# Apple suffers humiliation as judge orders them to publish 'advert' for Samsung



## editor (Jul 18, 2012)

Now this is priceless.


> Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.
> 
> Apple Inc. (AAPL) was ordered by a judge to publish a notice on its U.K. website and in British newspapers alerting people to a ruling that Samsung Electronics Co. didn’t copy designs for the iPad.
> 
> ...


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...tice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says.html


----------



## souljacker (Jul 18, 2012)

I particularly liked this, from Judge Birss:




			
				Judge Birss said:
			
		

> Birss said in his July 9 ruling that Samsung’s tablets were unlikely to be confused with the iPad because they are “not as cool.”


 
Wonder if Samsung will sue HIM for that comment!


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2012)

Can't wait to see how Apple's website is going to look with this on it:


> Apple must put a notice on its website for six months acknowledging the recent ruling against Apple's claim that Samsung had copied its iPad design. The company must also put an announcement in several newspapers and magazines, Bloomberg reports.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9409959/Apple-website-must-admit-Samsung-didnt-copy.html


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 18, 2012)

Heh yeah the fandroids are wanking off big time over this!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2012)

Souljacker

Would you be interested in anything a judge described as 'cool'?


----------



## souljacker (Jul 18, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Souljacker
> 
> Would you be interested in anything a judge described as 'cool'?


 
Indeed.


----------



## 2hats (Jul 18, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Would you be interested in anything a judge described as 'cool'?


 
6m 34 sec in:


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2012)

Here's the real story behind all this:



> A Reuters’ poll of 41 analysts suggests that Samsung will be the world largest cellphone and smartphone vendor for the second quarter of 2012. The growth of Samsung underscores the stakes of the international legal battles, in which Apple and Samsung are engaged.
> Second quarters sales of Samsung smartphones are expected to be around 50 million units, nearly 60% more units than Apples forecasted sales of 30.5 million iPhones.
> “Samsung is expected to be the smartphone hero in the second quarter,” said IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo in an interview with Reuters.
> “We are also expecting to see the biggest smartphone volumes ever shipped from one single vendor in one quarter, driven by strong demand of the Galaxy portfolio, particularly the Galaxy S II and S III,” he said....
> ...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 18, 2012)

2hats said:


> 6m 34 sec in:


----------



## 2hats (Jul 18, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


>


 
Digital watch, etc.

Never mind.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 18, 2012)

To be even handed: A plague on both their houses.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 18, 2012)

2hats said:


> Digital watch, etc.
> 
> Never mind.


 
Weird, on my phone it was this I posted:


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 18, 2012)

Well it seems Siri is still able to see the funny side of life:


----------



## 2hats (Jul 18, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Weird, on my phone it was this I posted:


 
Perhaps you need to get a new phone?


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Well it seems Siri is still able to see the funny side of life:


Ah yes. Suicide is simply _hilarious!_


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 19, 2012)

editor said:


> Now this is priceless.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...tice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says.html


 
I'm not sure that a mega-billion dollar, faceless corporate monolith can feel embarrassment. I think it does cost/benefit analyses of its actions, and rolls inexorably forward.


----------



## maldwyn (Jul 19, 2012)

It's a right laugh, paying for newspaper Ads and having to feature an apology on your web page for SIX MONTHS has got to hurt. The American pundits I read are incredulous our judges can wield such powers.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 19, 2012)

2hats said:


> Perhaps you need to get a new phone?



Heh that wasn't mine, someone posted it to 9gag.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 19, 2012)

editor said:


> Ah yes. Suicide is simply _hilarious!_



I've lost close friends to it and can still see the funny side in this, and because you're obviously to thick to understand humour let me spell it out; it's not taking the piss out of those that kill themselves, it's jokingly questioning the sanity of wanting an android phone.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 19, 2012)

let not start  the  can ra... suicide be funny  argument again


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I've lost close friends to it and can still see the funny side in this, and because you're obviously to thick to understand humour let me spell it out...


Please don't post up any more suicide "jokes" in tech threads.

Oh, and the correct spelling is "_too_ thick."


----------



## 2hats (Jul 19, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Heh that wasn't mine, someone posted it to 9gag.


 
I wasn't referring to the Siri/Android phone image, but your apparent smiley confusion.


----------



## elbows (Jul 19, 2012)

To thick or not to thick, that is the question Siri 

I look forward to seeing the adverts, although something tells me that if it happens Apple will have trouble restraining themselves from being smartasses in some way in the advert.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2012)

elbows said:


> To thick or not to thick, that is the question Siri
> 
> I look forward to seeing the adverts, although something tells me that if it happens Apple will have trouble restraining themselves from being smartasses in some way in the advert.


They will no doubt try and spin it all matter of ways, but they'll still end up looking like a load of prize Charlies.


----------



## Winot (Jul 19, 2012)

More likely the adverts will be really small and tucked away.

Probably only of interest to lawyers, but I note that the opposing barristers were from the same chambers (11 South Square) and the junior barrister beat the senior. That will have gone down well.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 19, 2012)

editor said:


> Please don't post up any more suicide "jokes" in tech threads.
> 
> Oh, and the correct spelling is "_too_ thick."



Fuck off troll.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2012)

They won't do this by the way - they'll challenge it and succeed. It's a funny idea though.


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Fuck off troll.


Stop the personal abuse please. Thanks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2012)

oh do me a favour, you're ripping the piss here


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2012)

Mind you, it is bare lols


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 20, 2012)

editor said:


> Here's the real story behind all this:


Ooo.

Is that the _full_ text of the Samsung ad?

Can see how it'd be difficult to hide!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 20, 2012)

editor said:


> Stop the personal abuse please. Thanks.



Lol so you admit being a troll? Well frankly you keep trolling, you're gonna get what all trolls deserve.


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Lol so you admit being a troll? Well frankly you keep trolling, you're gonna get what all trolls deserve.


Please PLEASE stop this disruptive nonsense.


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2012)

Meanwhile Apple have got the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 banned in Europe in a preliminary hearing, but only by doing it in the German courts after the UK courts told them to fuck off with their dodgy claims recently.

Apple is now trying to get a total of five Samsung tablets and ten Samsung phones banned, all via the German courts, natch.



> The Duesseldorf Higher Court upheld an earlier ruling and *disagreed with the High Court* by finding that the device unlawfully copied the design of the iPad.
> 
> Samsung said it was “disappointed with the court's ruling” on the Galaxy Tab 7.7, a 7-inch tablet which sells in the UK for £379.
> 
> ...


 
 all round.


----------



## Winot (Oct 18, 2012)

An update to the UK part of this series of cases, where today the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the High Court and rejected Apple's appeal. So unless Apple appeals to the Supreme Court, the result in the UK is that Samsung's Galaxy Tab does not infringe Apple's registered designs.

Interestingly, the Judge commented specifically on the advert and said that it shoud be published and should specifically mention that Apple had lost throughout Europe. It has to read as follows:




			
				Sir Robin Jacob said:
			
		

> On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given].​
> That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.​​


​​Full decision here. Commentary here.​​


----------



## Manter (Oct 18, 2012)

Winot said:


> ..... specifically mention that Apple had lost throughout Europe. It has to read as follows:


 Summary of current situation seems to be:
US (court made of people who live near Invfinity Boulevard or whatever its called,most of whommake their living in related indutries): Apple are a poor, traumatised victim of massive ripping off by wicked foreigners
Rest of world: 

Microsoft and IBM both went into decline immediately after they stopped innovating and started litigating- another tech monster going the same way?


----------



## editor (Oct 18, 2012)

Some sense at last and a damning reflection of how ridiculously unfair the US trial was.


----------



## maldwyn (Oct 18, 2012)

Why was the US trail unfair when they reached the same verdict as the UK regarding the iPad?


----------



## editor (Oct 18, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Why was the US trail unfair when they reached the same verdict as the UK regarding the iPad?


Have you listened to the foreman?


----------



## maldwyn (Oct 18, 2012)

Nah, just the verdict.


----------



## Winot (Oct 18, 2012)

Manter said:


> Summary of current situation seems to be:
> US (court made of people who live near Invfinity Boulevard or whatever its called,most of whommake their living in related indutries): Apple are a poor, traumatised victim of massive ripping off by wicked foreigners
> Rest of world:


 
I think the broader issue is that jury trials are not appropriate for deciding complex civil matters such as this.


----------



## Manter (Oct 18, 2012)

Winot said:


> I think the broader issue is that jury trials are not appropriate for deciding complex civil matters such as this.


Is it complex civil or the technical stuff that laypeople don't stand a prayer of understanding? (similr, perhaps, to some of the financial trials)


----------



## Winot (Oct 18, 2012)

Manter said:


> Is it complex civil or the technical stuff that laypeople don't stand a prayer of understanding? (similr, perhaps, to some of the financial trials)



In this case it's the complexity of the law (which is framed so badly that even QCs find it difficult to interpret). Also the level of abstract thinking involved. 

With patent cases there's also the technical aspect. 

I meant civil as opposed to criminal - I'm all in favour of jury trials for criminal cases. And in the UK we don't have jury trials for IP cases.


----------



## editor (Oct 18, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Nah, just the verdict.


His comment about the damning verdict against his former employers* (who had sued him in the 90s) perhaps hints that it wasn't the most impartial of hearings.

He said that serving on the jury was "was the high point of my career... you might even say my life."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...bout-his-past-to-get-on-apple-v-samsung-jury/

*he forgot to mention that bit on a technicality


----------



## maldwyn (Oct 18, 2012)

editor said:


> His comment about the damning verdict against his former employers* (who had sued him in the 90s) perhaps hints that it wasn't the most impartial of hearings.


Thanks for the link.

Shoudn't it have come to light earlier 


> You wouldn't believe it if it was in a movie script. The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung
> Groklaw.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 18, 2012)

Apple have reinvented the apology. Again.

Our best, most sincere apology yet.

The biggest thing to happen to apologies since apologies.

The most revolutionary apology yet.

iApologise

Etc...


----------



## maldwyn (Oct 18, 2012)




----------



## Kanda (Oct 26, 2012)

Is this the apology???

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

lol


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Is this the apology???
> 
> http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/
> 
> lol


Apple sure can spin.


----------



## Winot (Oct 26, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Is this the apology???
> 
> http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/
> 
> lol



Yep. They've added the last para themselves.

Edit to add - and the middle bit as well. Nicely done!


----------



## maldwyn (Oct 26, 2012)

Stupid Brits!


----------



## kabbes (Oct 26, 2012)

Winot said:


> Yep. They've added the last para themselves.
> 
> Edit to add - and the middle bit as well. Nicely done!


You have to admire their ability to create an advert out of an apology.


----------



## gabi (Oct 26, 2012)

thats fucking brilliant.



> "The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. *They are not as cool."*


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2012)

Some people are suggesting there's grounds for contempt of court here.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 26, 2012)

Well it's definitely not in the spirit of the ruling!  But it has made me smile, so there is that.


----------



## gabi (Oct 26, 2012)

I love the way they've flipped it.

'OK, you didn't rip us off. We grudgingly accept that. Why not? Coz you're too shit to be capable of ripping us off. Sorry for that.'


----------



## elbows (Oct 26, 2012)

I knew this is what they would do, pretty sure I commented on it somewhere the other week but doesnt look like it was in this thread.


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2012)

gabi said:


> I love the way they've flipped it.
> 
> 'OK, you didn't rip us off. We grudgingly accept that. Why not? Coz you're too shit to be capable of ripping us off. Sorry for that.'


So shit in fact that Samsung smartphones are outselling the iPhone by two to one!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 26, 2012)

editor said:


> So shit in fact that Samsung smartphones are outselling the iPhone by two to one!


Their whole range of phones,or a single model?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 26, 2012)

They're just quoting the judge there.


----------



## gabi (Oct 26, 2012)

editor said:


> So shit in fact that Samsung smartphones are outselling the iPhone by two to one!


 
Yeh, well PCs outsell Macs too and I think we all know which is the superior product there


----------



## Kanda (Oct 26, 2012)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/apple_apologises_sort_of/


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2012)

gabi said:


> Yeh, well PCs outsell Macs too and I think we all know which is the superior product there


Maybe you do but it seems that billions of people may disagree with you.


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 26, 2012)

editor said:


> Maybe you do but it seems that billions of people may disagree with you.


How many billions, ed?


----------



## Winot (Oct 26, 2012)

Kanda said:


> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/apple_apologises_sort_of/



The judge said that was all they had to do.


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> How many billions, ed?


No idea. This may help though:


> Net Applications has estimated global desktop market share of Windows 92.2%, Apple 6.36%, Linux 1.41%.


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 26, 2012)

editor said:


> No idea. This may help though:


OK, so no idea wrt how many billions?

Wrt people's opinions on 'superiority,' where's the evidence for that?

You've occasionally confused quantitative data with qualitative - "big numbers = a direct measure quality," in other words. Or "numbers = a direct causal relationship with one aspect of a piece of hardware / software and the level of sales."

Do you have any data that'd allow you to meaningfully infer people's reasons for choosing a given OS?


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 26, 2012)

I can't even find that apology on the Apple site.  Where is it?


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> OK, so no idea wrt absolute numbers.
> 
> Wrt people's opinions on 'superiority,' where's the evidence for that?
> 
> ...


Your love for Apple seems to be clouding your reading comprehension skills. Gabi made this claim:
_"Yeh, well PCs outsell Macs too and I think we all know which is the superior product there."_

My response - which you should really take the time to read carefully before engaging iMode again - was simply to suggest that perhaps not everyone does "know" what the "superior product" is:
_ "Maybe you do but *it seems* that billions of people *may* disagree with you."_


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 26, 2012)

Apple registered a new Patent today for "an apology that looks like an apology but, isn't an apology". Patent Pending.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 26, 2012)

Ah, found it.  It's on the Apple homepage rather than the store.


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> I can't even find that apology on the Apple site. Where is it?


It's not an apology. It's a _weasel. _


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 26, 2012)

editor said:


> Your love for Apple seems to be clouding your reading comprehension skills. Gabi made this claim:
> 
> ...
> 
> _"Maybe you do but *it seems* that billions of people *may* disagree with you."_


Fully agreed.

So you've got no idea how many 'billions,' and you've got no idea whether or not they do?


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> OK, but you've got no idea how many 'billions,' and you've got no idea whether or not they do?


That'll be why I used the words "seems" and "may."


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 26, 2012)

editor said:


> That'll be why I used the words "seems" and "may."


Ah.

So you weren't actually saying anything about anything?


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Ah.
> 
> So you weren't actually saying anything about anything?


I was correcting an earlier thoroughly  groundless assumption made by Gabi. Strange how that one doesn't bother you at all, isn't it?


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 26, 2012)

editor said:


> I was correcting an earlier thoroughly groundless assumption made by Gabi. Strange how that one doesn't bother you at all, isn't it?





editor said:


> So shit in fact that Samsung smartphones are outselling the iPhone by two to one!


"Quality = quantity."

You do that quite a lot, IME. Along with inferring / stating causality wrt one specific thing, again on the basis of numbers. Which is a grievous abuse of statistics that I'm not sure *too* many other posters take on with quite such consistency.

But, yeah. Your hyperbolic response wrt 'billions' amused me more than gabi's post. (e2a: which, tbf, at least didn't confuse quantity with quality. Even if it was equally ungrounded.)

Thank you for the clarification!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 27, 2012)

Kanda said:


> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/apple_apologises_sort_of/


 
That's some high profile placing of the 'apology'.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> "Quality = quantity."


When it comes to the sales figures of rival, comparable, high-end handsets from large corporates which have enjoyed extensive global advertising, generally yes.


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 27, 2012)

editor said:


> When it comes to the sales figures of rival, comparable, high-end handsets from large corporates which have enjoyed extensive global advertising, generally yes.


Is that conjecture, or evidenced?

Were the figures you cited specifically wrt "rival, comparable, high-end handsets"? How did you define "comparable"? Did you exclude "non-comparable" phones? On what basis? Is a £60 Samsung smartphone "comparable" to Apples entry-level iPhone? Is a Samsung Note comparable to an iPhone? Who for? And on what basis? Where's the evidence that "quality" is the sole, or even a key, determinant factor in people's decisions wrt which phone to buy, when things like price, os, local availability, the number and range of different units, the availability of tariffs, friends' decisions, perceptions of coolness, and countless other factors may've been far more significant for any / many different sales? What about previous negative experiences of, for example, OSs, irrespective of the quality of the handset?

Hell, maybe quality does reflect quantity.

Afaik, you've not begun to post anything wrt your oft-cited millions (or billions) that'd support that, though. You sometimes seem to effectively be saying "big numbers! Therefore, everything." And that's kinda not how stats, even wrt sales figures, work.


e2a: as you seem to be recognising here, in stating a belief that the Apple tablet will sell 'bucketloads' on the basis of branding alone, and that the lack of one feature - GPS - would be crucial in deterring you from buying a device:



editor said:


> I'm sure it'll sell by the bucketload regardless courtesy of the Apple brand, but I wouldn't buy a device without GPS.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Is that conjecture, or evidenced?


The comparable Galaxy S2 was outselling the Apple iPhone 4s, even in the months straight after the 4s was released. The s3 also outsold the iPhone 4s. The Samsung S3 is currently outselling the iPhone 5.

I trust that makes it clear enough for you.


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 27, 2012)

editor said:


> The comparable Galaxy S2 was outselling the Apple iPhone 4s, even in the months straight after the 4s was released.
> The Samsung S3 is currently outselling the iPhone 5.
> 
> I trust that makes it clear enough for you.


tbf, even accepting that your definition of 'comparability' holds for all potential / actual purchasers (and many factors, as outlined above, may mean that it doesn't), that *still* doesn't begin to address the rest of the post.

Is it conjecture, or evidenced, that sales figures are directly related to assessments of 'quality,' specifically the 'quality' of the handset?

If it's evidenced, where's the evidence for that?



e2a: oh, god, why did I take your word for those links? 

You've linked to one article that headlines a claim that the discrepancy between the S2 and 4s was due to shortages in 4s supply, and to second article that points out - admittedly with some qualifiers - that it was looking at figures for the whole of september, a month in which the 5 was available for pre-order / actual sale for just over 2 weeks, and available for actual purchase for about 10 days.

If you're trying to make a point about sales, that's a pretty odd choice of links! If you're trying to make a point about those sales being directly attributable to assessments of quality, that's an *even odder* choice of links - because both of them highlight / reference variables entirely unrelated to quality.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> tbf, even accepting that your definition of 'comparability' holds for all potential / actual purchasers (and many factors, as outlined above, may mean that it doesn't), that *still* doesn't begin to address the rest of the post.
> 
> Is it conjecture, or evidenced, that sales figures are directly related to assessments of 'quality,' specifically the 'quality' of the handset?
> 
> If it's evidenced, where's the evidence for that?


So why do you think so many millions of people are choosing to buy an S2 and S3 over the iPhone. Any ideas?


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 27, 2012)

Guess you quoted before I edited!


mrs quoad said:


> e2a: oh, god, why did I take your word for those links?
> 
> You've linked to one article that headlines a claim that the discrepancy between the S2 and 4s was due to shortages in 4s supply, and to second article that points out - admittedly with some qualifiers - that it was looking at figures for the whole of september, a month in which the 5 was available for pre-order / actual sale for just over 2 weeks, and available for actual purchase for about 10 days.
> 
> If you're trying to make a point about sales, that's a pretty odd choice of links! If you're trying to make a point about those sales being directly attributable to assessments of quality, that's an *even odder* choice of links - because both of them highlight / reference variables entirely unrelated to quality.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2012)

I'm officially giving up because this is like arguing with a religious zealot. The figures are out there. You can put your head in the sand, or try and spin it around so you think it looks better, but the facts are simple: Samsung smartphones outsell Apple by two to one. Deal with it.


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 27, 2012)

editor said:


> So why do you think so many millions of people are choosing to buy an S2 and S3 over the iPhone. Any ideas?


Just to add: I think you're saying here that you were basing your statements on conjecture rather than any directly relevant evidence.

And you're asking me to - similarly - conjecture on the basis of no related evidence. When what I'd prefer to do is what I've done above - say that buying decisions are, IMO, likely to be quite complex. And it's very difficult to assess people's motivations, let alone subgroups of people's motivations, without any evidence that actually begins to explore or approach that.

Which is fine - but, again, IMO that shows the limitations of the association you're trying to draw. You're saying, effectively "BIG NUMBER plus my conjecture = fact." When that's not what the actual numbers show, or can realistically support. Big, evidenced numbers = fine. But when you add conjecture onto that, it doesn't turn the big number into evidence for a theory. It turns it into a big number with some conjecture.

Which, again, is fine. But it certainly isn't 'evidence' of any given 'fact.'


To give an entirely anecdotal example of the potential complexities, you and I have both owned phones we thought were shit.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Just to add: I think you're saying here that you were basing your statements on conjecture rather than any directly relevant evidence.


Are you REALLY arguing that the S2 and S3 haven't spent time outselling the iPhone 4s and iPhone5?


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 27, 2012)

editor said:


> I'm officially giving up because this is like arguing with a religious zealot. The figures are out there. You can put your head in the sand, or try and spin it around so you think it looks better, but the facts are simple: Samsung smartphones outsell Apple by two to one. Deal with it.


Yeah.

I'm not sure I've disputed that. I'm not sure I've argued 'for' Apple or 'against' Samsung, either. I think I have argued that you either don't understand statistics, or don't understand the inferences that can be drawn from them.

When what I'm suggesting - and what you seem to be supporting - is evidence that you don't really understand the numbers you're quoting, you don't bother to check the links you provide, and you don't understand the limitations / complexities of those numbers irrespective of how big they are, and which manufacturer they're referring to.

Which is fine, like. But keeping on repeating the same things, without - seemingly - understanding what those numbers can and can't support, isn't going to make your statements magically stronger.


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 27, 2012)

editor said:


> Are you REALLY arguing that the S2 and S3 haven't spent time outselling the iPhone 4s and iPhone5?


You were asking for 'ideas' to explain those numbers, contrasting with your own 'ideas.'

Which sounds - to me - like conjecture.

You certainly weren't providing anything other than numbers, which you either aren't or weren't understanding the context and limitations of, or else were repeating for the sheer joy and noise of it.

Let me repeat. It's quite simple: do you have any evidence for the role of 'quality' in determining people's decisions to buy a phone? Or are you conjecturing?

It's quite a simple question. "Here's the evidence _for that association" _or "I don't have any evidence for that assocation, but I think it's quite likely" are the two possible answers - afaict.

I think you're saying no.2. Which is fine, even given your repeated references to alternative reasons for buying / not buying things elsewhere (most recently, including 'brand name,' 'cost,' 'lack of GPS' and 'screen resolution' - no doubt amongst others).

But that does mean it's conjecture. Rather than anything evidenced.

See?


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Yeah.
> 
> I'm not sure I've disputed that. I'm not sure I've argued 'for' Apple or 'against' Samsung, either. I think I have argued that you either don't understand statistics, or don't understand the inferences that can be drawn with them.
> 
> ...


This is breathtaking stuff. You've been in some sort of bizarre denial since the first general, but entirely accurate, claim about respective sales figures was posted, and now you have the fucking cheek to excuse your weird behaviour claiming it's because I "don't understand figures."

You can desperately try to pull apart the links I posted - and they were posted more in exasperation than anything else - but the fact remains that my assertions were entirely correct. If you actually had some understanding of the subject that would be stunningly obvious to you.


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 27, 2012)

editor said:


> This is breathtaking stuff. You've been in some sort of bizarre denial since the first general, but entirely accurate, claim about respective sales figures was posted, and now you have the fucking cheek to excuse your weird behaviour claiming it's because I "don't understand figures."
> 
> You can desperately try to pull apart the links I posted - and they were posted more in exasperation than anything else - but the fact remains that my assertions were entirely correct. If you actually had some understanding of the subject that would be stunningly obvious to you.


Let's take those figures as given.

Where's the evidence that they're a direct measure of quality?

NB: where's the _evidence?_

Do you believe that quality = quantity?

Where's the _evidence _for that?

Or do you just think that it's really likely?

Because that's conjecture.

NB: so far, you've just argued lots. You haven't produced any evidence that 'quality = quantity.' Nor have you provided any evidence whatsoever that 'quality' is the central driver of people's buying decisions.

If you can, let me be clear - that'd be *a*w*e*s*o*m*e*. I'd be very interested to see it.

What I think you're doing - and what your posts seem to support that you're doing - is saying 'big numbers, therefore my conjecture about what's driving those numbers is right.'

_That's not something that sales figures can do._

But I don't think you understand that. Which is why you don't seem to be addressing - let alone evidencing - that point.

Indeed, you yourself regularly cite other reasons that people buy stuff, irrespective of 'quality.'


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 27, 2012)

mrs quaod pwns the Editor yet again...


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2012)

LOL. Group hug!


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 1, 2012)

> The UK court of appeal has reprimanded Apple over the wording of the statement on its website acknowledging that Samsung did not infringe the iPad tablet's registered design, and ordered it to put an altered statement on its homepage – rather than tucked away in a linked page – until 14 December. Guardian


 
48hrs to comply


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 1, 2012)

> The U.K. Court of Appeal in London ordered Apple to remove the statement within 24 hours and place a new notice acknowledging the inaccurate comments.





> Apple’s request for 14 days to make the changes was rejected.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html


----------



## editor (Nov 1, 2012)

LOL. Looks like its all backfiring wonderfully on arrogant Apple, and generating more and more negative press as a result.

Can't wait for the next instalment!


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 1, 2012)

It's like the corporate equivalent of when an adult tells a child to apologise to somebody for something, and the child trying and find the most clever way to sound disingenuous, then being slapped back down and told to say sorry properly.


----------



## editor (Nov 1, 2012)

It's worth noting that the court's authority is is EU-wide too and not just in the UK.

I think the UK court has done a wonderful job in standing up to Apple here, and I love the way they dealt with their bullshit about needing 'two weeks' to change a single web page.



> Back in October, the iPad-maker was told by UK courts that it had to acknowledge Samsung's innocence in this particular case. Apple complied, but its statement wasn't exactly contrite -- the aggressive acknowledgement could only be found via a tiny link on the Apple homepage, and concluded by once more insisting that Samsung "willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad".
> 
> Apple's huffy non-apology isn't exactly what the courts had in mind, however. Bloomberg quotes UK judges as saying Apple's notification was "untrue" and "incorrect".
> "I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," said Judge Sir Robin Jacob of the court of appeal, calling the statement that went live a "plain breach of the order".
> ...


----------



## editor (Nov 1, 2012)

Here's the full text of the current non-apology which will presumably vanish within 48 hours:


> *Samsung / Apple UK judgment*
> 
> On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2012)

There appears to be nothing at all about this on their home page now. 
http://www.apple.com/uk/


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2012)

Squint hard and you can see it!







http://bgr.com/2012/11/02/apple-samsung-apology-ad-photo/


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2012)

With all the grace of a spoilt child begrudgingly apologising for doing something wrong, Apple has finally added something to their home page:



Here's the page it links to:



> *Samsung / Apple UK judgment*
> 
> On 9 July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic(UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do notinfringe Apple’s Community registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of
> the High Court is available from www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
> That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available from www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the Community registered design in force anywhere in Europe.


 
http://www.apple.com/uk/

Good work UK courts! *thumbs


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 3, 2012)

It seem restricted to just the 'Home' page and doesn't appear under 'Store' or 'iPad' tabs - technically it's possible to visit the site without viewing the apology.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> It seem restricted to just the 'Home' page and doesn't appear under 'Store' or 'iPad' tabs - technically it's possible to visit the site without viewing the apology.


Sure, but it's still going to smart like fuck for Apple given the press it's generated. It think it's great to see the EU standing up to their bullying.


----------



## gabi (Nov 3, 2012)

I think it's totally wrong of the EU to be supporting blatant rip-off merchants. It's rare that I'd side with the US judicial system, but they got it right on the other side of the pond. Samsung flagrantly ripped off Apple, there's clear email proof of this from their senior execs.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2012)

gabi said:


> I think it's totally wrong of the EU to be supporting blatant rip-off merchants. It's rare that I'd side with the US judicial system, but they got it right on the other side of the pond. Samsung flagrantly ripped off Apple, there's clear email proof of this from their senior execs.


I suggest you do a bit more research on that. And maybe take a look at some of the controversy surrounding the US trial.


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 3, 2012)

A dodgy Foreman doesn't wipe the slate clean of evidence. Why is it so difficult for some people to acknowledge in the early days Samsung flagrantly copied the iPhone?


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2012)

The question you should be asking is; Why are Apple struggling to make those claims stick outside of their home country? 

All tech firms copy and improve. It's what drives innovation. Even Steve Jobs admitted to stealing ideas.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 3, 2012)

Rights and wrongs of the case aside, I still think this "apologise on the website" thing is completely bizarre. They brought the case, they lost it - this happens all the time in the industry. What doesn't happen all the time is that there is then added punishment for losing a case. It was hardly injurious to Samsung beyond costs, and tbh not even that given how absurdly rich Samsung is.


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 3, 2012)

Let's not rehash old arguments  But 
Outside the US the focus has been on the iPad, indeed Apple lost that fight in the US too.
These days Samsung has moved on from copying Apple, why couldn't they have done that from the start - Microsoft manage to.


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 3, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Let's not rehash old arguments  But
> Outside the US the focus has been on the iPad, indeed Apple lost that fight in the US too.
> These days Samsung has moved on from copying Apple, why couldn't they have done that from the start - Microsoft manage to.


because their engineering & marketing departments came to the same conclusion; that a triangular smart phone with sharp corners and an asperical touch-screen wouldn't set the market alight?


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

pocketscience said:


> because their engineering & marketing departments came to the same conclusion; that a triangular smart phone with sharp corners and an asperical touch-screen wouldn't set the market alight?


 
Thats not a fair example though, as we can see from the products they've made since they became more careful. They can change some fairly minor things in order to avoid legal hassle, at least when it comes to design rather than patent issues.

I can still sympathise with them to some extent on the front you suggest though, because the most striking aspect of Apples design ethos has been simplicity. Simplicity reduces the number of design choices available, so others who want to follow the simple design ethos may struggle somewhat to do it without copying. Just look at Samsungs tablets now, they are kind of ugly in some ways as a result of trying to deal with this issue.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 4, 2012)

The latest on this is that Apple have used some nifty Javascript to resize the central image on their homepage so that the apology is never shown without scrolling.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 4, 2012)

Oh for goodness sake.


----------



## gosub (Nov 4, 2012)

probably get away with that javascript, but there aren't that many judges in the UK that deal with this type of case, Apple would be stupid to do the EU bit through the UK again, cos Judge Biriss will not be happy


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It was hardly injurious to Samsung beyond costs, and tbh not even that given how absurdly rich Samsung is.


That's not true. Apple managed to get Samsung's tablet banned from sale in Germany as a result of their legal bullying.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 4, 2012)

editor said:


> That's not true. Apple managed to get Samsung's tablet banned from sale in Germany as a result of their legal bullying.


A court can't penalise people for taking legal action in a foreign country! It doesn't for anyone else I've heard of anyway.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> The latest on this is that Apple have used some nifty Javascript to resize the central image on their homepage so that the apology is never shown without scrolling.


 
They really are pisstakers arent they, displaying the typical symptoms of the powerful behaving like spoilt children when challenged.

The judge should have ordered them to display the actual legal message on the front page, not a link to it, and should have specified that the message should appear at the top of the page.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 4, 2012)

gabi said:


> I think it's totally wrong of the EU to be supporting blatant rip-off merchants. It's rare that I'd side with the US judicial system, but they got it right on the other side of the pond. Samsung flagrantly ripped off Apple, there's clear email proof of this from their senior execs.


I watched 2001 again a few weeks ago.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> I watched 2001 again a few weeks ago.


Exactly. Apple didn't invent the form factor, although that's not the screen grab from the film. This is: 






And Star Trek showed off something very tablet like years before the iPad was invented. Curved corners, flat screen are all there....


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 5, 2012)

Damn I forgot about fucking Star Trek...actually just finishing 2nd series of nextgen just now, sigh.

Anyway, it's all going transparent surely?

And there's no fucking way Apple can claim first dibs on that idea, totally at it.   Hopefully someone gets a little contempt of court time down in the cells over this ridiculous disobedience of the courts


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 5, 2012)

Jesus, there's a slight difference between a theatrical prop and a fully functional device. 

By this logic, then Star Trek has copyright over 'Warp Speed' or a 'Replicater' (3D printer manufacturers beware!).


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 5, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Jesus, there's a slight difference between a theatrical prop and a fully functional device.
> 
> By this logic, then Star Trek has copyright over 'Warp Speed' or a 'Replicater' (3D printer manufacturers beware!).


It was a design patent that was infringed upon. Functionality is irrelevant.


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 5, 2012)

I was referring to theatrical props and I'm assuming Rodenberry didn't hold a patent on a slate tablets


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 5, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> I was referring to theatrical props and I'm assuming Rodenberry didn't hold a patent on a slate tablets



I think the point was that Apple shouldn't have been granted a patent as the design is obvious. And they didn't invent it.


----------



## mrs quoad (Nov 5, 2012)

editor said:


> And Star Trek showed off something very tablet like years before the iPad was invented. Curved corners, flat screen are all there....


Ah.

The Etch-a-Sketch Fire HD 7


----------



## 19sixtysix (Nov 5, 2012)

The computer support version


----------



## 19sixtysix (Nov 5, 2012)

The headline should be Etch-a-Sketch wins injunction against Apple and Samsung 

I'm actually liking the shake to reboot gesture. Where's the patent office?


----------



## mrs quoad (Nov 5, 2012)

19sixtysix said:


> The headline should be Etch-a-Sketch wins injunction against Apple and Samsung
> 
> I'm actually liking the shake to reboot gesture. Where's the patent office?


Apple has 'shake to undo text'


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2012)

I don't think Apple are exactly covering themselves in glory with their childish JavaScript antics and they're in danger of turning it into a casebook example of the Streisand Effect as more mainstream news outlets report their shenanigans.


> Apple accused of making Samsung apology difficult to find in latest twist to patent infringement case
> Reddit users accuse Apple of using coding to keep Samsung apology out of clear view.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...latest-twist-to-patent-infringement-case.html


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 5, 2012)

It's loud and clear on the 'Home' page, it's not their fault hardly anyone goes there.

It really ought to be at the top of the iPad page.


----------



## gabi (Nov 5, 2012)

im loving how purposefully shit the global leader of all things beautiful design have made the design of the thing they've been forced to run in national newspapers. even those weird indian tailor's adverts further into the paper look sharper.  petty, but amusing.


----------



## gabi (Nov 5, 2012)

just look at that kerning. a thing of sheer beauty.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2012)

They've tried to make it as unreadable as possible, like the pathetic arrogant cunts they are.


----------



## mrs quoad (Nov 5, 2012)

editor said:


> They've tried to make it as unreadable as possible, like the pathetic arrogant cunts they are.


Let's just hope they've got intellectual copyright over this, so's no-one else can hide apologies like this in future


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Let's just hope they've got intellectual copyright over this, so's no-one else can hide apologies like this in future


I heard they've already started up some lawsuits against 1970s fanzines for copying their typographic style.


----------



## Radar (Nov 6, 2012)

editor said:


> I don't think Apple are exactly covering themselves in glory with their childish JavaScript antics and they're in danger of turning it into a casebook example of the Streisand Effect as more mainstream news outlets report their shenanigans.


I hope the UK courts shaft them over that web site based notice, scaling up the ipad mini graphic just to push the apology off the bottom of the page reeks of contempt of court.


----------



## editor (Nov 6, 2012)

Radar said:


> I hope the UK courts shaft them over that web site based notice, scaling up the ipad mini graphic just to push the apology off the bottom of the page reeks of contempt of court.


Yep.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 6, 2012)

what was the ruling though, are they being clever, but still compliant? the first notice was obviously not compliant.


----------



## Radar (Nov 9, 2012)

Javacript now gone, but image still oversized and still pushes apology link past the fold.
A simple comparison with the US home page is damning..

Rest of World rule #1: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!
Apple rule #1: We need a bigger pick-axe !


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 9, 2012)

It was a ridiculous ruling, either fine them or bang them up


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2018)

And now it's Qualcomm vs Apple 
In big win for Qualcomm, Apple must cease sale of iPhone models in China


----------

