Paul Webb


    Did they deliberately use this font just to rub Apple's nose in it or will Apple just smugly cite it as another reason the judges don't know what they are on about? And shurley it should have been Arial Rounded in any case.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: Arial

      Damn right - should have been Comic Sans.

  26. Irongut

    14 days to change a website!

    That's the best joke I've heard all day.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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..

  27. 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)

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    apple is run by eugenicists

    and they hate you

  29. zanto

    now that i've quit smoking

    i'll probably live long enough to tell me grandkids about this and how it felt at the time to see a big tech bully being made to eat crow.

    apple ought to fire their lawyers over this.

    1. John H Woods Silver badge

      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.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is it a defence?

    That an organisation is so permeated and indoctrinated with positive spin that it it is absolutely incapable of apologising or admitting that it is wrong?

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And coming next...

    Apple's apology for its apology for its apology.

    It makes you think the whole company might be turning into one big apology.

    1. Stoneshop

      Re: Apple's apology for its apology for its apology.

      There's supposed to be some bit about moose and llamas in there. You'd better apologise for that omission.

  32. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      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...

  33. Mr Young

    Even Apple can't withstand the power of beak?

    Reminds me - I have to pay a stupid traffic fine extortion thing soon - OMG

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The number of fandoids downvotes, even for normal and reasonable comments is high on this one.

    1. JeffyPooh


      One from me, but I'm just kidding. :-)

  35. 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

  36. Martin
    Thumb Up

    It's there!

    9:30 on Saturday, and it's there, at the bottom of the front page. With a nice big link to the judgment, difficult to miss. Granted you have to scroll to the bottom of the page, but I don't think the judges will mind that.

    1. 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...

  37. 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 :-)

    1. 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

      # 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.

  38. 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.

  39. David1

    Just the UK version?

    Since the judgement is supposed to have force throughout the EU, why does the "apology" appear on the UK homepage only (not on German/French/Irish/Dutch etc)?

    I wonder whether the judges are happy with Apple's persistent truculent behaviour.

  40. arkhangelsk
    Thumb Down

    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.

    1. The obvious

      Re: Freedom of speech


      Freedom of speech is not an excuse to be in contempt of court.

    2. 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.

  41. Anonymous Coward
    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:

    "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:

    "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

    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 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:

    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.

  42. David Taylor 1

    Statement is below the fold... whatever size the window

    Interestingly, the 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 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?)

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. 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);


      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")


      1. 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 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.



        In other words, Apple continues to blatantly give the UK court the finger.

        FAIL logo for Apple.

  43. Anonymous Coward
    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

    1. Martin

      Re: What nonsense

      I feel far more uncomfortable about a company who, when they lose a court case, deliberately and wilfully flout a judge's ruling.

    2. 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.

    3. vic 4

      Re: What nonsense

      Don't forget to cut off you nose while you are at it, that will annoy your face.

      You are seriously going to let this affect your purchase of a TV? Even Apple still buy stuff from samsung. Still your loss.

  44. 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.

  45. This post has been deleted by its author

  46. 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!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

  47. Bronek Kozicki

    nice comment

    Recent episode of saga "Apple won't apologize" is nicely commented on Phandroid, with a piece of code JavaScript doing the resizing shown for all to see. I think Apple should be called before the judge to explain the role of this piece of code.

  48. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    “I'd rather live in an iOS walled garden than the Android slum towns” ...

    1. Mad yakker

      If you're going to put such an un-constructive comment up, at least have the decency to post it in your own name. Perhaps you're too used to living in the walled garden to post under your real name?

  49. DuncanB

    Apple have run the advert again, with changes

    This week they've printed the advert again, but this time is acknowledges Apple as the source. I wonder if the judge had to prod them about that?

    Photo at

This topic is closed for new posts.