

Apple posts revised Samsung statement - pdknsk
http://www.apple.co.uk/

======
tisme
Incredible how bad a loser Apple is. If you're ordered to do something like
this make it plain that you got the message.

So: Above the fold, in a font no lighter or smaller than the rest of the page.
No tricks or gimmicks (resizing the ipad mini image? Popup links??) to hide
the text.

All they're doing is to risk yet another do-over which will hit them in the
middle of Christmas shopping.

~~~
mtgx
They even made the iPad mini bigger, so people can't notice the statement at
the bottom of the page:

<http://i.imgur.com/MRmAx.jpg>

~~~
6ren
It dynamically enlarges, so the statement is always below the fold, no matter
your screen size. That's why it aligns so nicely. To be fair, maybe they did
they before too. But if they changed it just to hide this clear statement
they've been ordered to make...

BTW: The statement text is verbatim what the court suggested in
<http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html> (para 87)

The judgement says it's a final determination which I assume means it can't be
appealed. But I don't get that impression from the statement, I guess because
I'm not familiar with the appeals hierarchy of the EU. It seems the UK Court
of Appeal superior to German courts.

~~~
michaelhoffman
When a court says something is "final" that means that it will not be
revisited at that level. It does not mean you can't appeal. However, you can
only appeal to the UK Supreme Court if you get permission from the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court, and I doubt this is the sort of thing where such
permission will be forthcoming.

The EU is not one country and does not have a unified judicial system like in
the U.S. The decisions of the Court of Appeals of England and Wales (not the
UK) have little precedential value in Germany and vice versa.

------
Osmium
I don't have an opinion on the ruling itself (i.e. that Apple lost, which
could've been the correct decision as far as I know), but I think a court
being able to dictate what goes on a company's website is a little perverse. I
wonder how they decided the notice must be in an 11 pt font? Why not dictate
it be "above the fold" too? It's equally arbitrary.

I also think it shows how out of touch the system is. Apple were also
compelled to publish a newspaper ad. This is a photo of the ad they ran:
[https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=9115A524920CFD6F&id=9115A...](https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=9115A524920CFD6F&id=9115A524920CFD6F%218355)
[via The Next Web] You have to ask what this actually achieves in practice.

The court said the judgement was "not designed to punish" but rather "to
dispel commercial uncertainty."[1] In practice, I think it achieves the former
(by public humiliation) but does nothing for the latter, thereby precisely
doing the opposite of what was intended. That said, I think Apple could've
handled this whole thing a lot more gracefully.

[1] in the words of one of Apple's lawyers,
[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)

~~~
zalew
> a court being able to dictate what goes on a company's website is a little
> perverse. I wonder how they decided the notice must be in an 11 pt font?

I guess it's somehow derived from deflamation dementis in newspapers.
depending on the case courts also order it be in a certain size, on a certain
page. it's not that ridiculous counting the fact that everybody reads and
talks about the frontpage sensation, but nobody gives a crap about a dementi
in the corner of page 18. the accusation itself is usually a great PR damage
which is rarely fixed even by a successful verdict.

~~~
Osmium
> the accusation itself is usually a great PR damage which is rarely fixed
> even by a successful verdict.

I agree with this. I'm just not sure a court-mandated notice is the solution,
precisely because it's so difficult to achieve the effect the court desires
("dispel a commercial uncertainty"). In practice, marketing, PR, public
perception -- you name it -- is going to muddy whatever intent the court had,
and the end result could be just as damaging as the original accusation.

------
jimrandomh
So, the corrected notice is up. You have to scroll down to see it.

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

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

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

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

------
chucknelson
The comments in this thread are a bit strange and another example of how Apple
is held to ridiculous standards on everything. What company would _not_ try to
meet this in a way that does minimum damage to their business? They comply and
move on.

Have we also forgotten that the company that "won" in this issue has thrived
on some blatant ripoff products?

~~~
lighthazard
When a company is so adamant about not losing, being a sore loser is not
expected. Everyone rips off everyone else, no one has any unique products all
the time. Apple just markets really well.

~~~
shinratdr
> When a company is so adamant about not losing

What does this sentence even mean? What kind of company is adamant about
losing, exactly?

~~~
nitrogen
The opposite of "adamant about not losing" is not "adamant about losing," but
rather "not adamant."

------
pja
Congratulations to Apple for managing to behave like the corporate equivalent
of a spoiled teenager.

I mean, seriously: resizing the images on the homepage so that the link to the
statement is always off-screen when the page is first viewed?

If Apple continues to behave in this fashion, then that's going to become a
story all by itself (it already is on HN after all).

~~~
vvhn
It is going to be on Hackernews, Reddit etc. anyway unless the notice is the
only thing on web page and reads - "we are evil and we beg the forgiveness of
Samsung and anybody who comments on any web forum" :-)

------
stordoff
What I find interesting is that the iPad Mini resizes, meaning that the footer
(and the statement) are never visible unless you scroll. The US Apple site
doesn't do this. Does anyone know if this is new behaviour?

~~~
iamben
Brilliant spot. You have to use a _massive_ resolution or zoom right out to
get it on the screen.

~~~
stordoff
You're not kidding when you say massive resolution - even at 2560x1600, it is
not visible.

~~~
ubercow13
I can see it if I do this <http://i.minus.com/ieFsMxT8V2e6w.png>

------
Zoophy
I am amazed at how they are - I can't seem to think of another accurate
description - trolling the same legal system which they were trying to use for
blocking the competition.

~~~
raldi
I think the word you're looking for is "petulant".

~~~
Karunamon
Perhaps even "childish".

------
arrrg
Sigh. I don’t get this. Why do people care about this and why do they
complain? This seems completely meaningless to me. Why are some people so
angry about this I don’t get it.

Apple obviously disagrees with the ruling, so they try everything to do as
little as possible – they just screwed up the first time. That’s all. It
doesn’t matter and there is no reason to be so angry about this. Who cares?

~~~
Jare
They are openly mocking the legal system when it doesn't go their way. I care.

~~~
sbuk
No. The Judge is making a mockery of the jurisprudence by giving such a
vacuous and pointless ruling.

------
michaelhoffman
How was it that Apple was able to change their web page in less than the two
weeks they originally claimed was necessary? I look forward to reading the
tales of their heroic web designers and developers trying to finish by the
deadline against impossible odds.

------
chollida1
Wow, how childish is apple.

They made the link a pop up so that browswers like IE will ask the user if
they really want to open it.

Most people are trained by now to say no, so most people won't actually see
the statement.

------
anonymouz
Gray-on-white on the very bottom of the page, just below the copyright
information, ToS, privacy policy and all the other things people instinctively
ignore unless they are specifically looking for such information. They did put
it in a decent font-size, but I doubt many people not looking for it will
notice it.

~~~
shanelja
To be fair to Apple, at least they made some form of effort this time, though
it should really have been done this way first time around.

------
mrich
It is amazing how they use complicated language in the statement to hide the
real message as far as possible. Kind of different from the simple, on point
communication they normally employ. I wonder why :)

~~~
nilsbunger
The language was dictated by the court, wasn't it?

~~~
mrich
No, I don't think the exact statement was specified.

~~~
genkaos
It was, indeed. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4736646>

------
chris_wot
All I see is an iPad mini.

~~~
andrewcooke
scroll down - it's the text in the footer, and the corresponding link.

it's simple, reasonable and, as far as i can tell, accurate. i have no idea
why they did anything else earlier.

well, that's not true. i actually do have an idea. and it's related to wider
issues i see in the us elections, and here on this site. it seems that, more
and more, it is acceptable to simply shout one side of an opinion. that's no
longer the preserve of "attack groups" in presidential campaigns. everyone is
doing it. everyone from presidential candidates to web site commentators.

it's like being a spin doctor is the new cool. people don't want to argue with
nuance, or to balance opinions. they want to say something extreme to give
"balance" to whatever the "other side" is saying (which is obviously a self-
reinforcing spiral downwards).

public discussion, accomodation and compromise are completely out of fashion.
we're left with polarised, unthinking shouting matches. it's a fucking mess.

------
dan1234
"Judgement" in the URL and link text, "Judgment" in the actual statement -
does anybody proofread these changes?

~~~
recursive
They're both valid spellings.

~~~
dan1234
Yes, but you'd think a company with such a reputation for attention to detail
would just pick one and stick with it.

------
TechNewb
Can someone please explain how the judgement has effect throughout the EU if
other courts in the EU judge differently?

------
Nux
That's a lot of legalese mumbo-jumbo. They should have written in plain
English: Samsung kicked our sorry arses. :-)

~~~
vidarh
That's the text they were provided by the court that they got slapped for
meddling with the first time.

~~~
pja
If they keep playing these games, the judge is eventually going to mandate
that the homepage contains nothing but a statement about the judgment and a
link to the rest of the Apple site.

~~~
sigzero
No, the judge cannot do anything at this point. The exact notice is on the
page. So what if you have to scroll to see it.

