Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Courts

Submission + - Apple's Samsung statement reprimanded by UK court of appeal ( 6

Macthorpe writes: In the UK, Apple were previously ordered to add a statement to their website stating that Samsung did not copy their designs, following a previous case where this was ruled by the UK courts. However, today the same court revealed that Apple's statement is not good enough. From the article:

The acknowledgement put up last week, linked from the home page by a tiny link, was deemed to be "non-compliant" with the order that the court had made in October. The court has now ordered it to correct the statement – and the judges, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob, indicated that they were not pleased with Apple's failure to put a simpler statement on the site.

It appears the main objection is the statement is on a separate page and only linked from the hompage — and that the statement is buried in marketing blurb, and also put next to references to a case Apple won.

This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple's Samsung statement reprimanded by UK court of appeal

Comments Filter:
  • Apple do not want my money. The fact that they think they are above the law. Just adds to the numerous other Ethical; Legal; Financial reasons for having nothing to do with Apple.

    Its not that I care about the right or wrong. Its that Apple did wiped their c**ks on the Judges faces. I personally find this level of contempt quite frightening from a corporation, as I as a potential consumer [and past one], think how well they might treat me. I think I know the answer.

  • While the UK Court has ever right to slap Apple back into compliance (as they see it), some of the blame should be on them for their rulings specificity or lack there of. "Here write this", OK we did, "No that's not what I meant!".

    You can argue that Apple only obeyed the letter of the law and not the spirit or you could also argue that the original ruling wasn't specific enough. The judges chose the former.

It's fabulous! We haven't seen anything like it in the last half an hour! -- Macy's