X-13 Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 Apple told to rewrite 'Samsung did not copy' statement, post it on front page until Dec 14th -- Engadget BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *ahem* I find this humorous.
synaesthesia Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 It's brilliant. Apple are so childish it's just funny. "Yeah, I can put a notice up instantly. But it will take 14 days to take down the old one" which can be read as "Yeah, if we must. I want to keep the other advert/apology up for 2 weeks though". Grow up, Apple. Steve Jobs v1.0 is rolling in his grave.
AMLinington Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *ahem* I find this humorous. Ditto. The first statement smacks of a petulent child being made to apologise by an adult! 2 weeks to re-write a page of the website? Do me a favour. They could re-write the footer notice immediately to make it compliant - it's only editing a bit of page code. If the front page edit is more complicated they then have time to do that. Or they could just put a temporary re-direct in place. Apple aren't doing themselves any favours at all with this behaviour - it makes them look like brats! I certainly won't be buying any more apple products. If I may have done before I certainly won't now.
JJonas Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 They better be careful if they mess this up the next judge may make them include links on the front page to places you can buy the Galaxy tab
SYNACK Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) I think they should give them a time out in the corner until they do it properly. Two weeks is a bit long but to be fair they may be using Macs or an iPad and this does sound almost like real work, they may need that long Edited November 1, 2012 by SYNACK
featured_spectre Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 Just wait until someone does the whole anti-trust thing on them as happened to MS. MS got screwed because no other browser was included on their software by default, as a result they were fined massively, and set things straight (as did linux distro's by bundling loads of them in). Apple have breached so many anti trust regulations is bordering on ridiculous...Micro-USB as charging dock, safari is the only browser available by default, most parts in Apple products such as RAM in MACs, or batteries in iPhones are soldered or set into place, making it difficult to swap out parts, thereby making it difficult to use other hardware for mac's (something MS was initially lambasted about by AMD back in the day and was told by EU courts they have to make it so they could all work properly). Let Apple fall I say, this is just a step towards the nails in the coffin!
AMLinington Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 Just wait until someone does the whole anti-trust thing on them as happened to MS. MS got screwed because no other browser was included on their software by default, as a result they were fined massively, and set things straight (as did linux distro's by bundling loads of them in). Apple have breached so many anti trust regulations is bordering on ridiculous...Micro-USB as charging dock, safari is the only browser available by default, most parts in Apple products such as RAM in MACs, or batteries in iPhones are soldered or set into place, making it difficult to swap out parts, thereby making it difficult to use other hardware for mac's (something MS was initially lambasted about by AMD back in the day and was told by EU courts they have to make it so they could all work properly). Let Apple fall I say, this is just a step towards the nails in the coffin! I've been wondering about the anti-trust situation with Apple for a while now - how do they get away with it? The samsung product uses the Android operating system, but in and of itself, the OS is a separate product by a separate company (and it's open source) so it can hardly be argued as anti-trust there, yet the Apple products only run on their proprietary OS and getting them to do differently is complicated (mostly because of driver issues). It is probably not unreasonable to expect that a user of an Apple product buys the whole package - hardware and OS coming as one as that is how the solution is marketed - but even so they should offer other software options!
synaesthesia Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 I've a theory. Perhaps the best 12 year old employees at Foxconn get promoted to the legal and marketing departments at Apple by the time they're 13.
AMLinington Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 I've a theory. Perhaps the best 12 year old employees at Foxconn get promoted to the legal and marketing departments at Apple by the time they're 13. Whereupon they manage to get jobs in public relations for their 7yo siblings...
localzuk Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 I've been wondering about the anti-trust situation with Apple for a while now - how do they get away with it? The samsung product uses the Android operating system, but in and of itself, the OS is a separate product by a separate company (and it's open source) so it can hardly be argued as anti-trust there, yet the Apple products only run on their proprietary OS and getting them to do differently is complicated (mostly because of driver issues). It is probably not unreasonable to expect that a user of an Apple product buys the whole package - hardware and OS coming as one as that is how the solution is marketed - but even so they should offer other software options! Apple don't have a monopoly in any markets. Smartphones? Nope. Google has a larger share if you go by OS. Even RIM has a larger share. Tablets? Nope. Apple have a majority, but it couldn't be seen as a monopoly - it was about 60% in March, with the rest being pretty much Android. Music sales? Apple have about 29% of music sales, and 60% of online music sales. So still not a monopoly. So, how would they be taking advantage of a monopoly to force their way into another market - which is what anti-trust is all about.
SYNACK Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 I've been wondering about the anti-trust situation with Apple for a while now It's because they are technically a cult/religion so they get all sorts of breaks over and above that of a normal company, especially in the US
JJonas Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 BBC have picked up the story now BBC News - Apple ordered to re-write 'inaccurate' Samsung statement
localzuk Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 BBC have picked up the story now BBC News - Apple ordered to re-write 'inaccurate' Samsung statement News sites are basically things that have been on Twitter already.
JJonas Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Ding Ding, round 2 Apple Hides Samsung Apology So It Can't Be Seen Without Scrolling
featured_spectre Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Is that even an apology?! it just posts up the ruling!
AMLinington Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Is that even an apology?! it just posts up the ruling! 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 Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) (09 July 2012). 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 Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1339 (18 October 2012). There is no injunction in respect of the Community registered design in force anywhere in Europe. It's not. Apple are petulent children. This saga is doing nothing for their reputation. It would be less painful for them to put up something that says 'We acknowledge the decision of the UK courts in the following ruling: Blah blah blah, and accept that in this instance copyright infringement has not occurred.' - that would be more of an apology than anything they have posted thus far, and would comply with the ruling and there would be none of this negative publicity surrounding their childishness!
sonofsanta Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 They are rather courting* the Streisand Effect here, if they don't just get on with it soon it'll backfire horribly. *pun not intended, but I'll gladly leave it in
JJonas Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 So what do you think is going to happen next? Im going to make a stab at a possible future headline... "Judge orders Samsung to design Apple Uk's Website"
AMLinington Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 So what do you think is going to happen next? Im going to make a stab at a possible future headline... "Judge orders Samsung to design Apple Uk's Website" Well, I'm not convinced they aren't being sly about it as usually when I visit 'Apple.com' it auto-redirects me to Apple.co.uk based on my IP location but this morning it didn't - I was left on Apple.com and had to manually change to the UK site to see the announcement. It might be a caching issue but I can't help but feel they might have jimmied with the auto-redirect so that UK customers aren't automatically sent to the UK page... Then again this might be my tin-foil-hat brain seeing conspiracy theories everywhere...
sonofsanta Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Well, I'm not convinced they aren't being sly about it as usually when I visit 'Apple.com' it auto-redirects me to Apple.co.uk based on my IP location but this morning it didn't - I was left on Apple.com and had to manually change to the UK site to see the announcement. It might be a caching issue but I can't help but feel they might have jimmied with the auto-redirect so that UK customers aren't automatically sent to the UK page... Then again this might be my tin-foil-hat brain seeing conspiracy theories everywhere... Happening for me too, now you mention it. Sneaky buggers.
british_government Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Happening for me too, now you mention it. Sneaky buggers. Me 3, barstewards! I might change their apology page to our school block page
JJonas Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Well, I'm not convinced they aren't being sly about it as usually when I visit 'Apple.com' it auto-redirects me to Apple.co.uk based on my IP location but this morning it didn't - I was left on Apple.com and had to manually change to the UK site to see the announcement. It might be a caching issue but I can't help but feel they might have jimmied with the auto-redirect so that UK customers aren't automatically sent to the UK page... Then again this might be my tin-foil-hat brain seeing conspiracy theories everywhere... Not doing it for me
featured_spectre Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 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
JJonas Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) 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/technology/apple/9655359/Apple-accused-of-making-Samsung-apology-difficult-to-find-in-latest-twist-to-patent-infringement-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." The JavaScript resize code does not appear on the main Apple US site. Edited November 5, 2012 by JJonas
jinnantonnixx Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) 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 Edited November 5, 2012 by jinnantonnixx
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now