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

[xxMATTGxx]

I was joking saying that maybe if David Cameron doesn't like what the media are saying about the Conservative party, that he could go ask a judge to tell media websites to talk about how good the Conservative party is. It's a joke about David Cameron and the Conservative party, but I'm glad to see you didn't take it too seriously, or literally...

Should probably keep your jokes to yourself. They don't seem to be effective.

[HotelUser]

Should probably keep your jokes to yourself. They don't seem to be effective.

Since the day I met you I've never seen you catch onto any sarcasm very well. You're very much so a Sheldon from Big Bang!

[GommeInc]

Apple obviously knew this would displease the court (which is awesome because the court's idea to do this was stupid imo), and Apple didn't reject the court's decision. Apple lost and cannot collect money from Samsung. They shouldn't have to broadcast the court's opinions all over their website, and suppress their own opinions on their own website.

I just said David Cameron could talk to a judge, and I mentioned your supreme court...

Because Apple's opinions are attempting to alter the fact that Samsung did not copy Apple designs. By stating other court cases in the statement, something that is highly irrelevant, is attempting to tell visitors of the site that the English courts are wrong and in a sense reject the final decision. The Court sees this the best remedy, and seeing as the statement is only made visible to English/British/UK citizens, the matter really isn't a concern outside the UK boundaries and jurisdiction - though it may hold some precedence, particularly in the EU.

David Cameron can't get involved, he has no judicial powers and the legislature and the judiciary are separate from one another. If he talks to a judge to alter the decision it will only throw the decision out and another judge will be appointed. Besides, it's a matter of fact these days that Samsung did not copy Apple. It's a poorly created and maintained patent system that is the problem, trying to throw out common sense on a systematic technicality.

It will only happen to other companies if they bother to bore the Courts again with mindless patent disputes.

[HotelUser]

Because Apple's opinions are attempting to alter the fact that Samsung did not copy Apple designs. By stating other court cases in the statement, something that is highly irrelevant, is attempting to tell visitors of the site that the English courts are wrong and in a sense reject the final decision. The Court sees this the best remedy, and seeing as the statement is only made visible to English/British/UK citizens, the matter really isn't a concern outside the UK boundaries and jurisdiction - though it may hold some precedence, particularly in the EU.

If you lose a court battle you should publicly be allowed to say you disagree with the decision.

David Cameron can't get involved, he has no judicial powers and the legislature and the judiciary are separate from one another. If he talks to a judge to alter the decision it will only throw the decision out and another judge will be appointed. Besides, it's a matter of fact these days that Samsung did not copy Apple. It's a poorly created and maintained patent system that is the problem, trying to throw out common sense on a systematic technicality.

It will only happen to other companies if they bother to bore the Courts again with mindless patent disputes.

Dear sweet god, other than not liking his professionalism on Twitter, I do not care about David Cameron, nor would I legitimately attempt to instruct him what to do. If you don't think my joke was funny then don't laugh but sarcasm is sarcasm nobody even said David Cameron should get involved in the first place :S

[Tomm]

There is not a issue with Apple disagreeing with the judgement and their right to publish their opinion. However, the intend of the order (which is clear if you read the quote I posted originally) was to dispel customer confusion, especially regarding other court proceedings in Europe. By adding the additional information to the statement regarding other court's judgements they totally undermined the intent of the order. Now obviously I'm not the judge so I'm only speculating here but I'm quite sure if Apple had just added something along the lines of "we were disappointed in this judgement/disagree with it" then there would be no problem.

Because Apple got into trouble for also posting other paragraphs which essentially disagreed with the court's opinion.



Apple obviously knew this would displease the court (which is awesome because the court's idea to do this was stupid imo), and Apple didn't reject the court's decision. Apple lost and cannot collect money from Samsung. They shouldn't have to broadcast the court's opinions all over their website, and suppress their own opinions on their own website.



I just said David Cameron could talk to a judge, and I mentioned your supreme court...



Based off your first post then, it's legal to force a corporate to make a statement which goes against their own opinion because their opinion isn't the right opinion? What really bothers me is that Apple were told to revise their statement because it included that they essentially disagreed with what they had to post. I'm concerned about that. By this law, it's as if opinions become matter of fact. If the courts determined that Samsung did not infringe then that ruling is fine with me. Telling the company what to post on their website concerns me, and I am gravely concerned that in forcing the corporation to post a statement to appease the court, that such statement cannot contain any additional conjectures of the company victimized by the ruling. Since when has it been illegal to broadcast your opinion.

As for what you said about why such rulings occur, I also believe that's unfair to the corporation victimized by this unjust ruling. Apple don't control the media no more than the government should. All the media outlets didn't all agree with Apple and paint Samsung as evil so why does it make sense for the legal system to bully Apple into posting opinions Apple doesn't believe in, and then telling Apple that they're not allowed to post their own opinion along with what they were forced to post :S

[Stephen]

hoteluser are you related to undertaker

Edited by Jordan (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly

[GommeInc]

If you lose a court battle you should publicly be allowed to say you disagree with the decision.

Dear sweet god, other than not liking his professionalism on Twitter, I do not care about David Cameron, nor would I legitimately attempt to instruct him what to do. If you don't think my joke was funny then don't laugh but sarcasm is sarcasm nobody even said David Cameron should get involved in the first place :S

Not when the punishment is meant to state factual information - their opinion shouldn't be involved in the Court statement.

As for the "sarcasm". There's a saying here - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Mentioning it mid-discussion sort of defeats the point you are trying to make.

[HotelUser]

Not when the punishment is meant to state factual information - their opinion shouldn't be involved in the Court statement.

As for the "sarcasm". There's a saying here - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Mentioning it mid-discussion sort of defeats the point you are trying to make.

Ah, then it is fortunate that I have not practised the lowest form of wit, for my statement regarding Mr. Cameron was at the end of my post, not the middle

There is not a issue with Apple disagreeing with the judgement and their right to publish their opinion. However, the intend of the order (which is clear if you read the quote I posted originally) was to dispel customer confusion, especially regarding other court proceedings in Europe. By adding the additional information to the statement regarding other court's judgements they totally undermined the intent of the order. Now obviously I'm not the judge so I'm only speculating here but I'm quite sure if Apple had just added something along the lines of "we were disappointed in this judgement/disagree with it" then there would be no problem.

I would agree with you in the sense that the statement Apple was told to make initially doesn't seem to speak onbehalf of Apple itself, but that doesn't alleviate my concern for the fact that Apple was never permitted to expand the statement and explicitly point out that they thought the ruling wasn't credible.

As for dispelling customer confusion I still don't agree that this is fair on Apple. We live in a society where we're allowed to to freely express our conjectures, and if Apple wanted to express theirs, and if the media wanted to cover the trial of Apple's accusation then in my opinion Apple has that right to their trial, and the media has the right to talk about the trial however they choose to, because it's not like they're coercing anyone.

[GommeInc]

Ah, then it is fortunate that I have not practised the lowest form of wit, for my statement regarding Mr. Cameron was at the end of my post, not the middle

I said mid-discussion, not post

[HotelUser]

I said mid-discussion, not post

Something in the first post of a 3 page discussion isn't in the middle