Naughty-step Apple buries court-ordered apology with JavaScript Apple insisted it would take 14 days to publish a three-sentence declaration on its UK website that Samsung had not ripped off the iPad design. But in the 48 hours Judge Robin Jacob instead gave the Jesus mobe maker, Apple has managed to upload both the statement and a wad of JavaScript code that resizes the homepage's central …
"I fear this is a little too technical for the MSM, and thus won't be reported anywhere the court is likely to read, and thus won't be noticed."
With a few minutes research, I'm pretty sure that you can find out the name and email addresses of both the judge and Samsung's legal representation, and drop them a wee note.
I think that will just be salt in the wound. I expect the judge has his own people watching because of previous behavior. Judges may be lenient if you're just a child rapist, but if you ignore their direct orders... Let's just say that is some up with which they will not put.
When it comes to sentencing to statute, Judges can only apply what parliament mandated.
However, when it comes to contempt of court, Apple would be best advised (and you can bet your bottom dollar they HAVE been advised, only chose to ignore it) that a court of law is a judges fiefdom, and it would behove them to behave nicely, sit up straight, and only speak when spoken to .....
Don't give up hope yet, the El Reg subheading on the original "apology" was actually reported in court last week as an example of how their "apology" was seen by the IT community.
TBH if I had a silly wig I'd have slapped them down with a contempt on the first "mistake". They should have counted themselves very lucky to have escaped that and played their second move with a bit more respect and care. This second "naughty" is not just showing contempt for the court in legal terms, but taking the piss (not a legal term)!
It might have been slightly excusable (or explainable) if the link had ended up off the bottom of a static page on some smaller monitors, but to have it dynamically resize to enlarge the ipad mini to force the link off the bottom even on my 1400 pixel high screen just beggars belief!
Quote: "I fear this is a little too technical for the MSM"
I spoke to my significant other who is an aspiring Dark Forces initiate (err... sorry - trainee patent attorney) and she said that the judge in question knows his stuff. Based on her expert opinion
1. He will understand exactly what apple has done.
2. He will not be amused
I would not like to be in the place of the Apple legal team on this one
This behavior seems similar to that of a bratty child doing everything they can to test the limits of a teacher who they know ultimately cannot do anything to harm them.
At this point, my interest in the case is no longer about the original ruling.
In my opinion, they are acting like they feel they are above the law. They are showing clear contempt for the British legal system, (or simply any legal system that doesn't rule in their favor). Up to this point, contempt was a grey area. I don't think its as fuzzy anymore.
I hope there are repercussions for this!
Indeed they are - that is obvious. What is also interesting is the fact that you have already been down-voted for what would appear to be indisputable. It appears that some if their supporters agree with this childish defiance that Cupertino are exhibiting. I do not need to mention any names but I think that it is remarkable that some of them actively support defiance of the law by their favourite company but go absolutely bananas on the occasions when A Certain (In)Famous Software Company gets caught playing fast and loose with the law. Sauce, goose, gander and all that.
Possibly.
If you read the Court Of Appeal decision, at paragraphs 81-84:
"...[the publicity order] is not to punish the party concerned for its behavoir. Nor is it to make it grovel - simply to lose face. The test is whether there is a need to dispel commercial uncertainty... Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that it acknowledges that the court has decided that these Samsung products do not infringe its registered design. The acknowledgement must come from the horse's mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely."
Given Apple's continued childish behaviour towards the Court, I can't help but think the Court may decide to put Apple "on the naughty step" and require it to post the notice 'above the fold' so to speak.
I hope that happens.
Mandated popover?
Not only would it work, but it would make their web design people cry...
Fuck yeah! Let's see the judge mandate a GeoCities template, with animated gifs, and the entire apology in a slow-moving, blinking <marguee> tag, with the "click to enter" link right at the end.
Let's see the judge mandate a GeoCities template, with animated gifs, and the entire apology in a slow-moving, blinking <marguee> tag, with the "click to enter" link right at the end.
Flash intro! Flash intro!
(And it's <marquee>, as in the sign over a theater. Not that it matters particularly; I dare say most of us knew what you meant.)
They really are pushing it. Leaving aside if the ruling originally was right or wrong (and I can see both sides), Apples interpretation of the judgement the first time was a little risky but borderline. At that point I didn't think they were too far off base. Having had the judge rollock them over apology v1 it seems a little unwise to do anything other than exactly what the judge ordered. Taking steps to deliberately move the apology lower and keep it lower on the screen so it is less likely to be seen isn't actually explicity forbidden but after apology v1 I don't think I would personally take the chance myself. I think they are risking seriously pissing off the judge here. The next step is simple for the judge. Their front page consists of only an apology (drafted by the judge) and a link to enter the main site which cannot be clicked for 20 seconds. Perhaps a fine as well. Judges don't like people taking the piss out of their judgements (no matter if the judgement was sound or not, they aren't going to believe their own judgement was unsound) and will dole out progressively harsher punishments in the future.
Given how much Apple likes to be in court rooms, pissing off judges could be costly in the long run.
It has to be now. Whilst they (Apple) have complied by at least posting the apology, they haven't held to the spirit of the ruling and they have also made a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Compare/contrast the 2 websites.
Apple are really pissing a whole load of people off by this behaviour. Wifey has declared that when her MacBook Pro dies she wan't a PC laptop instead simply because she feels that Apple have become so blatantly unethical.
Steve made the company in his own image......wasn't there that story about how Steve Jobs sneered about Bill Gates when asked why he doen't do more for charity? I think the quote was something like "Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology". And didn't Saint Steve cancel all of Apple's charitable programs upon his return in '96?
Despite what Steven Fry might try and tell people, Apple are a nasty and manipulative company created in the same vein as their nasty and manipulative founder. To be honest, Jobs seems like he was borderline psychopathic: Apple thinks it is always right because it is psychopathic!
BOREDOM ALERT!
Been doing a little light lunch time reading and cross refrencing the appeal (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html) with Judge Birss' judgement (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html).
This may get boring if I go too far but in a nutshell read para 85 and para 88 of the final appeal and para 4 and para 57 of Judge Birss' judgement.
Please read both and let me know what YOU think should really have happened this weekend and what, if anything, should be done now and if there is in fact any other variation I wasn't aware of.
"Thumbs up for recommending NoScript, though."
Yeah - seeing people mention it on every article possible never grows old. It's important to realise they're doing to promote their own cleverness in being aware of Web risks (because, you know, everyone else is stupid,) rather than promoting the product itself, though.
Apple is complying with the letter of the order in the absolute minimum way it possibly can. Are they trying to provoke the judge, or are they just being so blindsided by their own side that they don't see the consequences for their actions?
This reminds me of my 9-year-old son. When I order him to do something he doesn't want to, he does it in the sloppiest way possible, earning two or more extra yellings from me and taking much more time complying with it than if he'd done properly whatever he's been commanded to. In the end, his TV privileges have been cut short (unnecessarily) several times, and it's his own damn fault. If he had an allowance, I'd fine him, as well, but it isn't the case (yet).
Apple, on the other hand, should (IMHO) get heavily fined for this.
And, perhaps, the judge should order to have their apology written in ugly 90s-style HTML. I bet THAT style dissonance would hurt them even more than being fined.
"Errm, aren't they IE-only non HTML attributes?"
Indeedy, but I'm sure that HTML5 that Apple are so keen on, and the overzealous use of JavaScript that they seem to enjoy can replicate the effect of having the judgement scroll past as if in a marquee tab, in blinking 24 point magenta Comic Sans. Maybe the court should also mandate some 'comedy' animated GIFs, maybe of poorly-drawn exploding iPads in 16 colours?
On the other hand, if you need to YELL at your Son to get anything done is it any wonder he has no respect for you?
--
how did you make that leap?
is the OP a bad parent now in your opinion?
Well, guess what, your opinion is based on so little information that it is completely worthless, troll.
"Well, guess what, your opinion is based on so little information that it is completely worthless, troll."
It's based on the admitted fact that he yells at his 9-year-old child as a matter of course; what further information is required to conclude that he's a bad parent? Oh, perhaps the tone in which he reports it ...
"EARNING two or more extra yellings from me and taking much more time complying with it than if he'd done properly whatever he's been COMMANDED to" [my caps]
What is this, 1950? Yelling is not a form of parenting; it's a form of bullying. Amazing that OP got modded down so much - I guess abusing your children in this way is still in vogue. There are a hundred ways to get children to behave that don't involve yelling. Y'all should try reading a book on the subject sometime.
Oh I'm not entitled to my opinion on the subject then?
If somebody brings an irrelevant comparison into a debate then I'm doing to damn-well say what I please. Yeah, bad parent will do, the world is full of them. You didn't notice we are slowing heading down the tubes as a species then? (Inevitable "No you are" reply coming soon...)
Carry on your pointless fantasising about the kind of punishment that should be meted out to Apple. It's pretty laughable given that the (poor, defenceless) company you are all clambering to defend is run by convicted criminals.
"Well, guess what, your opinion is based on so little information that it is completely worthless, troll."
The use of "ordered to" and especially "commanded to" sound a bit odd to me, I have to say. And your stated opinion that he's a troll doesn't mean anything either; terms like "troll" and "shill" are so overused here when someone doesn't like what they read that they no longer have any value. Your 25 (count at time of writing,) supporters don't really count either. Accusing someone of trolling always gets upvotes.
The use of "ordered to" and especially "commanded to" sound a bit odd to me
------
Heh. That didn't sound odd to me at all, but we've obviously understood different things...
With my children, I tell them what to do, I'd be happy calling it command, and then i fully expect them to do what I tell them. If they don't, which is infrequently, I coerce them.
Based of the above description, you will still have no idea what I am like as a parent. How do I coerce? What do I tell them to do? It's too ambiguous, just like the previous statements.
This is really quite off topic now, but I personally get quite frustrated by the lazy, condescending, assumption that equates discipline with abuse, which is what is being implied above.
It devalues real abuse, in my opinion (there's the magic o weird, again!).
This post has been deleted by its author
@AC 12:05
"Do you think Google would be any better? of course not. They're being investigated for monopoly abuse."
That may be, but it's irrelevant. The Doctrine of Hypothetical Relative Filth is of no relevance as to whether Apple have behaved in a silly fashion here, but hey - don't let that get in the way of trying to stick up for your favourite fruit-themed multinational technology vendor.
No, I don't think Google would be any better...but that's not exactly relevant is it? If any company ends up a similar position and starts playing silly buggers like this I'll happily put the boot in. Google haven't...yet.
More to the point, the main criticism is that Apple are being a teensy bit juvenile - has it not occurred to you that the "Google would do it too" defence is as well?
"Do you think Google would be any better? of course not. They're being investigated for monopoly abuse."
Actually.. Yes.
In the past, when they have been found to be in the wrong, unlike Microsoft with it's epic EU case, or Apple with it's various hissy fits, Google actually obeys the court, and stops doing what ever it was caught doing. And doesn't spend the next few years in endless appeals.
They are being investigated for anti competitive behaviour.. Key word being "INVESTIGATED". Not have been found guilty.
Someone made a complaint, the competition commission and others are charged with deciding if there is any merit tot he accusation. And if sufficient misconduct is found.. then they will be taken to task over it. If not, case never brought.
Actually that's crap. They were caught with a copy of all that wardriving Wi-Fi information that they slurped from every one of us after they swore that the data had been destroyed.
That was after lying about "some programmer" putting the software on their wardriving car's computers without it having anything to do with Google as a whole.
Do you people actually believe that Google are giving you all of this stuff for free and they want nothing in return from you? Oh, they are getting lots in return. Lots and lots and lots and they know more about you than you do. As does anybody they care to share that information with.
@AC 12:05
"Do you think Google would be any better? of course not. They're being investigated for monopoly abuse."
What have Google got to do with this? It's about Apple taking the piss with a court judgement in a case against Samsung.
Not to say that Google woul;dn't be just as bad ... and get a proper kicking here as well.
risking good ol brit blood and treasure in the US????
doncher know it's the most dangerous country on earth? - just a few thousand of their troops usually manage to wipe out a few dozen of ours and an orphanage or two before the mag is empty, can you _imagine_ what a country infested with 300 million of the buggers, with constitutionaly guaranteed anti tank weapons is like?
now drones we have :-D
Yes, you're right, just tried this. To me this is Apple doing everything they can to not comply with the spirit of the law.
Heavy fines and getting Apple employees (the ones responsible) in the courts is the order IMO. I must note I am not a lawyer and have no idea what the courts are allowed to do but Apple have shown contempt of the courts decision for too long now, and it is not subtle. Something needs to be done.
Megaphone because it needs to be shouted about. Fed up with Apples practices.
No, not exactly, look at the date of your linked article. That is talking about the initial order where a link was required to point to a separate page explaining the order. That is the page where Apple had their little hissy fit which has caused this whole paragraph they're trying to hide now.
Had they complied with the initial order they wouldn't be in this position now.
I feel I should point out that the US site appears to be the only one that doesn't do the Javascript resizing - Oz, German, French sites do the resizing too.
If course, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Apple decided to roll out this change just now.
</sarcasm>
It's also pretty blatant that's it's been done on purpose - create a very tall thin window, and it'll still hide the footer, but still increase the iPad mini advert so that you need to scroll right - that's not ideal UI design.
Flames - I'm sure I'll be voted down for pointing this out.
This post has been deleted by its author
So long as somebody is entertained Shagbag. I mean it's not like I actually give a crap about stuff like this that doesn't personally affect me but it is amusing to watch the drones go nuts when you shove your head in the hive and blow raspberries at the Queen.
The grown-ups and the other kids are all laughing, which of course only makes it worse. Eventually pigtails get pulled or lemonade is spilled and the birthday boy has to go sit on the stairs.
Grow up Apple, you seem to have a license to print money and people can't get enough of your tat. There would have been less fuss if you had quietly complied instead of behaving like a bunch of nobheads.
"The grown-ups and the other kids are all laughing"
Not really. Most people didn't know about about the case, nor the ruling. The local Mac fanatic had to have it pointed out this morning... and then had to have it physically pointed out when they said "It's not here, I can't see anything" because they didn't scroll down... so Apple's obfuscations are actually working, and the typical punter still has no idea that Apple are basically trying to avoid the intent of the judgement.
Its worse than only having to scroll...
Apple have also removed the automatic redirect from apple.com to apple.com/uk/; when accessing the site from a british IP address. Up until the new apology the redirect was always in situ - why remove now, if not to show clear disrespect for our courts order?
This is clearly a tactic to reduce the audience who will see the apology, the audience the court will have correctly assumed would normally view the apology without apples interference.
No it's never existed. Keep making stuff up people, it REALLY reinforces your point.
IP addresses have never been detected / redirected nor have cookie redirects existed.
The only redirect is from apple.co.uk which has only existed a couple of months since they acquired the name.
But like I say, redirects, apology myths. Keep making it up.
"I've always had to add an explicit /UK on the URL if I want the UK site"
Just wondering: do you have NoScript or similar installed?
I'm only asking, because some thing it did exist and some that it didn't, so the most probable answer is different settings.
I don't know, as I don't use any Apple products and have never visited the Apple website before this court order.
"Just wondering: do you have NoScript or similar installed?"
No.
UK based and have NEVER been redirected from apple.com to apple.com/uk…
An as the homepages often show slightly different content (no sniggering at the back re: the current subject matter) it would piss me off a lot if I were redirected from the .com to the regional site…
Apple.co.uk redirecting? Now that may have happened (never thought to try it before though)
As someone else commented, they are playing the bratty child pushing the boundaries to see what they can get away with".
Well it will all end in tears.
Their legal costs will continue to spiral if the Judge needs to recall them to court. And the Judge will simply dictate more specifically how Apple needs to respond - full front page of the UK website with set font size and text, with only one link to "Visit the rest of Apple". Or perhaps even "full front page advert in named newspapers". Or even "prime time TV advert on at least 10 UK mainstream television channels including ITV1 and Channel 4"
Apple already have the TV adverts slots booked, its just they were planning on showing something else.
that Apple only do things that THEY like/want......and Apple will fight against anyone who argues that the Apple way is wrong/incorrect/unlawful etc
Personally, I think Apple (in it's legal dealings) has just grown too big for it's boots and is seeking to "boss" anyone it chooses, based on it's own interpretation of "events" - maybe it's time some high-flying big-wig Apple employee was held to account for the contempt they have shown (to the UK Court) and incarcerated somewhere under Her Majesty's Pleasure (sponsored by Samsung/iFone/Google/Viewsonic etc) ;)
Of course they have contempt for both the British Courts and the British people.
They must laugh when then offload their crap gear at massive profits yet don't have to pay tax nor do what the courts tell them.
I would LOVE to know why this is so? Its not like they have a hold over us (the UK) with massive jobs numbers etc. Yeah they are big, but not that big an employer, and if they don't employ thousands, then what's stopping the Govt sorting this out? I can understand them letting Google Starbucks etc get away with it because of the numbers of staff employed, but there aren't that many apple stores.....
I suggest our politicos should learn to only bend over and take it from a company that this country actually gets some tax from, bring in the new tax avoidance laws and make them pay their fucking way.
Also put someone in jail over the contempt.
So it's OK for Starbucks and Google (in your own words) but not others, who you clearly have it in for as opposed to wanting a fair taxation system for the right reasons.
How about you put sweaty pen to paper and canvas the Government (you know, those people who set the rules) and perhaps we can kill many birds with one stone.
In Gordon's words, he's saying he understands why HMG would turn a blind eye to the likes of Starbucks, Google et al paying as little business tax as possible, not that he's saying he thinks it's OK...
And I can see where Gordon is coming from here - if an offshore company employs someone in the UK, that person gets taken out of the jobseekers queue, they get to pay income tax/NI back to HMG, and they have more money in their pocket at the end of the day (compared to someone on jobseekers allowance) to buy things that they then pay VAT on - more money being returned to HMG coffers. So yes, it's understandable that a company who employs a large number of people in the UK (or a smaller, higher paid and thus taxed, number) might be given an easier time by the taxman when questions start to be asked about why all these big companies are paying so little.
but since this is the *second* attempt one of the biggest firms in the world has had at complying with a court ruling, is it possible the court might seize the .co.uk domain and institute the changes themselves.
We can dream.
On the plus side, it'll be interesting for the little guy in court now. After all, if Apple can't comply, how can they be expected too.
This is unreal...
I got curious and rotated my screen 90 degrees to get a vertical resolution of 1920 - the ipad kept increasing and pushed down the two keynote links underneath it until the ipad was the only thing fitting in both borders... didn't stop until the window was around 1700 pixels tall!!!
To me this is blatant contempt of court - Can we send a 'friend of the court' message to the court about this??
I'm surprised they didn't have the link hovering about as you try to click it !!.
Looking at it on a laptop with IE I had to set the zoom level to 50% to see the area of the homepage - by which point the statement text was too small to read.
It's off screen on my iphone 3G unless I scroll down a bit to make the url and search box disappear.
Perhaps it can be read on an iphone 5?
The stupid thing is that the performance of the iPhone 5 apparently really is very good indeed, as is the 3rd gen iPad. But I'm never again going to buy anything from a company that so obviously holds everybody who dares to disagree with it in complete contempt.
Contrast this with the reported reaction of Bentley to the Chrysler Bentley rip-off: "Nobody who might buy one of our cars would be confused for a moment".
Speaking about international pages of Apple .... seems British court is not the only they hate. Just looked at various national pages including /mx . Mexican was the only one displaying, in largest font readable, iPhone 5. Well, Apple just recently lost court case in Mexico for the right to use name iPhone.
I think I'd rather not deal with a company displaying such attitude towards courts.
Groklaw and some recent relevant factoids thisaway.
IANAL, but I get the distinct feeling Samsung finally has Apple on the back foot. Certainly the possibility of the original ruling being upheld on appeal is looking less likely by the day.
Yes, because that's what they were told to say and that's what the Court case was about.
One of the tragedies is Apple's implicit (and the Media's actual) attribution of the soundbite "It is a cool design" to the iPad.
If you read Judge Birss's judgement - he wasn't talking AT ALL about the iPad, he was talking entirely about the Registered Design, in particular, the diagrams in Appendix A of the judgement.
The perversion is, If you look at those diagrams, even the iPad, iPad2 and iPad3 don't conform 100% to the Registered Design. Apple was (counter) suing over the Registered Design which, in law, has nothing to do with their iPad models. Sadly, that didn't stop the media (incl. El Reg) from swallowing the soundbite.
Judges are not stupid. To be a judge you do, actually, have to be very intelligent and understand the law. I believe Judge Briss QC selected his words very carefully to justify a 'policy decision'. He new the media would lap them up and this would deflect attention away from the decision he was making on the grounds of policy: to grant in favour of Apple would be to grant a patent on a rectangle with rounded corners and thereby set a dangerous precedent that would hinder competition.
Can somebody outside the US and UK check if navigating to apple.com normally redirects them to the local version of the page? Just wondering if they have disabled this for the UK to further hide the link from casual UK users who would not normally swap to their localised version manually.
According to Firefox's page into, the JavaScript linked to in the article (this) was modified on the 21/10/2012 21:31:51. A tag to include this script appears on all the regional websites, or at least the five regional websites that I've tried it on (uk, fr, es, it, mx).
So the original ruling was on the 18th of October, the resize code went up on the international websites on the 21st of October, who knows when the regional homepages were all changed to call the Javascript code, the first apology went up on the UK page on the 25th of October, then finally this change to the UK page was made on the 3rd of November (if not the 3rd then the 4th).
Maybe they originally put the resize code up to hide the link (1st apology) instead of the paragraph (2nd apology) or maybe they've decided that Merkins don't like huge re-sizing images but everyone else does and it's a just an enormous coincidence.
By the way, if you go to a regional website you get redirected to www.apple.com/region but if you go to apple.com you don't get redirected anywhere (tested from outside the UK).
If the judges can't find the statement on Apple's site they will probably deem Apple not to have complied with the order -- so Apple's little trick will have backfired.
Not that I think for a moment that their Lordships are so technically naïve as to fail to see what Apple have done.
Big Brother, because someone needs to be watching Apple!
Something tells me the latest pisstake's been approved by yourself, personally, unless you don't know what's going on in your little British establishment. And it's a very, very fine line with your investors, sir. One moment you can do anything, they're blind and will love you regardless, but before you know it - bang! - they all claim they never had your shares, never planned investing, apples, moi?
p.s. and even if it was a genuine oversight now (ROTFL), you should have made absolutely, 200% sure if wouldn't happen. Did you?
I read recently [citation needed] that last year, for the first time, Apple spent more on patent purchase and litigation than they did on R&D. Eventually people will work out that buying their computers from a firm of solicitors may not give them the best value for money.
(Note for Americans - a solicitor is a lawyer, not a whore. Err .. hang on a minute...)
Mind you, I'm not holding my breath - it's a very, very distant bell. There are few consumers more gullible than Apple-istas, and the supply of people with more money than sense appears to be ever-increasing.
I'd like to be able to say this is the kind of corporatist legalo-nonsense that comes with the special Fear you get when you get as big as Exxon Mobil, but in fact this display is straight from the Steve Jobs Big Book of Adventures for Boys.
Non-obvious, indeed.
I trust & hope that The Rt Hon. Professor Sir Robin Jacob is appraised of this & calls Apple’s solicitors & counsel to appear in front of him with their client’s management to answer what appears to be a prima facie contempt of court.
NJSS
I just tried this on my 19inch 1280*1024 monitor in portrait mode. THAT is a damn big iPad Mini advert and is clearly designed to get you to avoid seeing the statement. But also, the statement itself appears to be much larger with font-size: 14.63px;. They are being cheeky but it is hard to find a fault with it. We know it is morally wrong and they should just accept it and get it over with, but are they really in breach of the court order?
Because both courts were sitting as EU courts. Because registered designs are EU not national.
Thus the first EU court to hear the point is the only EU court to do so (pace appeals etc).
The German court shouldn't have entertained the case at all: for it was already in a first level EU court, the one in England.
"Why would the opinion of a British judge then be worth more, or worth less, that the one from a German one?"
/chuckle.
First of all it's not a 'British' Judge. He represents the Court of England and Wales, not 'Britain'. Secondly; because he had the authority to make the ruling for the EU and the German judge did not.
Nice troll, only a question that's been answered about infinity times.
Read up on forum shopping and come back when you have a nice new shiny clue.
First judgement is for whole EC - the German court was in error to even try the case and it's verdict is put aside..
"In one country Samsung did infringe, in another one they did not. With the same device.
Why would the opinion of a British judge then be worth more, or worth less, that the one from a German one?"
Did you bother to read the judgement?
Apple started their action in an England & Wales court, as a European Community Court action on patent/design Regulations. Apple subsequently sued for an injunction in Germany on the same issue in an area court, which they should not have done, having started the European Community Court action elsewhere. Therefore the German court was not competent to decide the issue before them, but their decision was negated anyway when Apple withdrew their action in the German court pending Samsung's appeal, and the EWCA Community Court Decision.
The EWCA Judges helpfully pointed out in their Judgement, that Apple has lost all applications made so far worldwide against Samsung infringing Apple's registered design/patent. in the alleged manner, including in the US court, the Northern District Court of California. (And subsequently in a New York Court.)
.... all good explanations above aside, the German ruling was also preliminary, which by definition means it was given without proper consideration and binding only until that consideration can be given.
Which now it has, by the Community Court sitting on this side of the English Channel.
Well OK I'm sure there are more pieces to this picture, but you missed even the fundamental stuff.
Apple is not being clever they are being incredibly stupid. Every day that this story drags on gives more publicity to Samsung, in fact I bet all the court cases that Apple has brought have only served to increase Samsung's sales. They are better off just playing by the rules, admit they got it wrong, put the notice up as directed and and take it down again and with it all the publicity.
Legalese, whilst seemingly dense is actually extremely prescriptive - lawyers work very hard to ensure that only one meaning can be construed from their words. I have no doubt the courts original instructions were clear and unambiguous in a legal sense. For those posters here who feel that Apple have complied *technically*, you're missing the point. They have to comply *legally* - do what the judge said. Also bear in mind, Apple have legal counsel, which means that they would be expected to know exactly what the court meant. If this latest episode is deemed not to satisfy the ruling, I would expect the court to have some stern words with Apples barristers. (Personally, if I were Apples law firm, I would be ready to resign. Courts take a very dim view of barristers that assist their client in contempt - as would the law society).
Apple seem to be revealing their time-warp sensibilities here. It's not the 60s, and "sticking it to the man" never, ever worked. The rest of the world isn't quite as hippy-dippy as California. These courts are deadly serious.
Just emailed this to Samsung:
"Apologies if you already know about this, but It seems that Apple may not be honestly complying with the UK Court judgement against it regarding allegations it made against Samsung: Your lawyers may be interested in this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/05/apple_apology_take_2/
DISCLAIMER, I am a satisfied user of some Samsung products and despise Apple."
As has been pointed out by others...
Having been catching up on the rest of the comments it seems mostly to have been pointed out by you. Many times.
Anyway, if I have my facts wrong there then I'm an idiot and I apologise, but my point still stands. Strangely enough, Google are doing their bit to make sure UK punters land on the "right" place though.
..and get fired! Surely with the maps fiasco Apple would know it is better to apologise properly and let the issue die down. With their demonstrated contempt of the British courts they have guaranteed their reputation will be further damaged. It is about time Tim Cook earned his mega bucks by SMACKING a few heads in his management team to get their attention.
This is NOT necessarily true. The Apple website has been doing this for a while now and even does it on the apple.com/iPhone page.
See here for evidence that it was working before the second statement was posted by Apple:
http://needmoredesigns.com/blog/apples-vertically-responsive-website-design/
And here for the iPhone demo:
http://www.apple.com/iphone/
Think abut it, from Marketing it makes perfect sense to have the adverts showing at all time and all resolutions. It shows the lower adverts even on the iPhone so makes perfect sense. It's not to hide a statement.
I would guess that Samsung's Legal Department has a Hawk's Eye on Apples Web Page. It's a matter of how they can frame this in court. Technically they do show the message; It's clear Apple are doing everything in there power to not let people see it, they question is, did they disobey orders...
If be one PO'd judge by this, but then again, I don't know the limits of legal systems...
Until now I was considering buying some of Apple stuff. They always eventually lost on performance/value ground, but nevertheless they were worth consideration. E.g. Apple mini server - seriously overpriced but still nice.
I doubt I will even consider buying anything from Apple again, after all this farce. I'm not only looking at /uk page, but also at big iPhone displayed on http://www.apple.com/mx .
Show to everyone that you are a bully and don't care what others think, and suddenly people lose appetite to make business with you.
Since the ruling was that of European Community Court, shouldn't the ruling show up on pages of all European Apple subsidiaries - not just UK?
It would definitely clear things up for those who thought that German preliminary ruling is still binding. I bet there is fair number in Germany.
If I were Apple I would be very careful not to test judges patience.
Wankers!
Apple's masterpiece of redirection has taken the sting out of the British Legal System and turned it into a farce. Anyone who had a slight caring is lost in all the smoke and mirrors buggary and has moved on. The only people left caring are those hard core fandroids that have slipped into the dark psychological disorder of objectophiles.
"Apple's masterpiece of redirection has taken the sting out of the British Legal System and turned it into a farce."
Yes, quite: Ever since this story broke, everyone in the office has been going on about how brilliant Apple were to pull this, and how great a company they are.
/sarcasm
You might want to take the rose tinted specs off, chap: Even people with iPhones are starting to think Apple are a bunch of wankers.
Transformer Prime TF201. Default Android browser.
In landscape mode, the thing scales to hide the ruling link.
Portrait mode, it tries to scale but fails to hide anything.
Either way around, the layout is broken and the iPad Mini hides under the lower product images.
In Chrome? Landscape mode scales, doesn't have a broken layout. In portrait mode.. WOAH, that is one very thin iPad Mini. Again, doesn't stretch enough to hide the judgement link.
Firefox? Landscape mode OK, scales to hide. Portrait mode, hides part of the iThing under the product images again.
Aurora, as Firefox.
Opera Mobile, as Firefox.
You'd think Apple would have heard of JQuery? Or is there that much of a Not Invented Here culture at that corporation? Is that why they wanted two damned weeks to do what should have taken about two minutes if they weren't dead set on being as dangerously close to contempt of court as possible?
Had a look into this last night.
Maximum penalty for Contempt of Court seems to be a fine not exceeding £2,500 or up to on month's imprisonmnet or both.
Now, it's hard to imprison a company and it's hard to pin blame down on an individual: The coder who committed the change? His boss? His boss' boss?
Therefore the court would probably look at the fine only.
£2,500.
Apple may as well plead guilty and pay it out of petty cash.
This post has been deleted by its author
@Lockwood.
That is just for "lower" Courts. "Superior" Courts, Crown Court & higher (County Courts as well), can impose a prison term of two years/unlimited fine. Wilfully failing to comply with a court order might earn three months, for example. ..... Perhaps several £?,000 fine per each day the will of the Court is flouted?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
