Comment by vidarh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vidarh | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

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.

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.

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

Of course those slimy judges can't get away with it in the US. Corporations in the US are people now.

Should cigarette companies be allowed to write their own diatribe under the "Surgeon General's Warning" label? Cigarette companies definitely don't agree that smoking causes cancer, so why not post a rant about how <Country X> has not yet declared smoking dangerous so the UK is wrong?

There are a bunch of examples of American courts ordering apologies in this paper:

http://www.law.arizona.edu/faculty/FacultyPubs/Documents/whi...

(See page 8.)

Really? Demanding an apology be published (in the spirit of an apology) is 'compelling speech' and therefore against 'our freedoms'?

Do you also admonish American parents who tell their child to say they are sorry for an infraction?

What a US court thinks is irrelevant in the UK, and has zero bearing on the Apple UK site. Thank $DIETY the USPTO is confined to where it is.

If Apple doesn't want to comply with laws, they shouldn't operate in those countries.

That said, it was obvious they'd get chewed out for this from when they posted it (if you know anything about UK law). It's okay to be smug and they would have probably gotten away with everything except the very last paragraph.

The last paragraph was completely unnecessary, and now they're facing the consequences of their hubris.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com