Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/01/apple-told-to-rewrite-samsung-did-not-copy-statement-post-it/ <comment><USER2> In July, 2012, Samsung had won a judgment in the UK to the effect that its Galaxy Tab computers did not infringe Apple's registered design.

In spite of this, Apple continued to assert, broadly and widely, that Samsung's tablet computers _did_ in fact constitute blatant copying of Apple's design and was therefore wrongful.

Therefore, Samsung went to the court trying to get an injunction barring Apple from making such claims because the claims were causing commercial harm to Samsung within the UK and thereby were negating the effect of the judgment won by Samsung.

Alternatively, Samsung sought a publication order requiring Apple to publicize the fact of the judgment on a long list of Apple websites as well as in certain financial publications. The idea of this order was to clear the confusion created by Apple's continued claims of illegal copying notwithstanding that it had lost on this issue in the UK courts.

The judge hearing the follow-up proceeding issued a very thoughtful ruling (found here: <http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html>) that in fact _denied_ Samsung's request for an injunction against Apple's being able to claim illegal copying. The judge acknowledged the inherent unfairness of barring a party that had lost in a court proceeding from contesting the ruling and from publicly claiming that the ruling was wrong. It thus agreed with Apple that Apple should _not_ be muzzled in asserting its legal right to speak.

The judge then turned to the more limited request made by Samsung for the publication order and described it as follows: "Samsung say that, notwithstanding the fact that Apple have lost this case, they continue to assert that Samsung infringes and that the damage that was caused and has been described there continues to apply. Accordingly, Samsung seek orders that I should require Apple to put on their websites and to put in certain newspapers references to this judgment and a statement that the court has found that the Samsung Galaxy tablets do not infringe." The judge went on to say that he believed "there is a useful purpose _in a clear public statement_ that a product alleged by a rights holder to infringe those rights does not infringe," reasoning that "[t]he more frequently and the more loudly a rights holder has asserted infringement, the more useful it is to have a _clear public statement_ to the contrary."

So, the whole point of the order was to ensure that Apple made a _clear public statement_ to the effect that a UK court had ruled that the Galaxy Tab did not infringe Apple's registered design. Nothing in the order prevented Apple from continuing to assert that it was right and that the UK decision was wrong. Apple had full scope to make these assertions as and when it wanted and has obviously been making them freely.

At the same time, Apple was required to make the clear public statement called for by the follow-on order. Apple appealed this follow-on order and lost. It therefore had exhausted its remedies within the relevant court system and was left with the requirement that it comply.

That is when it purportedly complied by placing a teeny link buried at the bottom of its UK home page that linked to a text that, within the disclosure itself, bombarded the reader with all the reasons why Samsung really did infringe notwithstanding the UK judgment that had been rendered against Apple.

A few thoughts:

1\. This conduct by Apple did not merely violate the "spirit" of the order. It clearly violated the order itself. Where Apple had been ordered to make a clear public statement publicizing the fact of the UK judgment, Apple had in fact offered up an obscure link to a statement full of argumentative statements aimed at creating obvious doubt about the question of non- infringement.

2\. Apple did this in a context where the order had given it free scope to argue all it liked about its free speech rights to contest the original judgment and to continue claiming infringement on grounds that it disagreed with that judgment. Instead of accepting the order on its terms, Apple went _way out of its way_ to undercut the limited disclosure that it had been required to make.

3\. Lawyers say, "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered," meaning that when a litigant gets too greedy, it risks having its legal proceeding go badly wrong. Apple had been given a reasonable accommodation by the court addressing its legitimate concerns but it was not content to settle for that. It wanted to do nothing that might acknowledge that Samsung had legitimate issues as well - issues that had been found valid by a UK court and affirmed on appeal. Therefore, Apple decided to respond in a way it deemed clever, in effect defying the judicial authorities who had ruled against it.

4\. We can each judge for ourselves whether this was smart or not. My view is that it is conduct unbecoming of lawyers (and of Apple as the principal in the case) and, indeed, is an outrageous affront to judicial authority. Courts and judges are not always right but, when they rule against you and you exhaust your appeals, you had better comply. If you think you are above the law in the sense that you need not comply, you will regret it. Those of us who are mere mortals need to live by these rules. So too does Apple.

<comment><USER3> Note that regarding the link part, the judgement specifically requested a link among other links on the UK site:

 _He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled " Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4>
        Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days
        to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that
        one judge said he "cannot believe".[1]

Clearly the judge hasn't ever submitted an iOS app for review?

And to people who don't understand why Apple are held to be in "non- compliance" despite copying verbatim the extract from the judgment: it was because of how "snarky" Apple were.

\- Saying their device is much more popular.

\- Signing off by disregarding the purpose of the statement: "Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."

\- Saying that Samsung's device is "not as cool".

\- Not using the correct font size. (Although, I don't care about this point)

\- Dedicating 80%~ of the statement to supporting their claims in other jurisdictions... and brushing past the verbatim copied statement.

Apple were ordered to factually represent the judgment in a statement issued on their website. They cherry picked quotes, out of context and attempted to create confusion in any readers, with the intention of misleading them as to the judges present ruling.

        [1] : http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement

<comment><USER5> This episode is the childish and vindictive zenith of an amazing year of childish and vindictive behavior from Apple. Frankly I just don't get it. They make fantastic hardware and their software is usually at least good. Why do they have to lash out like a schoolyard bully at anybody that threatens to put the tiniest dent in their giant pile of cash money? Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves?

If the incumbents at the time had behaved the way Apple is behaving now when Apple was in its infancy there would be no Apple today and we would all be the worse for it.

Only a few years ago I had a lot of respect for them as a company but they've pretty much burned it all away.

<comment><USER6> Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab.

I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

<comment><USER7> How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of them.

<comment><USER8> Great. It's still a copy. Whether they paid for access to it or not is irrelevant - it's still a copy of someone else's innovation.

<comment><USER9> I doubt a patent attorney would consider that irrelevant, and it's not irrelevant when you're discussing corporate conduct.

<comment><USER8> I don't mean legally, I meant in the "Apple is soooooo innovative" sense.

<comment> mkr-hn It seems like most Apple acolytes have conceded that point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A lot of the posts that are saying something like "The judge didn't say that they couldn't do it like this!" are deliberately missing the point. In the UK, you are expected to comply with the spirit of such a court order, not _just_ the letter of it. Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens.

It's entirely possible to be punished for contempt of court to a much greater extent than the lesser offence. Deliberately choosing to behave in a childish manner and annoy a judge is a dangerous game to play and can be self- defeating. Apple's lawyers should have known this and should have advised them against it. It would have cost them nothing to comply with the ruling properly in the first place; they are now cutting their nose off to spite their face.

<comment><USER11> Annoying a judge is a really bad idea. The court system is normally quite free from corruption, but all that goes out off the window when it become personal and political. See the pirate bay court case, or just any of the police brutality cases.

If Apple is going all out with lawyers and legal prowness, instead of competiting with products, they need to get better at it.

<comment><USER12> Is this specifically in reference to the UK legal system or just a blanket statement about practice around the world?

If it is the former, I really must disagree with the notion that the legal system in the UK is in any way corrupt. Quite far from it, I think it is one of the things that we can be most proud of.

If it is the latter, may I suggest you either be more specific or more correct.

<comment><USER13> How often does something like the recent extradition of the operator of a site the UK deemed not worth prosecuting happen?

<comment><USER12> Presume you're referencing Richard O'Dwyer (tvshack.net), who a magistrate recently found was suitable for extradition to the US. This is quite rare, there have been 99 extraditions since 2006, of which 35 were british nationals, so although extradition is reasonably rare it is not entirely uncommon. Also, you say the UK found the alleged crime was "not worth prosecuting", which is loosely technically true, it doesn't really give the full picture: His actions were found to be legal under UK law and so hence there was no case for prosecution. His operations are, however, suspected of being illegal under US law and so hence the case for extradition was submitted.

To bring this back to the parent discussion: Few would argue that Mr O'Dwyer has been unfairly treated with respect to the current law. Some do, however, argue that it is the extradition statute itself that is unfair, with Mr O'Dwyers case being an example. As a matter of interest, Theresa May has recently announced some changes to the extradition process following the results of the Baker Review. ([http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media- centre/news/gary-mckinnon...](http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media- centre/news/gary-mckinnon-extradition))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This attempt at being "clever" has definitely backfired on apple. If they had just done what was asked the first time, that would have been the end of it. Now it has to be dredged up and people will be reminded (again) that they lost the case. I find it hard to believe that their lawyers advised them that they would get away with something like this.

<comment><USER15> They're also in the situation where had they got on with it it would have been done and dusted by mid November.

Instead they're going to have it on their home page for most of the Christmas shopping period.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Judge Robin Jacob's comments on

On Apple's legal notice posted

       "I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," Judge Robin Jacob said today. "That is a plain breach of the order."

On Technical Difficulties to take 14 days to change the notice

       "I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can't put this on" their website, Jacob said. "I just can't believe the instructions you've been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?"

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

<comment><USER17> I'm really impressed that he asked for an affidavit from the head of apple. That would've really put apple in deep trouble had they gone that route. Good job on calling their bluff on the 'it will take us 14 days to update the site'. =/

Apple just seems so slimy these days. I absolutely love many of their products but lately they seem quite meh.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, there's a world of difference between "we would like 14 days to update it" and "we need 14 days to update it".

<comment><USER19> If what Apple claims is true, that it takes 14 days to update a few sentences on its website, how long to fix Maps?!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Here's what Apple wrote -- somehow I'm guessing this isn't what the court had in mind.

From <http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/>:

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.

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"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."

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

<comment><USER21> They presented the facts and they should be allowed to mention that other jurisdictions have other views of the matter. Does anyone think that they shouldn't be able to?

<comment><USER22> The purpose of the notice was explicitly to counter some of the damage from Apple's very public claims that Samsung had clearly copied the iPad with their Samsung Galaxy Tab. Apple tried to damage Samsung by taking victory in advance. When they then lose, it is only natural they face consequences, otherwise they would have no incentive not to the same again.

They chose to take the proposed wording, chop it into two pieces, and inject their own paragraphs that are clearly intended to play up Apple and to downplay and dilute the purpose of the message and create doubt about whether or not there was copying by referring to other judgements, and on top that they are misrepresenting the court cases they mention:

The German court did not find that Samsung had carried out any infringing copying of their design. The US jury did _NOT_ find the Samsung Galaxy Tab infringing. Apple's comment is technically correct, but they are on purpose clearly failing to mention that the judgement is mostly irrelevant to the UK case as it deals mainly with other products than the UK case (which only deals with the Galaxy Tab), and in the one instance where it _is_ relevant, Samsung prevailed.

Apple is free to question the judgement, but doing so by diluting the effect of the very message the judges ordered them to put in place is at best a stupid mistake, at worst wilful attempt at doing an endrun around the court. The only reason they got away with this as lightly as they did is because the judges can't prove it wasn't someone just being stupid. So they've given Apple another chance and given them more rope - if Apple tries this stunt again, someone will be in serious personal trouble.

<comment><USER21> To me, the core problem is that the UK court is compelling speech. Maybe that is okay in the UK, but I don't think a court would be able to get away with that in the US.

I think is okay to have Apple announce the court's judgement, but they should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree with it.

<comment><USER22> They are not compelling speech. They are compelling Apple to facilitate dissemination of a message that is very clearly labelled as not being Apple's opinion.

It is pretty clear that this _is_ not a problem under US law either: All kinds of legal requirements exist to add specific notices to various products, for example.

> but it should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree > with it.

There is nothing in the proposed wording that implies Apples agreement. In fact, the very purpose is to announce the verdict of a court case where Apple very obviously argued for the opposite result.

The proposed wording starts "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled". There's no implication that Apple agrees anywhere.

<comment><USER23> They should have just made it brief and to the point. Done and over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Here's the original page:

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

It's basically "The UK court found Samsung non infringing, but said our products are great, and other courts found them infringing.". Far from an apology.

<comment><USER25> No court judgment ever said it had to be an apology. It was supposed to "to dispel commercial uncertainty".

Looks as if Apple have exploited a loophole by adding to the judgment instead of simply posting it.

<comment><USER26> Well the judge who issued the order seems to feel pretty strongly that they did not comply.

<comment><USER25> The judge could be taking quite a bit of heat from Samsung… Surely Apple's lawyer division (and it must be a division by now) went through that judgment with a fine tooth comb before posting the statement.

I wonder if the judge could have added a clause requiring Apple to submit the statement to him for review first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Its important to understand that they weren't asked to publish an 'apology' or state any beliefs. They were asked to publish a specifically worded statement of fact about the outcome of the case.

What they were asked to publish is roughly the first and fifth paragraphs of what they actually published. They added four other paragraphs.

Points 87 and 88 of the appeal judgement here say what they should have published:

<http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html>

Which is:

 _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 (date). A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link [link given]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe._

Contrast with what they actually published: <http://www.apple.com/uk/legal- judgement/>

</comment><comment><USER28> AOL "journalist" told to reword "The Guardian's article":

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple- samsu...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung- statement)

<comment><USER29> To be fair i don't think they ever claim to be journalists-- the source link is always in their posts.

If there is any wrong doing, it is the people who post links to one aggregator (like engadget) on another (like HN).

I guess in the HN case it is likely because of the url dupe filter.

<comment><USER28> Aggregators don't replace the original source they point you to it.

Engadget (and similar sites) are just parasites that extract every ounce of value from someone else's work, stuff it full of SEO spam and hope they do it fast enough to usurp the traffic too.

I do agree that they shouldn't be submitted though!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Act like a 6 year old and you will be treated like one from someone with a little brain. Don't take the judge for a stupid. You'll regret it.

</comment><comment><USER31> Did the court seriously think ANY COMPANY would have reacted differently than Apple did? This is a childish and completely unproductive order. Fine Apple and be over with it if you think they did something wrong.

<comment><USER30> I think that the court's ruling is not childish. The problem with Apple is their attitude, they think they are over the rules, look at the Italian case of the warranties, the law requires 2 years but Apple would give only one.

Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose, name a device and than pay if it breaks some trademark or whatever.

I think the judge understood this and wanted to teach them a lesson of humility, which Apple didn't get and showed once again that they think they are more clever and over the rules. But the reality is that the judge has the power and is not a stupid, and I bet he doesn't like to be treated like one.

<comment><USER32> Attitudes are not illegal.

<comment><USER30> It is when your attitude makes you illegal things, see the warranties things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Did you notice that the css class that controls the link size on the uk home page is called 'sosumi'?

<comment><USER34> Well spotted. Someone needs to draw attention to that.

<comment><USER27> Although its applied to all the links in the footer, not just that one. Still, interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Apple needs to be a bit careful.

Patent claims are civil, and have fines or other gentle punishments attached.

Contempt of court is criminal, and people do get sent to jail for it.

</comment><comment><USER36> The engadget link adds nothing to the original reporting - [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple- samsu...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung- statement)

</comment><comment><USER37> My first thought when I read the Samsung letter:

[http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sneaky- restauran...](http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sneaky-restaurant- fail.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER38> To those saying that Apple "complied"... Do you think Apple would have complied if the text were in #FEFEFE over #FFFFFF in a page including, say "buy iPhone and be happy!" in clear #000000 and a Photo of Steve?

It would be literally complying: The text would be there to be read, anyway.

</comment><comment><USER39> "I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," Judge Robin Jacob said today. "That is a plain breach of the order."

</comment><comment><USER40> It's not like it even matters. Apple is dead, and these are just their final gasps of air.

Apple is pulling the Edison maneuver to protect their rapidly dwindling monopoly on mobile consumer hardware - and they will lose because Tesla (aka Android) is better for both the industry and consumers.

Android is open, Android is iOS equivalent, Android is cheap, Android is backed by the rest of the world's electronic mobile manufacturers. Apple can't win - the world is now chasing their profits with ravenous rage and hundreds of billions of dollars in invested capital. They will be commoditized because all they sell, and all they have ever sold, was glass with a grey backs. The only thing that protected Apple - really protected them was iOS. Those apps made Apple. And the openness of Android will commoditize them.

Apple can shock elephants (ban tablets) and write false accusations about the merits of AC (Samsung sucks) all they want - it doesn't change the fact that their monopoly in mobile hardware is in a terminal and rapid death spiral.

Samsung made Apple. And Samsung will destroy them for the fundamental reason that style can and will be copied vociferously for the betterment of the consumer, but the substance behind it cannot.

Glass with grey backs are commodity. Market saturation is imminent. Competitive equivalence has occured.

</comment><comment><USER41> I saw this coming. Their 'apology' was just another thinly veiled stab at Samsung. They're simply coming off as childish and immature now. They're not exactly getting into the good-books of that judge which would have worked in their favour if they ever encountered him again which judging by their history and mantra of 'sue everything' is highly likely.

</comment><comment><USER42> Kind of ridiculous. Samsung obviously did copy, the court just ruled that it didn't merit an infringement ruling. I mean, does anyone think, really, that Samsung didn't set out to copy all of Apple's products? Wouldn't it be better for all (except Apple) if it was spelled out that Samsung copied them but it is ok?

<comment><USER43> Not even the American jury thought that Samsung violated Apple's patent on the product in question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The article said that the judge ordered Apple to say that "Samsung did not copy their design." Apple, essentially, said that _the court ruled_ that Samsung did not copy its design.

That is factually correct. I don't see how anyone can be compelled to make the former statement rather than the latter one.

<comment><USER44> Isn't that the whole purpose of a court system? If you insist on calling OJ Simpson a murderer who got away with it, he can sue you for libel. He is, as a point of fact, not legally a murderer, and you would be lying to defame him. Legal truth isn't some abstract concept. It is defined by the court's opinion. The factual statement in UK law is now "Samsung did not copy their design." End of story.

You don't get to flout a court ruling by continuing to behave the same way, only with a disclaimer that says, "Well, the judge said we're wrong, but screw him."

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Do US Courts ever make judgements like this? It's akin to compelling speech.

<comment><USER45> Exactly. Again i have difficulty understanding the notion behind it. You can rule, and fine, or what ever you want. But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in.

<comment><USER46> > But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe > in.

This is not an apology. It's a publication of the _facts_ , as determined by a court of law.

In the US, slander and libel are both illegal, as is defamation, etc. Part of the judicial process is to determine the facts of the case. After the facts are determined and the defendant is acquitted, the plaintiff can't keep publicly affirming the defendant's guilt without risking consequences. This is completely precedented.

Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them. In this case, Apple acted as if they had already won by prematurely advertising a victory ('Samsung copied us!'), so they're being required to retract that.

(Typical disclaimers of UK vs US law and IANAL apply, though my point is that this would not be unusual or unreasonable if it had happened in the US).

<comment><USER21> > Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't > keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them.

Devil's Advocate -- Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions and the fact that they don't agree with the court?

<comment><USER46> > Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions

No, because those jurisdictions aren't relevant once the court has already made a ruling for its own jurisdiction.

> the fact that they don't agree with the court?

There's nothing to 'disagree' about. As far as the court is concerned, once it's made a ruling, it's determined the _facts_ , and you can't disagree with their facts. There's nothing to appeal in an acquittal (because of double- jeopardy), so the courts have had their final word on the matter.

This is a civil case, but to use the analogy in a criminal case: once the defendant in a murder trail has been acquitted, the prosecutor can't continue to say, "The court has determined the _facts_ , but I have a different _opinion_."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> This is silly.

</comment><comment><USER48> This seems like BS to me. They put the judgement on their site, and then they put other things on THEIR site. As long as the put the piece they wanted them to put, they should be able to do anything else they want. If they think the statements made make for good marketing pieces, why shouldn't they be able to put them on their website.

All this is besides the point that the UK is in the minority in their ruling, and the US case did a pretty good job of showing that Samsung did in fact copy Apple, and said so many times in internal communications.

<comment><USER18> The goal of the publicity order was to "dispel commercial uncertainty," not as punishment. If Apple publishes the required statement, but obscures it in a way that it doesn't meet the original goals, should the court really stand idly by?

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Ugh. Apple stories really bring out the worst in HackerNews.

 _makes a note to avoid reading such threads in the future_

</comment><comment><USER50> They'll probably put Ironic Hipster quotes around "copy"

</comment><comment><USER51> People. Top post? For hours? 165 comments and counting? For a legal spat in the UK? For every post that claims the top spot there's one that fails to get noticed.

These articles are our "Brad and Angelina" equivalents.

</comment><comment><USER52> How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.

<comment><USER53> Beats me. Apple complied with a sloppy judgment. I'm no great fan of Apple in this, but the appeal judges fucked up by not clearly specifying what Apple needed to do and could not do.

<comment><USER54> The courts don't work like this, largely because it's a waste of the court's time to figure out every single way some slimy bastard could try and weasel out of their rulings. This is pretty clear-cut too - the court ordered Apple to post a notice saying that Samsung's products had been found not to infringe, and Apple decided to instead post one that argued the court had got it wrong and Samsung were a bunch of evil copycats, which also misrepresented court rulings in other juristictions to make them seem more favourable to Apple in the process.

<comment><USER53> The judgement specified where, when, and how to publish the notice down to which website and publications, the typeface, and point size.

It _was_ sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise _what_ should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication.

Apple complied with the letter of the judgment and arguably the spirit of the judgment which was "not designed to punish" but rather "to dispel commercial uncertainty". It clearly states that Samsung's products were found not to infringe in England and Wales. Unambiguously. Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?

Going on to provide nuance by quoting the original judge and including rulings from other jurisdictions doesn't negate that.

Apple have been foolish in getting the court's dander up, but they're not wrong.

<comment><USER22> > It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what > should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or > reviewed before publication.

The judgement included a proposed wording with the introduction "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following". Apple might think that gives them carte blanche to write what they think, but I can guarantee you that no British lawyer would think a wording like that means anything than that they should thread _very_ carefully if deviating from it without consent from the court and/or private agreement with the other party.

> Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?

No, but we can read the rest of the text where they tried to confuse the matter again by misrepresenting rulings from other courts. E.g. the German court did _not_ find infringing copying. The US jury explicitly found the Galaxy Tab (which is what the UK court case and the notice is about) non- infringing.

It clearly and blatantly has a purpose that is at odds with the spirit of the judgement.

<comment><USER53> You're right, I just re-read the judgment with the proposed wording. Apple should have gone with that verbatim and otherwise shut up so as to not drag it out.

They made what could have been a publicly boring notice buried in the page footer a spectacle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> The UK legal system is a complete joke. Apple should consider using its considerable resources to take legal action with this demand and simply post " X is not as cool as Y" and leave it at that. I can not fathom why this has been pulled up, and would challenge the appeals court to explain why the original passage is non-compliant and if they cant give a reasonable answer I would be meeting them in court.

<comment><USER22> In this case the UK legal system is pretty much exactly like any other civilized legal system.

The judge in this case _is_ the court, and when he says the original passage doesn't comply with his order, by definition it does not comply with his order. If they choose to continue to fail to comply with this order, the people responsible finds themselves at risk of being found in contempt of court and jailed.

<comment><USER8> So a single person can perhaps issue an order and not be overruled or challenged in any way?

That hardly seems like a "civilized" legal system. In fact it sounds like something in a corrupt banana republic.

<comment><USER22> It can be challenged by appealing the finding. This is already in the appeals court - good luck to Apple's lawyers in getting the UK Supreme Court to overrule a court order about a small statement on their website.

But what metratonscube suggested was to ignore the court order and put up a message that is blatantly in violation of the order then fight them in court if they didn't come up with a reason to comply. Ignoring this court order _would_ be straightforward contempt of court at this stage, and _will_ result in substantially more severe sanctions than being told to put a modified message up.

And yes, this is how a civilized legal system handles it - every single European country, the US and most other countries in the world gives the judges (in this case a panel in the appeals court, so not just one) wide latitude in ensuring compliance with their orders. The failure to comply with a judge's legally issued order without specifically going to the court and asking for a stay pending an appal, is considered extremely serious exactly because the rule of law requires someone to be the arbiter, and if one party was able to get away with just ignoring what the judge orders them to, then the court has no ability to carry out it's duties.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


NYU Undergraduate Tutition $70,974 in 2015-16 [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu/financialAid/documents/tuitiongeneral.pdf

<comment><USER2> Tuition is not the same as "all costs".</comment>


Android dashboard updated, April 2018, Oreo only 4.6% - <AUTHOR> https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html#Platform <comment><USER2> What devices support Oreo right now?

<comment><USER3> It looks like quite a few flagship devices are getting or have gotten the update to 8 or 8.1: [https://www.androidauthority.com/android-8-0-update-784308/](https://www.androidauthority.com/android-8-0-update-784308/)

But those are flagship devices, the majority of android users are probably like me on a mediocre pre-paid device like ZTE that never gets an update for anything.

10% of android users are still on version 4.4. You can still buy new devices with android 4.4 on amazon as well.</comment></comment>


HSBC severs links with firm behind Bitcoin fund - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-30261976

<comment><USER2> >Jersey-based hedge fund Global Advisors (GA) claims the bank (HSBC) was worried about "money laundering risk".

LOL. What, risk of losing laundering market share?

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/us-hsbc- moneylaund...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/us-hsbc- moneylaundering-exclusive-idUSBREA0G1KQ20140117)</comment>


Show HN: Deeplearning4j for Spark ML (With Dataframes) - <AUTHOR> http://deeplearning4j.org/sparkml

<comment><USER2> After years of using Hadoop, I have been getting more enthusiastic about Spark, and DL4J support sounds great.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is great!</comment>


Coinbase Wallet to remove DApp browser to comply with Apple's policy - <AUTHOR> https://old.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/egjseg/coinbase_wallet_app_removing_dapp_browser/ <comment><USER3> Apple and Google have complete control over the mobile market which is the dominant way humanity interacts with the internet in today's world, especially in developing countries. Having a policy which forbids arbitrary things like listing other apps for users to interact with is very dangerous as it effectively bans whole industries from competing on a level playing field.

This is a big problem for cryptocurrency especially as mobile web browsers cannot interact with blockchains and so users are forced to use custom apps that implement the web3 interfaces. This effectively bans wallets from providing a good experience to allow users to interact with dapps and since you can't fall back to using a web browser on mobile it might end up being a total ban on the use of dapps on mobile platforms unless each dapp makes their own app (which just opens a whole new can of worms).

I'm not really sure what the solution is here but something really needs to be done before it becomes a ceiling for dapp adoption. Perhaps the answer is government regulations mandating open access to mobile platforms which is looking more likely each year as the investigations into big tech are ramping up but I'd rather see mobile Chrome get extension support so people can at least fall back to metamask. I don't see that happening though. This will be a fun war over the next decade but I'm hoping for the best.

<comment><USER4> Cue the "But I like Apple running the app store with an iron fist! No malware and viruses!" comments. Unless the government forces Apple in the future to permit sideloading, this is never going to change.

<comment><USER5> > _Unless the government forces Apple in the future to permit sideloading, > this is never going to change_

Granted. Convince me this is an issue best solved by a law specifically regulating side loading?

<comment><USER6> Well what else do you propose since iPhones comes with essentially a hard coded PC equivalent of secure boot that you can't disable. You can't even load your own keys onto the device and sign your own software or OS. At which point you don't even own the computer since you have limited say as to the software you can run on it.

I don't see Apple planning to stop restricting users rights anytime soon. Same applies for phone manufactures who sell android devices.

<comment><USER7> At what point does a PC become an appliance?

We don't force appliance makers to allow side loading. We don't enforce car makers to support engine warranties if you re-chipped your ECU. There seems to be no "user right" to receive ongoing support at manufacturer expense for a thing the user meddled with outside of parameters.

Along the 'convince me' lines:

1\. Convince me the iPhone is not an appliance competing in a marketplace of appliances.

2\. Convince me the market cannot decide what it wants this appliance to be able to do or not do.

3\. Convince me a maker has no right to decide what user actions may void its future obligations to the user.

<comment><USER8> > Convince me a maker has no right to decide what user actions may void its > future obligations to the user.

That's a completely different thing. This is a question of a manufacturer having complete control over what the buyer can do with the device. There is no "click here to void your warranty and enable root" button, if there was this would be a different conversation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> awinter-py yeah only wechat is allowed to have their own app store

[https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/07/wechat-mini- apps-200-milli...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/07/wechat-mini- apps-200-million-users/)

<comment><USER9> Lets be honest. Its the same for Alipay's app too. They both are their own ecosystem and they are going to be allowed without a doubt, if Apple was to touch either of these Apps it would be seen as an offense to the red flag and I could easily see the mainlanders boycotting it.

<comment><USER10> And could potentially leak into foreign politics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As this post doesn't explain what a DApp is, for anyone curious it seems to be a "decentralized app". I'm not sure how they work, or what the benefit of them are, but I guess they're like apps-within-apps, kind of like the mini apps in WeChat (someone more knowledgeable please chime in).

<comment><USER12> On a desktop computer by far the most common "dApp browser" is MetaMask, which is merely a Chrome/Firefox extension. The mechanism is simply "a web browser" that gives the web page the ability (via some injected JavaScript object) to "request an Ethereum transaction be executed" (which costs money to do, and might even simply be the transfer of money). If it were possible to make browser extensions for MobileSafari people likely wouldn't bother making entire replacement browsers, as the experience is categorically worse.

Alternative browsers--built using Apple's browser--exist on the App Store; the issue here is that users are paying for something via a mechanism that isn't in-app purchases: Apple wants all payments in the world to flow through them, and so the idea of a decentralized payment future is incompatible with the App Store.

<comment><USER13> Wouldn't they remove regular Bitcoin and ethereum wallets too if they were trying to control payment flows

<comment><USER12> As far as I can tell, they model those apps like banking apps, or Venmo, or PayPal, which you will note are all also allowed. However, they model stuff you do with these dApp browsers as direct payments for a service. Apple has a rule in their App Store review guidelines that if you sell something, you must do it via in-app purchase.

<comment><USER14> And yet you can purchase things in conventional e-commerce using a web browser on an iphone without Apple getting their cut.

How is this any different?

<comment><USER15> E-commerce presumably falls under "physical goods" in Apple's eyes, which is allowed.

<comment><USER14> Which seems rather arbitrary, it's not like you can't buy digital goods from Steam over the web.

This is yet another reason we must fight these proprietary app walled gardens. It's a clear regression from the open web.

<comment> m-p-3 For a while, you couldn't have Steam Link on iOS because it would be "bad" for Apple if you did buy a PC game through a live stream of your desktop.

[https://9to5mac.com/2019/05/15/steam-link-ios- launch/](https://9to5mac.com/2019/05/15/steam-link-ios-launch/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why is the iPhone so often associated with innovation? It's always the thing that prevents innovation and substitutes banks (ultimately) manipulating individuals.

<comment><USER17> If you ever tried to develop software on phones before the iPhone, you'd understand. A buddy and I developed a pretty cool 'Cocktail App' for the Danger Hiptop.

After many months of frustratingly going back and forth, we were not able to get it onto the Hiptop app store because the carrier (T-Mobile) did not want to be responsible for someone using a recipe to make a simple bar drink and then going off and killing someone. They eventually added a 21+ category and we still couldn't get it onto the store. Never mind the fact that someone could just use the installed web browser to view the same exact content.

Of course you'd think that we should have known that we might get rejected... but the issue was that Danger couldn't even talk to the carrier until the app was written and they could physically show it to them. So it was one of those things where we knew the app might get rejected, but we took the risk anyway. It was a good learning experience.

So yes, this weird stuff around getting software onto phones has been going on for a long time. Apple was one of the first to take the control away from the telco. I don't know if that is better or worse, but it changed the economics substantially.

<comment><USER18> > So yes, this weird stuff around getting software onto phones has been going > on for a long time. Apple was one of the first to take the control away from > the telco. I don't know if that is better or worse, but it changed the > economics substantially.

The legal burden is no longer on the telco's but on Apple in this case.

<comment><USER17> Correct. At the time, there was no way to even talk to the telco. All communication had to go through a single person at Danger who was overloaded with their job and barely had time to respond to people who were not guaranteed to make it into the store. Luckily I had friends that worked at Danger and could help a little.

It took a while and went through a lot of growing pains, but at least now, Apple has the financial resources to hire staff to respond to support tickets. If we are comparing literal apples to lemons... I'd much rather deal with someone at Apple than someone at a telco.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Url changed from [https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/51693/coinbase- wallet-...](https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/51693/coinbase-wallet-to- remove-dapp-browser-to-comply-with-apples-policy), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER20> All distributed apps should be built for the desktop first. Everything else will be censored.

<comment><USER21> There's nothing stopping you from throwing a DeFi interface on a local web server. Built for web doesn't mean web exclusive.

<comment><USER20> That's true, but it's just more difficult to distribute.

<comment><USER21> You're right, it is inconvenient. There are some desktop dapp browsers such as shadowlands (supports uniswap and makerdao) but nobody is really using these (yet). [https://github.com/kayagoban/shadowlands](https://github.com/kayagoban/shadowlands)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Apple taking giant craps on less powerful companies, is becoming routine. After all this publicly available information on their behavior, if the supreme Court sides with apple on app store policy, I think we'll have Google and Microsoft immediately pivoting to this model of fingering developers and end users

</comment><comment><USER23> I remember hearing about this portion of the App Store policy before - <USER2> "mini app stores" are essentially banned. Can anyone link to this specific portion of the policy? Curious to see what it actually says.

<comment><USER15> The language around this changes constantly and currently says something about not emulating multi-app widget experiences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It would be helpful if the post explained what this is and means. What is "DApp browser?"

</comment><comment><USER25> Remember when Microsoft sued OpenOffice for building a functional free competitor? Or when Sun sued Python?

I feel it's time to ramp up support for Ubuntu Touch.

<comment><USER26> > Remember when Microsoft sued OpenOffice for building a functional free > competitor? Or when Sun sued Python?

They never did. They never did.

Both companies did some evil things in the 90s and 00s (Microsoft arguably _much_ worse than Sun) but not what you described here. There were some worries from words that Microsoft might sue OpenOffice users. Sun never sued "Python" (you cannot sue a programming language, for starters).

..and why specifically Ubuntu Touch? There are other FOSS options available. Ubuntu Touch never took off, and is now a community project. Even Windows Phone failed. I put my money on Sailfish OS as platform #3 (if we ignore KaiOS) which is partly FOSS. Why SFOS? Because it will get adoption in non- Western markets such as Russia and India. Countries don't want to be dependent on US proprietary code because it isn't auditable, and these companies in the end do what the US government asks or demands them to do. I'm also curious what is going to happen with the Chinese Android fork led by Huawei.

<comment><USER27> Sailfish is definitely my next phone OS, and even though walking away from Google / Apple tentacles is one incentive, by far the biggest for me is that it runs Linux, complete with terminal etc. Oh the joy of just being able to grep, rsync, ssh...

I always felt like that wasn't a lot to ask, but evidently, I couldn't be further away from the truth.

<comment><USER28> What do you feel about the pinephone?

<comment><USER27> I haven't looked much into it yet, but I really, really like what they do with Pinebooks. Heard only good things about them. Looking at the announced specs[0], the phone is very promising to me.

I'll probably wait for a general release (apparently the "Brave Heart" edition is for devs and very-early adopters). It's definitely on my radar.

[0] pine64.org/pinephone/</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>