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

[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 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. [sarcasm] BUY MOON REAL ESTATE CHEAP $$$ [/sarcasm]

ftao @xxMATTGxx 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. [sarcasm] BUY MOON REAL ESTATE CHEAP $$$ [/sarcasm]

ftao @xxMATTGxx 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 *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 *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)?