I really hope they get reamed by the judge again for this. It would be great to see them forced to place the verdict at the top of the page. Unfortunately, the judge probably has no idea what JS is.
I for one decided my recent seven inch tablet purchase and now my upcoming ten inch tablet purchase based on Apple's bad behavior. This just reinforces the idea in my head that I made the right choice. The Nexus tablets offer an incredible amount of features at a price point Apple doesn't even try to compete at and all without the Assholiness of Apple
I like how you posted you BS reason and then followed it up with the real reason, pricing is more of a concern to you and you hate Apple.
Yeah, something tells me even if this whole incident had never happened, you would end up with a Nexus tablet and not an iPad. Call it a hunch.
That's the second time you post an almost identical comment in a thread about people not buying apple products due to their behaviour and you're telling them they are not truthful.
What reason would someone have to say anything whatsoever about a decision they've made? It's not as if they have Samsung stock or are shorting Apple. They are simple statements of fact. If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide.
Actually I was arguing that they aren't buying Apple products because of this particular incident, not their overall behaviour. That I buy, it's a small segment of the population but it does exist.
However I'm seriously skeptical that anyone would actually choose an Android tablet instead of an iPad because of this particular incident. It's a ridiculous prospect, and indicative of a consumer that has no real preferences about the device they buy, they're just running purely on spite.
GP basically just came right out and said that.
> If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide.
I'm not allowed to apply critical thinking skills to statements others make about themselves? That's pretty ridiculous. And since when did I argue against that? I'm sure he does know his motivations better than I. That doesn't mean for a second that he's being honest with us or himself about those motivations.
People make decisions based on many factors:
- price
- utility
- brand loyalty / brand image
I have several Apple devices in my household, until they better their ways on the legal front there will not be another. In my case that meant that I bought one device from an Apple competitor, and held off on another purchase because I can't find something that suits my needs that does not have an Apple logo on it.
You can apply your critical thinking skills to statements of facts where you are in possession of the facts. In this case you are essentially calling people liars when you are not in a position to know their minds or circumstances and where you don't have all the relevant facts.
Giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to them stating their reasons for acting or not acting in some particular case is typically a decent thing to do, even if you personally would not behave in that way.
So, the OP is likely honest with you and all those visiting here about their motivations, as am I. And we do employ our critical thinking skills in evaluating where our next purchases are being made.
Judges aren't friggin robots. You don't get to fuck around and have them go "BEEP BOOP WELL TECHNICALLY NOT A VIOLATION BEEP BOOP".
The whole point of a judge is to, well, use his/her judgement. If this judge thinks Apple is fucking with him AGAIN, I can't imagine he'll be at all lenient. Apple is holding his authority in contempt.
I think another way of looking at it is this: if they don't request a particular location for the link, do they think Apple's going to put it anywhere other than the bottom of the page? And if so, the consequence (where this javascript exists or not) is that on a great number of devices you won't see it unless you scroll down.
The only person equating anything to the holocaust was you.
Isn't doing this the main reason we have lawyers in the first place?
Would you rather have fair use be a list of 10 things, and only those 10 things, or something that you should follow the spirit of?
Toss a few of them in prison for a bit, and see whether that improves cooperation.
We have a similar problem in the U.S.; in corporations, effectively no one ends up being personally responsible.
However, if an individual personally fails to implement a judicial ruling, that anonymization and "monefication" of penalty may dissolve.
I'm of very mixed opinion and feeling about several laws that may be involved -- both aspects of IP law and aspects of UK libel law.
But I also rather dislike unbridled corporate arrogance.
Was this a condition of the plea bargain, or is this just something that is common in the UK?
And the issue is that Apple has effectively committed libel against Samsung in the UK with its repeated claims that the Samsung tablet is a copy of the iPad. This claim has turned out to be legally false, and now Apple is obliged to correct any turn of public opinion against Samsung that it instigated by making this false claim in the first place.
The reason people are upset about the oppressive libel laws is that they suppress true factual speech. Libel is supposed to be about falsehoods.
This just shows how much of a joke the UK legal system is.
And you guys getting excited about where the notice appears on the page shows just what petty and petulant jokes you are.
the contrary, the court has explicitly found that Samsung did not infringe, so it is indeed libel.
This just shows how much of a joke the UK legal system is.
That "joke" provides the foundation for the American legal system as well as that of all commonwealth countries, are those legal systems jokes too? If the court had ruled in Apple's favour would you still be posting here calling the UK legal system a joke? (this is a rhetorical question)
And you guys getting excited about where the notice appears on the page shows just what petty and petulant jokes you are.
Hello pot, meet kettle
I wouldn't put it past Apple to make things look nice.
Actually, you're the one who has no idea what JS is. I just resized a Chrome window with http://www.apple.co.uk/ loaded in it on my Windows desktop PC. As I changed the height of the window, the content above the Samsung apology was resized so that the apology would be hidden unless I scrolled down. It is most definitely not restricted to touch devices.
They should still be forced to pay damages. In this case, sufficient damages for Samsung to publicize the ruling.
Forcing people to say something they disagree with is very dangerous. Reminds me of the ancient Catholic Church and their struggles with scientists.
Would it help to imagine a company in Apple's position that was a sole proprietorship with no employees? So the company was just one guy?
What about a company with 5 shareholders who work on the business, and no employees?
What legal remedy do you feel should be available to Samsung in this case? Apple made a claim in its advertising that was found to be untruthful under the law. Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction?
Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.
Again, monetary damages. Sufficient for Samsung to publicize their point of view.
Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction?
The loser in a case like this may not necessarily agree with the judge's conclusion. The judge forcing them to say something, is tantamount to forcing them to tell a lie.
Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.
I'm not saying that Apple has a free speech right to make false claims. I'm saying that they have a free speech right to not be forced to make claims by others that they may not agree with. That's a novel way of looking at free speech.
People should not be forced to say things. That's wrong. Regardless of jurisdiction.
Hmm, OK, I see what you're saying. That sounds like a reasonable point.
Americans fetishise free speech beyond all reason. Yes, freedom of speech is important, but it's one right amongst many. Does Apple's right to free speech trump Samsung's right to pursue their legitimate business without being harassed?
But by doing business in that jurisdiction, you agreed to the laws. And part of that agreement is to abide by the rulings of the judges in the land they choose to do business with.
Having an opinion doesn't inherently make you right, and because what they were discussing were purely legal incarnations, believing anything other than a legal ruling with regard to a legal status is a bit crazy.
While Apple might believe they were in the right, the facts of the case are founded on legal rulings. It's one thing to be forced to change your opinion, but to be asked to state fact?
Regardless, it comes down to this: People should not be forced to say things.
I still think it's an important distinction that people did not say things, Apple did. And corporations are not people. And I really think that is an important distinction.
What if I disagree with the required warning?
To address a better version of your argument. Should cigarette makers be forced to include health warnings on their products? Well, marketing a product as safe that is not safe is fraud, so if they do not do this voluntarily, then yes. The case at hand (Apple v. Samsung) is not remotely like that, though.
So, if a cigarette manufacturer doesn't believe his products cause cancer, your original argument would suggests that requiring a label infringes on his right free speech.
The cyanide example seems like it is a red herring because it is ridiculous. But it follows logically from your original claim.
It is legal to buy/sell cyanide. In practice, you couldn't sell it as a soft drink... but if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for.
I don't know why you're claiming I argue that, because in my last post, I pre-emptively explained why I am not claiming that (because to do so would be fraudulent).
Let me reiterate.
The basic principle is: The only time force is acceptable, is in order to undo or prevent someone else's initiation of force or fraud.
You likely don't agree with that principle, but I think everyone ought to. That is what freedom actually consists of, and it's a necessary and sufficient condition for human flourishing.
How does that apply here? The government should not tell someone what they cannot (or must) say, excepting cases where that person is initiating force by what they're saying. Selling someone cianide would be such a case. Disputing whether someone copied someone else or not in a design is not such a case.
Fraud requires intentional deception. My example is unequivocally NOT fraud, since the seller believes they are telling the truth.
This did pretty much happen in the US and was partly why the FDA was founded. Someone created a medicine which used a solvent known to be toxic to humans because they were too lazy to check, refused to tell the pharmacies they'd sold it to to withdraw it, and couldn't legally be forced to until someone spotted a technical violation of labelling law. They called it an "elixir", and legally only stuff that used alcohol as a solvent could be named that; if they'd labelled it as "medicine" instead there'd have been no way to force a recall at all and people would've just kept on taking it.