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

[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 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.

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

[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