Nor me...as for the website issue and the apology...if I go to 2560x1600 and full screen on chrome or FF, I can make out the first line of the bit at the bottom
Hmmm on Apple.com/uk If I switch to fullscreen (in Firefox) it resizes the images to fill the screen (which keeps the apology hidden). This is not a behavior that happens on Apple.com
edit: from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ment-case.html
Users of the website Reddit, however, accused the company of inserting a piece of coding that made the new apology more difficult to find.
The piece of code is alleged to increase the size of an iPad Mini advert so that users of Apple's site have to scroll down the homepage for the Samsung apology to be visible.
Reddit user Poodlemastah wrote: "It is there specifically to get the bottom 310px of the website out of view. Independent of screen resolution. This is blatantly just to get the statement out of view from most people."
Last edited by JJonas; 5th November 2012 at 01:30 PM.
I looked at the UK site and you have to scroll to see the statement, no matter what the window resolution.
The whole matter rests on the European Community Design. Many will know about this, but in a nutshell, a community design registration can be something as trivial as a shape or drawing. It's supposed to protect the look and feel of products, but there are only so many variations you can make on a rectangle.
Apple's community design:
Community Design 000181607-0001
If a company feels that a competitor 'infringes' this shape, design, etc, it can apply for an injunction to prevent the competitor's product being sold.
Read this and weep/laugh.
The Community Design: ...and you Thought the USPTO Was Bad
Last edited by jinnantonnixx; 5th November 2012 at 12:26 PM.
This is a very interesting read. Don't let its format put you off, it's very clearly written.
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc  EWCA Civ 1430 (09 November 2012)
Last edited by jinnantonnixx; 9th November 2012 at 02:12 PM.
That was brilliant though. And perfectly pitched, as well - Apple have been petulant children, so the court has played Disappointed Parent - especially para 32.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)