Apple's snarky Samsung post not good enough for British judge

[Tomm]

http://www.latimes.com/business/tech...,6877841.story (http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-samsung-judge-20121101,0,6877841.story)



We think the British-court-ordered notice on Apple's website that says Samsung did not copy Apple's patented tablet design is hilarious, but the judge isn't laughing.A British court has given Apple 24 hours to remove the statement from its website, and 48 hours to post a new one, the BBC (http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/media-industry/bbc-ORCRP001723173.topic) reports (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20165664).
Apple asked for 14 days to write a new statement, but the court refused.
"I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties," said Judge Robin Jacob, Bloomberg reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html). "...This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?"
The original statement, ordered by the High Court of Justice of England on Oct. 18, was supposed to be a simple one that clarifies the court's finding that the design of three of Samsung's Galaxy Tablet computers does not infringe on Apple's patented design.
Apple, complied, but with a twist. In the original notice (http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/) posted on its website, the company lays out the court's findings in the first paragraph, but also includes some additional paragraphs that display a certain...um...feisty attitude.
The statement includes two paragraphs pulled directly from the court's ruling that say that Apple's design is cooler than the Samsung design.
The company then goes on to say that a German court found that Samsung did copy the iPad (http://www.latimes.com/topic/services-shopping/electronic-devices/apple-ipad-PRDCES000000029.topic) design. And that a U.S. jury found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design.
The original statement concludes:
So while the U.K. (http://www.latimes.com/topic/intl/united-kingdom-PLGEO000005.topic) court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
"I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," Jacob said, according to the BBC. "It is a plain breach of the order."
In addition to writing a new notice, the court has ordered Apple to link to the new notice on its homepage. The company must also publish notices with details of the ruling in British newspapers and trade magazines, the BBC reports.


Feel free to continue the discussion here, not exactly like we can afford to be having threads closed pointlessly when we rarely get any kind of discussion going on in this forum anyway.

Mods: Merge the threads (and delete this post if you want) if you'll override the VIP's lock on the thread.

[GommeInc]

I did PM Matt asking if people can close threads for no reason, he didn't appear to have one other than he was being mocked for taking his own sarcasm seriously.

As for the topic:

Have there been any newspapers with the statement in yet, and how would this statement appear? I haven't seen any, but admittedly I rarely buy the things now - the internet is far more reliable :P I assume the Court wants an Apple written statement, rather than the paper to write one for them.

Judging by what they've done so far, it wouldn't surprise me if they post a statement to each paper with the family of iDevices as an advert, stating how they think it's unfair completely missing the point of the punishment.

[HotelUser]

Notwithstanding the decision, I'm still persistant in that I'm uncomfortable with the amount of non-Apple opinions which made it onto the Apple website.

[Chippiewill]

Regardless of the original ruling, this was the appropriate response. Apple should not be disrespecting the British legal system in the manner that they did.

[xxMATTGxx]

http://mattgarner.net/upload/images/2012/11/02/rj9Kc.png


Apple has posted its Samsung Galaxy Tab design acknowledgement in several UK newspapers today following the scolding that it received from the courts over the "incorrect" online statement. Unlike the acknowledgement first served up on Apple’s website, the new notice takes a very dry approach to outlining the situation while also pointing readers to copies of the court's judgements.

The Verge has confirmed that a copy of the advertisement has appeared on page four of The Daily Mail, with The Next Web spotting the same notice in The Guardian. Apple was ordered to run the statement in additional publications, including The Financial Times, in a font no smaller than Arial 14 and before page six. The company was ordered to post a revised acknowledgement on the front page of Apple.com within 24 hours after yesterday’s ruling, but there’s no sign of it so far.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3589674/apple-samsung-design-acknowledgement-uk-newspapers

[HotelUser]

http://mattgarner.net/upload/images/2012/11/02/rj9Kc.png



http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3589674/apple-samsung-design-acknowledgement-uk-newspapers

That link is painfully big to type into a computer from a newspaper, haha.

I think judges forcing this onto companies is stupid. I think freedom of speech is a pretty cool idea...

[xxMATTGxx]

That link is painfully big to type into a computer from a newspaper, haha.

I think judges forcing this onto companies is stupid. I think freedom of speech is a pretty cool idea...

What the judge has asked Apple to do is fine. You should be worried about what the judges are saying to do in countries closer to your home. It's a lot better than just banning products from sale altogether, this is a win win for consumers to be honest.

[HotelUser]

What the judge has asked Apple to do is fine. You should be worried about what the judges are saying to do in countries closer to your home. It's a lot better than just banning products from sale altogether, this is a win win for consumers to be honest.

When freedom of speech is withheld its a very dark day. I would hope no Canadian Court pulls this stunt over patents in the consumer industry. I'm capable of making my own opinions of Samsung and Apple without my countries legal system trying to spoon feed me their opinions.

[xxMATTGxx]

When freedom of speech is withheld its a very dark day. I would hope no Canadian Court pulls this stunt over patents in the consumer industry. I'm capable of making my own opinions of Samsung and Apple without my countries legal system trying to spoon feed me their opinions.

David, there is nothing wrong with what the judge has made them to do. Apple can have their views and opinions on Samsung all they want, just not on the notices the judge has ordered for them to put up to tell people that Samsung didn't infringe any parents and crap.

Unless you wanted the court to give love to Apple and ban Samsung products? ;)

[HotelUser]

David, there is nothing wrong with what the judge has made them to do. Apple can have their views and opinions on Samsung all they want, just not on the notices the judge has ordered for them to put up to tell people that Samsung didn't infringe any parents and crap.

Unless you wanted the court to give love to Apple and ban Samsung products? ;)

So the only alternative to forcing Apple to post something they don't believe in is to hand them a victory?

How about just letting Samsung win and not force Apple to post things on their website which they don't believe themselves.

[xxMATTGxx]

So the only alternative to forcing Apple to post something they don't believe in is to hand them a victory?

How about just letting Samsung win and not force Apple to post things on their website which they don't believe themselves.

How about they stop suing each other over something rather stupid. Stop wasting the time of the legal system!

[HotelUser]

How about they stop suing each other over something rather stupid. Stop wasting the time of the legal system!

Agreed, although I doubt anybody will do that because they all want money.

[GommeInc]

When freedom of speech is withheld its a very dark day. I would hope no Canadian Court pulls this stunt over patents in the consumer industry. I'm capable of making my own opinions of Samsung and Apple without my countries legal system trying to spoon feed me their opinions.
It's now a fact that Samsung did not steal Apple's designs, not "their" (the Courts) opinions. Freedom of speech isn't effected at all, not in the same way that when a prisoner is locked up their liberty is removed. Apple can whine like a nine year old all they want, but they shouldn't use the Courts punishment as a place to do it. It's either they post the statement on their website, or harsher punishments will happen (huge fines and/or imprisonment of whoever).

The reason the Court is doing this is because Samsung has lost a lot of reputation over the matter, which may effect sales. Instead of banning products, which would be punishing the consumer more than Apple, the easiest option is to make Apple acknowledge that Samsung doesn't steal and to dust the matter under the carpet sooner rather than later. It's so simple, yet Apple are acting incredibly childish over it.

[HotelUser]

It's now a fact that Samsung did not steal Apple's designs, not "their" (the Courts) opinions. Freedom of speech isn't effected at all, not in the same way that when a prisoner is locked up their liberty is removed. Apple can whine like a nine year old all they want, but they shouldn't use the Courts punishment as a place to do it. It's either they post the statement on their website, or harsher punishments will happen (huge fines and/or imprisonment of whoever).

The reason the Court is doing this is because Samsung has lost a lot of reputation over the matter, which may effect sales. Instead of banning products, which would be punishing the consumer more than Apple, the easiest option is to make Apple acknowledge that Samsung doesn't steal and to dust the matter under the carpet sooner rather than later. It's so simple, yet Apple are acting incredibly childish over it.

It's not a fact that Samsung didn't infringe on the patents. As usually you do not seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion. Your court has their own opinion, the US and German courts have different opinions, as does the Korean courts. Samsung and Apple have their own opinions and likewise we as individuals have our own opinions as well.

The world is not so black as you would make it out to be. As a consumer I can form my own opinions about products without the help of my government (within reason). There's plenty of information about the court cases online that is at my disposal and every consumers' disposal. I don't need third parties to meddle in the private sector where they do not belong. Moreover because we have this lovely thing called freedom of press (or at least illusions of it), the mass media already had coverage on the outcome of the trial.

If the media took a side in the court proceeding then that's a media bias and although we don't like that, it should be allowed and the courts shouldn't meddle with that either (within reason).

Unless Apple or Microsoft or Samsung do anything which is actually illegal and which borderlines morality, if Canada or England or any other country want to tell these companies what to do they should buy a 51% stake in the companies. Otherwise they should stay the hell away from them and practice their rights infringing socialist ideologies elsewhere.

[GommeInc]

It's not a fact that Samsung didn't infringe on the patents. As usually you do not seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion. Your court has their own opinion, the US and German courts have different opinions, as does the Korean courts. Samsung and Apple have their own opinions and likewise we as individuals have our own opinions as well.

The world is not so black as you would make it out to be. As a consumer I can form my own opinions about products without the help of my government (within reason). There's plenty of information about the court cases online that is at my disposal and every consumers' disposal. I don't need third parties to meddle in the private sector where they do not belong. Moreover because we have this lovely thing called freedom of press (or at least illusions of it), the mass media already had coverage on the outcome of the trial.

If the media took a side in the court proceeding then that's a media bias and although we don't like that, it should be allowed and the courts shouldn't meddle with that either (within reason).

Unless Apple or Microsoft or Samsung do anything which is actually illegal and which borderlines morality, if Canada or England or any other country want to tell these companies what to do they should buy a 51% stake in the companies. Otherwise they should stay the hell away from them and practice their rights infringing socialist ideologies elsewhere.
You'd be amazed but it actually is fact now if the Court has decided it. It may not be fact else where, like the biased American courts, but in the UK when a case like this is decided it becomes a matter of fact ( Tomm kept telling you this in the other thread). As per usual you show a low understanding of Court proceedings and forget that facts and opinions aren't always separate, they can merge together too.

For example:

It's a matter of fact that kissing in public in Abu Dhabi is illegal.
It's a matter of fact that kissing in public in London isn't illegal.

Facts change depending on the country. So now as it's a matter of fact that Samsung did not copy Apple in the UK, because the Courts have ruled this. However, in America it's a matter of fact that they did.

Don't forget that opinions can be formed based on fact. Facts are objective and opinions are subjective. However, when an opinion is based on fact it loses it's subjective nature. Court rulings are a good example of where an opinion becomes fact e.g. Negligence claims in courts are based on a Court case which turned matters of the case into facts to further identify causes as negligence. Court Opinions become Fact.

And again it's not the Government telling Apple, and people have already formed these opinions that Samsung did not copy. However, Apple made these claims and damaged Samsung's reputation, and as a suitable punishment it was thought best to simply demand Apple make a notice telling their UK customers that they lost a pointless court case to begin with. It's not harming anyone, but Apple's ego. It's as simple as that.

[peteyt]

When freedom of speech is withheld its a very dark day. I would hope no Canadian Court pulls this stunt over patents in the consumer industry. I'm capable of making my own opinions of Samsung and Apple without my countries legal system trying to spoon feed me their opinions.

I believe in Freedom of speech but Apple has to take the consequences of its actions. It's been going around too long trying to sue over stupid things (I know not the only one). I'm hoping things like this will put people off it.

[HotelUser]

You'd be amazed but it actually is fact now if the Court has decided it. It may not be fact else where, like the biased American courts, but in the UK when a case like this is decided it becomes a matter of fact ( Tomm kept telling you this in the other thread). As per usual you show a low understanding of Court proceedings and forget that facts and opinions aren't always separate, they can merge together too.

For example:

It's a matter of fact that kissing in public in Abu Dhabi is illegal.
It's a matter of fact that kissing in public in London isn't illegal.

Facts change depending on the country. So now as it's a matter of fact that Samsung did not copy Apple in the UK, because the Courts have ruled this. However, in America it's a matter of fact that they did.

Don't forget that opinions can be formed based on fact. Facts are objective and opinions are subjective. However, when an opinion is based on fact it loses it's subjective nature. Court rulings are a good example of where an opinion becomes fact e.g. Negligence claims in courts are based on a Court case which turned matters of the case into facts to further identify causes as negligence. Court Opinions become Fact.

And again it's not the Government telling Apple, and people have already formed these opinions that Samsung did not copy. However, Apple made these claims and damaged Samsung's reputation, and as a suitable punishment it was thought best to simply demand Apple make a notice telling their UK customers that they lost a pointless court case to begin with. It's not harming anyone, but Apple's ego. It's as simple as that.

It funny how we're not arguing if Apple should of won or lost, yet you just had to include that you think the American court decision is bad anyway. Typical Gomme. As soon as we're no longer talking about Apple you bring up something negative about them. You're like a dog drooling in excitement for a human to throw a ball, so you can go blindly chasing after it.

I would be just as mad if the situation had been reversed and Samsung had to post such a statement. You forget that I'm a large Galaxy fan and avid user. I've owned way more Android phones in my life than Apple products and I love them all.

Perhaps instead of letting your blind hate for Apple fog your judgement, you could actually debate the topic of forcing corporations to make statements which don't reflect their own opinions.

It's not a fact in England that there was no infringement and it's not a fact in America that Samsung did infringe. Those rulings were made and in the sense of a law it's a fact I suppose, but people can still disagree and form their own opinions.

Now read this carefully and don't misquote me because I know you get confused very easily:

You can abide by a law yet still disagree with said law and publicly express your disagreement.

Apple should still be allowed to abide by the ruling that there was no infringement (aka Apple understands that they lost in court), yet Apple should still be allowed to publicly uphold the believe that there was infringement.

Consider this: just because you've been convicted of a crime doesn't mean after you've been found guilty you automatically have to confess to everyone.

[GommeInc]

It funny how we're not arguing if Apple should of won or lost, yet you just had to include that you think the American court decision is bad anyway. Typical Gomme. As soon as we're no longer talking about Apple you bring up something negative about them. You're like a dog drooling in excitement for a human to throw a ball, so you can go blindly chasing after it.

I would be just as mad if the situation had been reversed and Samsung had to post such a statement. You forget that I'm a large Galaxy fan and avid user. I've owned way more Android phones in my life than Apple products and I love them all.

Perhaps instead of letting your blind hate for Apple fog your judgement, you could actually debate the topic of forcing corporations to make statements which don't reflect their own opinions.

It's not a fact in England that there was no infringement and it's not a fact in America that Samsung did infringe. Those rulings were made and in the sense of a law it's a fact I suppose, but people can still disagree and form their own opinions.

Now read this carefully and don't misquote me because I know you get confused very easily:

You can abide by a law yet still disagree with said law and publicly express your disagreement.

Apple should still be allowed to abide by the ruling that there was no infringement (aka Apple understands that they lost in court), yet Apple should still be allowed to publicly uphold the believe that there was infringement.

Consider this: just because you've been convicted of a crime doesn't mean after you've been found guilty you automatically have to confess to everyone.
Hmm, I see you're doing your usual thread-derailment method. We are debating, but your version of debating is that you're right and everyone is wrong. Are you going to bother to respond to my points or do your usual "Gomme hates Apple" argument, despite the fact I have never said that nor questioned your hate or love of Samsung :rolleyes:

PS. It is fact that Samsung did not infringe Apple patents in the UK. But seeing as you know nothing of law or politics I won't bother to respond to this part. If you can't accept fact then so be it, it's your problem if you cannot be bothered to educate yourself.

[mrwoooooooo]

a court order has nothing to do with free speech

[Chippiewill]

I think freedom of speech is a pretty cool idea...
Who said anything about free speech?

-

It's fairly commonly regarded that in the UK that you don't have freedom of speech in the same way as the US. Apple publicly slandered Samsung for copying their product, the court found this as not true, this is not about freedom of speech this is about repairing damages dealt.

[FlyingJesus]

Unless Apple or Microsoft or Samsung do anything which is actually illegal and which borderlines morality

Like slanderous comments suggesting that one stole from the other?

[HotelUser]

PS. It is fact that Samsung did not infringe Apple patents in the UK.

If a court in the UK declared that it's a fact that the moon shall hence forth be renamed Bart, then I should have the right to post on Facebook, Twitter, or write the BBC and tell them that I disagree with the decision to rename the moon. I should not be told by the UK courts that I am legally being forced to advertise the name change of the moon (freedom of press baby).

A courtroom in the UK declared that Samsung did not infringe upon Apple's patents, and likewise Apple should have the right to stand up and say "we disagree with this decision, although we are forced to accept it in the UK."

You can bold the word fact all you like but what I've said above holds true regardless as to whether or not your heart warms up when you think about this magical fact of yours.

I should atleast hope that if this sort of justice system crap was pulled in the USA or Canada, that people would rise up and point out that the first amendment and second charter right prohibit such surpressions of freedom of speech and freedom of press.

The ONLY time government or the legal system should concern themselves with corporations and media to do with freedom of press and freedom of speech is if there is some sort of repulsive misrepresentation of facts. Your court system should learn this. If your court system wants people to know about the ruling then they should have to advertise the ruling themselves, otherwise they should stay the hell away from the private sector and mind their damn well own business instead of screwing around endlessly with multinational corporations.

If corporations want to take sides on current affairs they should have the right to do so. It's not like Apple was posting lies on their website. I think your legal system here just sucks really bad.


a court order has nothing to do with free speech

I've already explained how I believe the court order violates freedom of speech and freedom of press. I think it's a very silly thing to suggest that court orders have nothing to do with freedom of speech when notwithstanding this situation with Apple, there's probably hordes of legal precedent in the UK which have to do with court orders and freedom of speech...


Who said anything about free speech?

-

It's fairly commonly regarded that in the UK that you don't have freedom of speech in the same way as the US. Apple publicly slandered Samsung for copying their product, the court found this as not true, this is not about freedom of speech this is about repairing damages dealt.

Then I suppose we've come to an impasse because personally I'm disgusted in the Judge's decision and I value freedom of speech very highly.

edit:


Like slanderous comments suggesting that one stole from the other?

Albeit petty statements yes, I would defend Apple and Samsung's rights to have opinions like this of each other.

Just because we don't agree with opinions or the quality of opinions doesn't mean that in the real world people can't have opinions at all. If Apple posted on their website saying "UK ruled in our favour" then I would be angry because that's clearly a lie, but I think they should definitely be allowed to say "The UK ruled against us, but we still believe we're in the right, as does the US". That's not a lie, is it? Yet as consumers your court system doesn't want us to see Apple say that?

What would please me would be if the system was changed so lawsuits like these (as well as the Metro and iFone lawsuits) could not exist at all. But even if such lawsuits were not possible I would still say corporations are entitled to their own opinions.

[FlyingJesus]

There's a difference between an opinion and a lie

[HotelUser]

There's a difference between an opinion and a lie

But Apple aren't saying "It's a well known fact that Samsung copied us". Apple took their concerns to court, and lost. Public records indicate this. Where is the lie?

[GommeInc]

If a court in the UK declared that it's a fact that the moon shall hence forth be renamed Bart, then I should have the right to post on Facebook, Twitter, or write the BBC and tell them that I disagree with the decision to rename the moon. I should not be told by the UK courts that I am legally being forced to advertise the name change of the moon (freedom of press baby).

A courtroom in the UK declared that Samsung did not infringe upon Apple's patents, and likewise Apple should have the right to stand up and say "we disagree with this decision, although we are forced to accept it in the UK."

You can bold the word fact all you like but what I've said above holds true regardless as to whether or not your heart warms up when you think about this magical fact of yours.

I should atleast hope that if this sort of justice system crap was pulled in the USA or Canada, that people would rise up and point out that the first amendment and second charter right prohibit such surpressions of freedom of speech and freedom of press.

The ONLY time government or the legal system should concern themselves with corporations and media to do with freedom of press and freedom of speech is if there is some sort of repulsive misrepresentation of facts. Your court system should learn this. If your court system wants people to know about the ruling then they should have to advertise the ruling themselves, otherwise they should stay the hell away from the private sector and mind their damn well own business instead of screwing around endlessly with multinational corporations.

If corporations want to take sides on current affairs they should have the right to do so. It's not like Apple was posting lies on their website. I think your legal system here just sucks really bad.
English Courts do not have the power to rename things, they only deal with legal cases. Therefore, they could not rename the moon, especially when no-one owns it.

So you now acknowledge it's a fact in the UK that Samsung did not copy Apple? (bit in bold)

Freedom of speech isn't an issue here -.-

There is a misinterpretation of the facts. Apple are claiming the English Courts are stupid in not adhering to their own self-beliefs, which is contempt of court. Mentioning other courts (American etc) is trying to skewer the fact that in the UK, Samsung did not infringe on any of Apples patents. Not forgetting, as Chippiewill has now pointed out to you, it's so Samsung can reclaim damages because of these ridiculous claims.

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is. You go on to call our legal system ridiculous when, for once, the consumer isn't affected which is what you stated in one of your derailed threads is important (I could use the search feature, but as I learnt last week, you do not like people calling your bluff). People can still buy iDevices AND Galaxy devices. A win-win for the consumer. Would you rather we follow the American court and just ban Apple products and fine the company, which would affect consumer choice?

[HotelUser]

English Courts do not have the power to rename things, they only deal with legal cases. Therefore, they could not rename the moon, especially when no-one owns it.

So you now acknowledge it's a fact in the UK that Samsung did not copy Apple? (bit in bold)

Freedom of speech isn't an issue here -.-

There is a misinterpretation of the facts. Apple are claiming the English Courts are stupid in not adhering to their own self-beliefs, which is contempt of court. Mentioning other courts (American etc) is trying to skewer the fact that in the UK, Samsung did not infringe on any of Apples patents. Not forgetting, as @Chippiewill (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=40007) has now pointed out to you, it's so Samsung can reclaim damages because of these ridiculous claims.

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is. You go on to call our legal system ridiculous when, for once, the consumer isn't affected which is what you stated in one of your derailed threads is important (I could use the search feature, but as I learnt last week, you do not like people calling your bluff). People can still buy iDevices AND Galaxy devices. A win-win for the consumer. Would you rather we follow the American court and just ban Apple products and fine the company, which would affect consumer choice?

1. I acknowledge the courts ruling in the UK but I disagree with the consequences of it (this topic has nothing to do with validating the actual ruling itself). You need to grasp the fact that people can disagree about court actions...

2. Freedom of speech is an issue in every country all the time. There's always someone who's unhappy due to a lack of it.

3. If Apple want to claim that the English courts are stupid then they should be entitled to that opinion. If Apple wanted to claim that politics would be cooler if they included sex parties inbetween debates then they should be entitled to that opinion.

4. I'm not sure what your argument is. Apparently you think either I a) disagree with the courts ruling b) disagree with the forced message on the site or c) agree with the ruling and d) agree with the site message. There is no middle ground with you. Point out in this thread where I explicitly said anyone's products should be banned. You wont because you cannot.

5. BUY MOON REAL ESTATE CHEAP $$$ (http://www.lunarregistry.com/)

ftao @xxMATTGxx (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=1020) I've placed my sarcasm in tags (unfortunately I don't think we can buy moon real estate baby :( )

[GommeInc]

1. I acknowledge the courts ruling in the UK but I disagree with the consequences of it (this topic has nothing to do with validating the actual ruling itself). You need to grasp the fact that people can disagree about court actions...

2. Freedom of speech is an issue in every country all the time. There's always someone who's unhappy due to a lack of it.

3. If Apple want to claim that the English courts are stupid then they should be entitled to that opinion. If Apple wanted to claim that politics would be cooler if they included sex parties inbetween debates then they should be entitled to that opinion.

4. I'm not sure what your argument is. Apparently you think either I a) disagree with the courts ruling b) disagree with the forced message on the site or c) agree with the ruling and d) agree with the site message. There is no middle ground with you. Point out in this thread where I explicitly said anyone's products should be banned. You wont because you cannot.

5. BUY MOON REAL ESTATE CHEAP $$$ (http://www.lunarregistry.com/)

ftao @xxMATTGxx (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=1020) I've placed my sarcasm in tags (unfortunately I don't think we can buy moon real estate baby :( )
1. The Courts have never said they can't. Apple can moan all they want, but they shouldn't use their punishment to complain.

2. Freedom of speech isn't an issue in this case. They can moan all they want and publicly if they wanted to. The problem is they used their punishment to say this. It's the same as, if and when, a child says something bad about an adult, and they must write a letter of apology. However, instead of saying sorry they go on a sub-rant about how adults are creepy.

3. They are and can, but what you fail to grasp is that they shouldn't use their punishment to publicly humiliate the English courts.

4. What are you referring to or did I never say anything of the sort, but as per usual you're losing an argument and therefore make things up?

5. Yes... You're not really benefiting yourself by inserting nonsense and targeting Matt, when we all know you weren't sarcastic...

[HotelUser]

1. The Courts have never said they can't. Apple can moan all they want, but they shouldn't use their punishment to complain.

2. Freedom of speech isn't an issue in this case. They can moan all they want and publicly if they wanted to. The problem is they used their punishment to say this. It's the same as, if and when, a child says something bad about an adult, and they must write a letter of apology. However, instead of saying sorry they go on a sub-rant about how adults are creepy.

3. They are and can, but what you fail to grasp is that they shouldn't use their punishment to publicly humiliate the English courts.

4. What are you referring to or did I never say anything of the sort, but as per usual you're losing an argument and therefore make things up?

5. Yes... You're not really benefiting yourself by inserting nonsense and targeting Matt, when we all know you weren't sarcastic...

1. But they weren't, they simply appended additional statements

2. Sure freedom of speech is an issue, you have the justice system telling a multinational corporation exactly what to post on their website and exactly how to say it.

3. Then it's the English courts fault for falling into such an obvious trap and they should never issue such a stupid order ever again.

4. You said I'm"losing" so I guess that makes it true :(

5. Matt and I are friends as he will tell you himself. I tease him and he teases me (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=7688698#post7688698) *shrugs*, I even called him baby!

6. But I was being sarcastic. I mean, do you really think you can own portions of the moon :rolleyes: ;)

[GommeInc]

1. But they weren't, they simply appended additional statements

2. Sure freedom of speech is an issue, you have the justice system telling a multinational corporation exactly what to post on their website and exactly how to say it.

3. Then it's the English courts fault for falling into such an obvious trap and they should never issue such a stupid order ever again.

4. You said I'm"losing" so I guess that makes it true :(

5. Matt and I are friends as he will tell you himself. I tease him and he teases me (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=7688698#post7688698) *shrugs*, I even called him baby!

6. But I was being sarcastic. I mean, do you really think you can own portions of the moon :rolleyes:
1. Which is against the statement.

2. That's not affecting freedom of speech, it is there punishment.

3. So you would rather companies weren't punished? Samsung got a lot of bad press from Apple throwing down false accusations, this is the easiest way to punish Apple as a forfeit. It's not an obvious trap, Apple are just playing up.

[HotelUser]

1. Which is against the statement.

2. That's not affecting freedom of speech, it is there punishment.

3. So you would rather companies weren't punished? Samsung got a lot of bad press from Apple throwing down false accusations, this is the easiest way to punish Apple as a forfeit. It's not an obvious trap, Apple are just playing up.

1. So including your own opinion is illegal? Thus this violates freedom of speech.

2. See above.

3. If Samsung got bad press from this case then now they can brag about how they won. If someone in the UK is charged with rape and is acquitted does the alleged victim have to tell everyone in the country that they were never raped in the first place? Are they not allowed to still tell people it's their opinion that they were raped; does that become illegal to have an opinion (serious question)?

[mrwoooooooo]

1. So including your own opinion is illegal? Thus this violates freedom of speech.

2. See above.

3. If Samsung got bad press from this case then now they can brag about how they won. If someone in the UK is charged with rape and is acquitted does the alleged victim have to tell everyone in the country that they were never raped in the first place? Are they not allowed to still tell people it's their opinion that they were raped; does that become illegal to have an opinion (serious question)?

When you were at school and a teacher tells you to do something, you do it, no back chat. Which is basically what Apple did to someone much more important.

[GommeInc]

1. So including your own opinion is illegal? Thus this violates freedom of speech.

2. See above.

3. If Samsung got bad press from this case then now they can brag about how they won. If someone in the UK is charged with rape and is acquitted does the alleged victim have to tell everyone in the country that they were never raped in the first place? Are they not allowed to still tell people it's their opinion that they were raped; does that become illegal to have an opinion (serious question)?
1. No... because there's no law on posting your opinion... It's contempt of Court to go against your punishment. Their freedom of speech is untouched, they can moan all they want - just not in the statement -.- Again, it's either this or a ban on Apple products. Apple need to realise that Samsung did not steal their designs, the judge gave reasons why.

2. See above.

3. It's a simple punishment for slander. Also, you've messed up your example. Apple isn't the victim - they lost the Court case. Samsung is now the victim and it's not illegal of Apple to have an opinion on the case. Again, as Tomm and Chippiewill have already told you, Apple violated the court order by disrespecting the Courts and not doing as was intended, which won't win them any favours. If they had done what the court requested they might not be digging themselves into a pit like they are now, looking rather ridiculous. If Apple had a news feed they could moan all they want there, but they should completely leave the statement clear of opinion as it is now fact that Samsung did not copy Apple in the UK.

As for your question. I believe the person accused of rape can create a counter-claim where the alleged victim is not allowed near the accused nor attempt defamation by continuously going on about it. After all, the victim lost the court ruling and it should be implied that there was no rape and therefore going on about it is an attempt to undermine the Court and defame the accused. I believe the US have a similar approach.

[HotelUser]

When you were at school and a teacher tells you to do something, you do it, no back chat. Which is basically what Apple did to someone much more important.

The classroom is vastly different to real life, and often even teachers are not so black and white as you would make them to be.


1. No... because there's no law on posting your opinion... It's contempt of Court to go against your punishment. Their freedom of speech is untouched, they can moan all they want - just not in the statement -.- Again, it's either this or a ban on Apple products. Apple need to realise that Samsung did not steal their designs, the judge gave reasons why.

2. See above.

3. It's a simple punishment for slander. Also, you've messed up your example. Apple isn't the victim - they lost the Court case. Samsung is now the victim and it's not illegal of Apple to have an opinion on the case. Again, as @Tomm (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=14161) and @Chippiewill (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=40007) have already told you, Apple violated the court order by disrespecting the Courts and not doing as was intended, which won't win them any favours. If they had done what the court requested they might not be digging themselves into a pit like they are now, looking rather ridiculous. If Apple had a news feed they could moan all they want there, but they should completely leave the statement clear of opinion as it is now fact that Samsung did not copy Apple in the UK.

As for your question. I believe the person accused of rape can create a counter-claim where the alleged victim is not allowed near the accused nor attempt defamation by continuously going on about it. After all, the victim lost the court ruling and it should be implied that there was no rape and therefore going on about it is an attempt to undermine the Court and defame the accused. I believe the US have a similar approach.

1. They didn't moan *in* the statement, they moaned *below* the statement. Freedom of speech = taken away by the speech police aka your courts

2. See above.

3. I don't agree with you at all. I can't see this happening over here because people would rage about freedom of speech, and those people would be right in my books.

[peteyt]

This debate is stupid - Freedom of speech is still there. Apple can disagree with what has happened and obviously does. The problem is that apple however (and others to) are going over the top in the way they are trying to sue others which I mentioned earlier. While it might not work I hope that people will see this as punishment and calm down. There are judges thankfully sick of the current patent wars and wanting a change but it looks like nothing will be happening for some time.

But on the subject of freedom of speech - people can get done for writing false information made to look like facts aka Defamation. I'm all for freedom of speech if you don't like something fair enough, but when you make claims you should be prepared for backlash. Apple likes to make claims regarding patents and while some might be true, some of them the design being key, are evidently Apple trying to remove competition, competition being healthy and needed.

[GommeInc]

1. They didn't moan *in* the statement, they moaned *below* the statement. Freedom of speech = taken away by the speech police aka your courts

2. See above.

3. I don't agree with you at all. I can't see this happening over here because people would rage about freedom of speech, and those people would be right in my books.
1. They moaned in their statement. There was no "below". Again, freedom of speech was not taken away. They can make snarky comments outside the statement, but chose to be stupid and do it within the statement.

3 (or 2 as it is now). Then they're rather ignorant, as freedom of speech isn't affected in this ruling. It's a statement... I don't see why you don't understand that Apple can have a public cry elsewhere on their site. The statement is meant to be a separate piece on the site acknowledging that Samsung did not copy them.

[Tomm]

They've updated the notice:

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

[GommeInc]

They've updated the notice:

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/
Finally they just printed a simple statement, now this whole matter can been brushed under the carpet!

Was it a rumour that they were told to have it in size 11 print and on their homepage?

EDIT: Never mind, just went on the homepage. It's quite noticeable :P

[God]

I do think that this Fight between Apple and Samsung is getting ridiculous

[HotelUser]

1. They moaned in their statement. There was no "below". Again, freedom of speech was not taken away. They can make snarky comments outside the statement, but chose to be stupid and do it within the statement.

3 (or 2 as it is now). Then they're rather ignorant, as freedom of speech isn't affected in this ruling. It's a statement... I don't see why you don't understand that Apple can have a public cry elsewhere on their site. The statement is meant to be a separate piece on the site acknowledging that Samsung did not copy them.

Gomme, you're the last person on the entire forum who's going to be able to convince me that this pointless court case is more important than protecting freedom of speech. All these patent cases are stupid to begin with.

[GommeInc]

Gomme, you're the last person on the entire forum who's going to be able to convince me that this pointless court case is more important than protecting freedom of speech. All these patent cases are stupid to begin with.
I'm inclined to agree with you, in that we should agree to disagree with this because I think our different cultures are conflicting here :P

[efq]

I'm inclined to agree with you, in that we should agree to disagree with this because I think our different cultures are conflicting here :P
Aw love peace making :P

But the patent wars are getting boring and I am finding myself despising both sides. There are gonna be limited ideas in the world so if it looks similar, its because it just does.