Apple loses appeal to Samsung - forced to publish on website!!

[bigboss]

I didn't say the thread was anti-apple. The news of the ruling was interesting, I read it. Your later link to the apple homepage was interesting, I read it. Your conclusion (or repetition of someone else's conclusion) that apple were 'mocking' Samsung was clearly a negative conclusion (ie anti-apple) and clearly erroneous. It was the fact that it was erroneous that I was picking up on.

Let's be clear here. What was the purpose of the ruling? The purpose was for Apple to issue an apology. Do you seriously think what Apple actually published was an apology?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from you frequently posting anti-apple threads and posts is that you're an apple hater, or whatever phrase you kids use as the opposite of a fanboy.

Can you give me some examples of your accusation? Have you ignored all the reponses I've given to AnotherJoe when he dished out anti-Apple sentiments?

 

[bigboss]

You will find my response in most of the strongly anti-Apple threads such as this. Check it yourself. Heck, I even justified the specs and pricing of the iPad mini! Seriously, take those glasses off.

 

[BenLaw]

I didn't say the thread was anti-apple. The news of the ruling was interesting, I read it. Your later link to the apple homepage was interesting, I read it. Your conclusion (or repetition of someone else's conclusion) that apple were 'mocking' Samsung was clearly a negative conclusion (ie anti-apple) and clearly erroneous. It was the fact that it was erroneous that I was picking up on.

Let's be clear here. What was the purpose of the ruling? The purpose was for Apple to issue an apology. Do you seriously think what Apple actually published was an apology?

It's a bit naive to say the 'purpose' was for them to apologise. This isn't footballers shaking hands after some handbags or schoolchildren making up after a spat. This is business and law. They were ordered to publish the link and some set wording. They did that. I'm sure they paid many thousands more pounds to a lawyer to get advice as to whether adding what they did would represent a contempt. If the judge isn't happy action can be taken. My private eye comparison is valid and relevant. Besides, if there was any purpose it was publicity (such as it is) and clarity. An apology could have been ordered if felt appropriate. So again you're wrong.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from you frequently posting anti-apple threads and posts is that you're an apple hater, or whatever phrase you kids use as the opposite of a fanboy.

Can you give me some examples of your accusation? Have you ignored all the reponses I've given to AnotherJoe when he dished out anti-Apple sentiments?

Contrary to appearances I don't have time to search the site for this. You and I have had several discussions of a similar nature on similar threads in the last few months, including one where you'd done exactly the same thing of regurgitating silly information (the poll I think?).

You will find my response in most of the strongly anti-Apple threads such as this. Check it yourself. Heck, I even justified the specs and pricing of the iPad mini! Seriously, take those glasses off.

I note the links. Responding to insanity doesn't really give balance to the threads you've posted IMO. I note the prof's post and your response in the first link. And repeatedly posting that I have glasses on doesn't make it any more true, nor does adding a smilie.

 

[relocated]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ :wave:

 

[relocated]

So the only place where Apple has won has been in the good ol' US of A? funny, that?

I'm sure Samsung don't give a fig what Apple writes on its own website.

And in Germany. To an extent in South Korea. Possibly Australia too.

The case should not have been brought/heard in Germany because of the decision already made in the UK. The UK court was sitting also as a EU court and its decision should have been the precedent that kept the Apple litigation out of any other EU member court.

Litigation tourism is unfortunately a modern day reality even when, as in the EU, it should be preventable.

As has been said, as ever it is only the lawyers who gain.

 

[bigboss]

I didn't say the thread was anti-apple. The news of the ruling was interesting, I read it. Your later link to the apple homepage was interesting, I read it. Your conclusion (or repetition of someone else's conclusion) that apple were 'mocking' Samsung was clearly a negative conclusion (ie anti-apple) and clearly erroneous. It was the fact that it was erroneous that I was picking up on.

Let's be clear here. What was the purpose of the ruling? The purpose was for Apple to issue an apology. Do you seriously think what Apple actually published was an apology?

It's a bit naive to say the 'purpose' was for them to apologise. This isn't footballers shaking hands after some handbags or schoolchildren making up after a spat. This is business and law. They were ordered to publish the link and some set wording. They did that. I'm sure they paid many thousands more pounds to a lawyer to get advice as to whether adding what they did would represent a contempt. If the judge isn't happy action can be taken. My private eye comparison is valid and relevant. Besides, if there was any purpose it was publicity (such as it is) and clarity. An apology could have been ordered if felt appropriate. So again you're wrong.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from you frequently posting anti-apple threads and posts is that you're an apple hater, or whatever phrase you kids use as the opposite of a fanboy.

Can you give me some examples of your accusation? Have you ignored all the reponses I've given to AnotherJoe when he dished out anti-Apple sentiments?

Contrary to appearances I don't have time to search the site for this. You and I have had several discussions of a similar nature on similar threads in the last few months, including one where you'd done exactly the same thing of regurgitating silly information (the poll I think?).

You will find my response in most of the strongly anti-Apple threads such as this. Check it yourself. Heck, I even justified the specs and pricing of the iPad mini! Seriously, take those glasses off.

I note the links. Responding to insanity doesn't really give balance to the threads you've posted IMO. I note the prof's post and your response in the first link. And repeatedly posting that I have glasses on doesn't make it any more true, nor does adding a smilie.

Yet more non-sense from you unfortunately. My position regarding Apple is very clear & every post of mine will conform to that: it makes some brilliant products, & has been the best inventor of our time. I never had a problem with its prices either. But it's this bullying attitude of Apple & abusing the patent system that I don't agree with. If you find a single post of mine contrary to this, please do so.

Oh yes, the judgment. Copy pasting the judgment (as you can't be bothered to check anything before spewing non-sense):

Of course our decision fully understood actually lifts the fog that the cloud of litigation concerning the alleged infringement of the Apple registered design by the Samsung Galaxy 10.1, 8.9 and 7.7 tablets must have created. And doubtless the decision will be widely publicised. But media reports now, given the uncertainty created by the conflicting reports of the past, are not enough. Another lot of media reports, reporting more or less accurately that Samsung have not only finally won but been vindicated on appeal may not be enough to disperse all the fog. It is now necessary to make assurance doubly so. Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that it acknowledges that the court has decided that these Samsung products do not infringe its registered design. The acknowledgement must come from the horse's mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely.

This is the definiton of acknowledge (I can't see Apple "acknowledging"):

ac·knowl·edge
tr.v. ac·knowl·edged, ac·knowl·edg·ing, ac·knowl·edg·es
a. To admit the existence, reality, or truth of.b. To recognize as being valid or having force or power.And with that, I'm out.

 

[mykspence]

And with that, I'm out.

Thank heavens for that, but I think Ben won...

 

[bigboss]

I don't really care. It's not about winning or losing. Ben has this habit of picking on 1 word in the post (mocking, pages etc.) & creating a fuss out of it. This is not the first time it has happened. He needs to know how annoying his habit can be (in the same way as I'm made to know how annoying my habit can be 8) ). Even our previous argument was due to this; picking one 1 word. Probably he can't help it. His profession trains him to spot words that can change the course of a case. I have no issues with him personally; I actually enjoy his posts, as long as he desists from this habit.

 

[mykspence]

Yeah, it's nearly as annoying as saying 'I'm outta here' then coming back...

I'm outta here, no really I am.

 

[bigboss]

Yeah, it's nearly as annoying as saying 'I'm outta here' then coming back...

I'm outta here, no really I am.

I was out of that argument, but was ready for a new one!

Wait....where're you goin'? :type:

 

[AnotherJoe]

Hilarious. Now Apple need to put up a new apology and admit the first one was untrue.

Too bad he didnt give the head of Apple UK a week in prison while he was at it.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2221721/judge-orders-apple-to-write-a-proper-apology-to-samsung

 

[bigboss]

So even the judge agreed that what Apple issued wasn't an apology at all.

 

[BenLaw]

Would be interesting to see this ruling, in particular whether the word 'apology' actually featured. Especially amused by them saying they can't change the text for 14 days! :rofl: That went well tho: 'the head of apple can do an affidavit explaining the ttechnical problems then.' 'Oh wait, yeah we can do it straight away.'

 

[daveh75]

It doesn't take 14 days after all...

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

Still not an apology though

 

[BenLaw]

Well, yeah, that's why I was saying it'd be interesting to see if the word apology was used, I assumed not. As discussed earlier in the thread, the word apology wasn't used in the judgment, so I didn't expect it suddenly to appear. It's just emotive interpretation of what was actually ordered. The difficulty was adding all the extraneous stuff. The earlier linked article also made clear they'd conceded it wouldn't take 14 days, after they were pushed a bit by the judge. That really was apple trying to take the pi**.

 

[bigboss]

Appeared in The Guardian as well:

http://www.itproportal.com/2012/11/02/apples-rewritten-samsung-apology-appears-in-the-guardian/

 

[professorhat]

And to think, all of that money spent on lawyers, court fees and Guardian ads could have easily bought me a new house (with quite a substantial amount of change as well). Then I'd have less saving to do and have more disposible income to spend on Apple and Samsung products.

Your loss fellas...

 

[BenLaw]

Bet those lawyers have loads of galaxy phones and iPods tho...

 

[bigboss]

I think Apple could've afforded to sell the iPad Mini for £199 & still made a tidy profit if it had not spent all that money on lawyers.