
Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th - cskau
http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/01/apple-told-to-rewrite-samsung-did-not-copy-statement-post-it/
======
grellas
In July, 2012, Samsung had won a judgment in the UK to the effect that its
Galaxy Tab computers did not infringe Apple's registered design.

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

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

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

The judge hearing the follow-up proceeding issued a very thoughtful ruling
(found here: <http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html>)
that in fact _denied_ Samsung's request for an injunction against Apple's
being able to claim illegal copying. The judge acknowledged the inherent
unfairness of barring a party that had lost in a court proceeding from
contesting the ruling and from publicly claiming that the ruling was wrong. It
thus agreed with Apple that Apple should _not_ be muzzled in asserting its
legal right to speak.

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

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

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

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

A few thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

------
chrisacky

        Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days
        to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that
        one judge said he "cannot believe".[1]
    

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

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

\- Saying their device is much more popular.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
bigfudge2
How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There
probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of
them.

~~~
Karunamon
Great. It's still a copy. Whether they paid for access to it or not is
irrelevant - it's still a copy of someone else's innovation.

~~~
JasonFruit
I doubt a patent attorney would consider that irrelevant, and it's not
irrelevant when you're discussing corporate conduct.

~~~
Karunamon
I don't mean legally, I meant in the "Apple is soooooo innovative" sense.

~~~
mkr-hn
It seems like most Apple acolytes have conceded that point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
nitrogen
How often does something like the recent extradition of the operator of a site
the UK deemed not worth prosecuting happen?

~~~
thomseddon
Presume you're referencing Richard O'Dwyer (tvshack.net), who a magistrate
recently found was suitable for extradition to the US. This is quite rare,
there have been 99 extraditions since 2006, of which 35 were british
nationals, so although extradition is reasonably rare it is not entirely
uncommon. Also, you say the UK found the alleged crime was "not worth
prosecuting", which is loosely technically true, it doesn't really give the
full picture: His actions were found to be legal under UK law and so hence
there was no case for prosecution. His operations are, however, suspected of
being illegal under US law and so hence the case for extradition was
submitted.

To bring this back to the parent discussion: Few would argue that Mr O'Dwyer
has been unfairly treated with respect to the current law. Some do, however,
argue that it is the extradition statute itself that is unfair, with Mr
O'Dwyers case being an example. As a matter of interest, Theresa May has
recently announced some changes to the extradition process following the
results of the Baker Review. ([http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-
centre/news/gary-mckinnon...](http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-
centre/news/gary-mckinnon-extradition))

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

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

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

------
denzil_correa
Judge Robin Jacob's comments on

On Apple's legal notice posted

    
    
       “I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.”
    

On Technical Difficulties to take 14 days to change the notice

    
    
       “I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on” their website, Jacob said. “I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?”
    

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-
ch...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-
notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html)

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

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

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

~~~
bitcartel
If what Apple claims is true, that it takes 14 days to update a few sentences
on its website, how long to fix Maps?!

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

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

Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that
Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy
Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No.
0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on
the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
michaelfeathers
To me, the core problem is that the UK court is compelling speech. Maybe that
is okay in the UK, but I don't think a court would be able to get away with
that in the US.

I think is okay to have Apple announce the court's judgement, but they should
not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree with it.

~~~
vidarh
They are not compelling speech. They are compelling Apple to facilitate
dissemination of a message that is very clearly labelled as not being Apple's
opinion.

It is pretty clear that this _is_ not a problem under US law either: All kinds
of legal requirements exist to add specific notices to various products, for
example.

> but it should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree
> with it.

There is nothing in the proposed wording that implies Apples agreement. In
fact, the very purpose is to announce the verdict of a court case where Apple
very obviously argued for the opposite result.

The proposed wording starts "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of
England and Wales ruled". There's no implication that Apple agrees anywhere.

~~~
sigzero
They should have just made it brief and to the point. Done and over.

------
StavrosK
Here's the original page:

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

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

~~~
dan1234
No court judgment ever said it had to be an apology. It was supposed to "to
dispel commercial uncertainty".

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

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

~~~
dan1234
The judge could be taking quite a bit of heat from Samsung… Surely Apple's
lawyer division (and it must be a division by now) went through that judgment
with a fine tooth comb before posting the statement.

I wonder if the judge could have added a clause requiring Apple to submit the
statement to him for review first.

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

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

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

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

Which is:

 _On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that
Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy
Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No.
0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on
the following link [link given].

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the
Court of Appeal on (date). A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is
available on the following link [link given]. There is no injunction in
respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

------
duiker101
Act like a 6 year old and you will be treated like one from someone with a
little brain. Don't take the judge for a stupid. You'll regret it.

------
bstar77
Did the court seriously think ANY COMPANY would have reacted differently than
Apple did? This is a childish and completely unproductive order. Fine Apple
and be over with it if you think they did something wrong.

~~~
duiker101
I think that the court's ruling is not childish. The problem with Apple is
their attitude, they think they are over the rules, look at the Italian case
of the warranties, the law requires 2 years but Apple would give only one.

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

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

~~~
count
Attitudes are not illegal.

~~~
duiker101
It is when your attitude makes you illegal things, see the warranties things.

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

~~~
meaty
Well spotted. Someone needs to draw attention to that.

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

------
DanBC
Apple needs to be a bit careful.

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

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

------
js2
The engadget link adds nothing to the original reporting -
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-
samsu...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-
statement)

------
ortusdux
My first thought when I read the Samsung letter:

[http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sneaky-
restauran...](http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sneaky-restaurant-
fail.jpg)

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

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

------
macmac
“I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob
said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
michaelfeathers
> Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't
> keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them.

Devil's Advocate -- Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions and the
fact that they don't agree with the court?

~~~
chimeracoder
> Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions

No, because those jurisdictions aren't relevant once the court has already
made a ruling for its own jurisdiction.

> the fact that they don't agree with the court?

There's nothing to 'disagree' about. As far as the court is concerned, once
it's made a ruling, it's determined the _facts_ , and you can't disagree with
their facts. There's nothing to appeal in an acquittal (because of double-
jeopardy), so the courts have had their final word on the matter.

This is a civil case, but to use the analogy in a criminal case: once the
defendant in a murder trail has been acquitted, the prosecutor can't continue
to say, "The court has determined the _facts_ , but I have a different
_opinion_."

------
levesque
This is silly.

------
clarky07
This seems like BS to me. They put the judgement on their site, and then they
put other things on THEIR site. As long as the put the piece they wanted them
to put, they should be able to do anything else they want. If they think the
statements made make for good marketing pieces, why shouldn't they be able to
put them on their website.

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

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

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

 _makes a note to avoid reading such threads in the future_

------
drizzo4shizzo
They'll probably put Ironic Hipster quotes around "copy"

------
jusben1369
People. Top post? For hours? 165 comments and counting? For a legal spat in
the UK? For every post that claims the top spot there's one that fails to get
noticed.

These articles are our "Brad and Angelina" equivalents.

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

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

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

~~~
Hontano
The judgement specified where, when, and how to publish the notice down to
which website and publications, the typeface, and point size.

It _was_ sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise
_what_ should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or
reviewed before publication.

Apple complied with the letter of the judgment and arguably the spirit of the
judgment which was "not designed to punish" but rather "to dispel commercial
uncertainty". It clearly states that Samsung's products were found not to
infringe in England and Wales. Unambiguously. Can anyone parse that first
paragraph in any other way?

Going on to provide nuance by quoting the original judge and including rulings
from other jurisdictions doesn't negate that.

Apple have been foolish in getting the court's dander up, but they're not
wrong.

~~~
vidarh
> It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what
> should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or
> reviewed before publication.

The judgement included a proposed wording with the introduction "Subject to
anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following".
Apple might think that gives them carte blanche to write what they think, but
I can guarantee you that no British lawyer would think a wording like that
means anything than that they should thread _very_ carefully if deviating from
it without consent from the court and/or private agreement with the other
party.

> Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?

No, but we can read the rest of the text where they tried to confuse the
matter again by misrepresenting rulings from other courts. E.g. the German
court did _not_ find infringing copying. The US jury explicitly found the
Galaxy Tab (which is what the UK court case and the notice is about) non-
infringing.

It clearly and blatantly has a purpose that is at odds with the spirit of the
judgement.

~~~
Hontano
You're right, I just re-read the judgment with the proposed wording. Apple
should have gone with that verbatim and otherwise shut up so as to not drag it
out.

They made what could have been a publicly boring notice buried in the page
footer a spectacle.

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
vidarh
It can be challenged by appealing the finding. This is already in the appeals
court - good luck to Apple's lawyers in getting the UK Supreme Court to
overrule a court order about a small statement on their website.

But what metratonscube suggested was to ignore the court order and put up a
message that is blatantly in violation of the order then fight them in court
if they didn't come up with a reason to comply. Ignoring this court order
_would_ be straightforward contempt of court at this stage, and _will_ result
in substantially more severe sanctions than being told to put a modified
message up.

And yes, this is how a civilized legal system handles it - every single
European country, the US and most other countries in the world gives the
judges (in this case a panel in the appeals court, so not just one) wide
latitude in ensuring compliance with their orders. The failure to comply with
a judge's legally issued order without specifically going to the court and
asking for a stay pending an appal, is considered extremely serious exactly
because the rule of law requires someone to be the arbiter, and if one party
was able to get away with just ignoring what the judge orders them to, then
the court has no ability to carry out it's duties.

