Apple Apologise to Samsung - yeah right!

[Carol Haynes]

This is a great public apology (a direct response to a court order):

On www.apple.com/uk :

On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement.

and here is their heartfelt apology (see http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/):

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 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

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 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the Community registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

And the judges response to the apology:

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2223651/uk-judge-slams-apple-s-lack-of-integrity-over-samsung-apology-farce

In a unique twist, the judge overseeing the case ordered Apple to display a note on its website and publish adverts in magazines and newspapers explaining to the public that Samsung had been found not guilty, in order to clear up any confusion.
However, Apple’s initial apology was challenged by Samsung over its wording and references to other cases in the US and Germany where Apple had won against Samsung.
UK judge Robin Jacob agreed it has failed to comply with the order and was angered by Apple’s stance, especially when it claimed it would need 14 days to amend the text page on its website containing the notice, in an court ruling on 1 November.

[TaoPhoenix]

Then they were hiding the apology with javascript, etc.

[Renegade]

Apple, oh, Apple... Why don't they just spit in the judge's face? Again?

[wraith808]

Actually, I totally disagree with this 'freedom' that judges have in many cases to come up with strange and contrary to the norm punishment, especially when it takes away freedom of others by forcing them to do arbitrary things that are not enforced by precedent.  It seems cool in cases- but what it does in practice is make their courtrooms into their little fiefdoms where they can do anything they want.  Fine them, impose sanctions... fine.  But to force someone to make a statement that you know they don't believe?

Believe me, if you'd been on the other side, like I have, and know that you have some sanction imposed on you that you have no way out of because there's no precedent in law and thus no way to appeal (because judges won't turn over without precedent in appeal, at least for the little people), it's very frustrating and disheartening.

/rant

[zridling]

Corporations like Apple would rather pay the nominal multi-million dollar fine rather than admit any theft or wrongdoing. They don't see their crimes as wrong, ever.

[Renegade]

Corporations like Apple would rather pay the nominal multi-million dollar fine rather than admit any theft or wrongdoing. They don't see their crimes as wrong, ever.

+1

Actually, I totally disagree with this 'freedom' that judges have in many cases to come up with strange and contrary to the norm punishment, especially when it takes away freedom of others by forcing them to do arbitrary things that are not enforced by precedent.  It seems cool in cases- but what it does in practice is make their courtrooms into their little fiefdoms where they can do anything they want.  Fine them, impose sanctions... fine.  But to force someone to make a statement that you know they don't believe?

Believe me, if you'd been on the other side, like I have, and know that you have some sanction imposed on you that you have no way out of because there's no precedent in law and thus no way to appeal (because judges won't turn over without precedent in appeal, at least for the little people), it's very frustrating and disheartening.

/rant

You're preaching to the choir.

About 10 years ago I had a business that was perfectly in line with all the existing laws, as well as ethical/moral.

HOWEVER... It stepped on the toes of a multi-billion dollar government monopoly.

It didn't end well.

I ended up with the police at my door and taken down to the police station where the media was waiting. I led the news for 2 days ahead of the US invasion of Iraq.

It was very clear to me that I was hosed, completely and utterly. I consulted a lawyer, and he basically said the same thing - you're hosed.

They confiscated my property and locked my accounts.

They levied fines against me. More than once. Just to make sure that I got the point.

Having had things been made explicitly clear to me, I took the smart/easy way out - I took my beating and packed it in.

Nothing I did was against the law. Nothing. I just pissed off some people. That was my sin.

I lost everything I had and ended up in debt. I'd gone from having sales doubling every month and being well on the way to having more money than I'd ever know what to do with, to debt and poverty. I had to scramble to find a place to live. It was bad. Very bad. I spent the next 4 years or so working my butt off just to get out of debt.

Arbitrary execution of "legal authority"?

Been there. Have the battle scars to prove it.


Now, by the same token...

...especially when it takes away freedom of others by forcing them to do arbitrary things that are not enforced by precedent...

Regarding:

...especially when it takes away freedom of others...

Government *is* violence. Governments always take away freedoms. The only way freedoms are maintained is usually through violent overthrow.

Regarding:

...arbitrary things that are not enforced by precedent...

Precedent is a good principle, but when precedent ends up being, "We've been screwing everyone else, so because we've been violent towards others, we get to be violent towards you and screw you any way we darn well feel like," well, I don't think that appealing to a precedent of violence and oppression is ever justified.

But to force someone to make a statement that you know they don't believe?

I'm not so sure that "belief" enters into the picture for Apple. I think it's all just about what their best interests are. They may believe it or not. Dunno. Do they drink their own kool-aid?

But for the general principle - force/violence that is not in self-defense is simply wrong. Period.

Believe me, if you'd been on the other side, like I have, and know that you have some sanction imposed on you that you have no way out of because there's no precedent in law and thus no way to appeal (because judges won't turn over without precedent in appeal, at least for the little people), it's very frustrating and disheartening.

/rant

I understand all too well.

[wraith808]

That sucks to hear that you went through it, but it in some small way helps to know that someone knows what it is (and yours definitely sounds worse than mine).  It's just strange when you think that things are Black and White one day, then a judge says something that dumps a can of gray paint over your head.



But I guess the point I make with judges doing things like this is that it's really just to make a statement.  It doesn't do anything, and even if they posted the most heartfelt apology, would anyone believe it?  It's just a flexing of muscle on a different level, and sets precedent for similar meaningless punishments in the future.

Precedent is a good principle, but when precedent ends up being, "We've been screwing everyone else, so because we've been violent towards others, we get to be violent towards you and screw you any way we darn well feel like," well, I don't think that appealing to a precedent of violence and oppression is ever justified.

Oh, i didn't mean it that way, or that precedent was even a good principle.  I just meant that without precedent (and without being *called* on the precedent, which is stupid) one judge won't overturn another, for fear that they will be on the other side- it's a form of 'professional courtesy'.  And I had a copy of the law in court, and the judge outright told me that if I wanted to bring up the letter of the law, that I should have gotten a lawyer.  And without one, the law in his court was what he said it was.  (And of course, if I had the money for a lawyer, I wouldn't have been in court, so there's that too).

Bah.

[Carol Haynes]

Actually I don't think the judge in this case was stepping outside normal precedent (at least in the UK). It is normal where a company tells lies about another company for the courts to insist that a retraction is published. The only difference here is that because Apple is a hight visibility company the judge specified exactly where and what form those retractions should take so that Apple couldn't get away with a 1 line statement on page 46 of the Hertfordshire Herald (that was made up - I wouldn't slander the Hertfordshire Herald if it does exist!).

[Renegade]

Oh, i didn't mean it that way, or that precedent was even a good principle.  I just meant that without precedent (and without being *called* on the precedent, which is stupid) one judge won't overturn another, for fear that they will be on the other side- it's a form of 'professional courtesy'.  And I had a copy of the law in court, and the judge outright told me that if I wanted to bring up the letter of the law, that I should have gotten a lawyer.  And without one, the law in his court was what he said it was.  (And of course, if I had the money for a lawyer, I wouldn't have been in court, so there's that too).

Ah. Got it.

It's amazing just how much contempt for the law you see in the system itself. "...the law in his court was what he said it was." Perfect example. However, sadly, not unique.

I'm dying to bring up a fantastic example of a "law" that is regularly used to punish the snot out of people, but... here's the great part... there is no law. Bah. I can't resist.

This WILL piss some people off - so, you're forewarned - more inconvenient facts

Income tax in the US. There is no requirement to pay.

If you think there is, then just cash in on the $50,000 reward for anyone who can cite the law. (Or something like that - I forget exactly how much the reward is.)

A fun way to find out more is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLwHrxjPT5E

Aaron Russo goes through the history very well.

[Tinman57]

Actually, I totally disagree with this 'freedom' that judges have in many cases to come up with strange and contrary to the norm punishment, especially when it takes away freedom of others by forcing them to do arbitrary things that are not enforced by precedent.  It seems cool in cases- but what it does in practice is make their courtrooms into their little fiefdoms where they can do anything they want.  Fine them, impose sanctions... fine.  But to force someone to make a statement that you know they don't believe?

Believe me, if you'd been on the other side, like I have, and know that you have some sanction imposed on you that you have no way out of because there's no precedent in law and thus no way to appeal (because judges won't turn over without precedent in appeal, at least for the little people), it's very frustrating and disheartening.

/rant

  I agree.  I've seen judges hand out sentences like having to wear a sign on the side of the road saying that they stole something or got a DWI.  Personally I don't think a punishment should be any kind of public display or humiliation.  Hell, they might as well put you in stockades and have people throw excrement at you like they did back in the times of old.

[Josh]

Apple ordered to pay Samsung's legal fees due to improper apology

I have to laugh at this. Karmic retribution at its finest!

[Carol Haynes]

Just gets better and better ... I  that judge