Apple Now Hiding Rewritten Court-Ordered Apology

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Really Apple? Really? The lengths this company will go to get out of an apology is mind boggling. The worst part? The more stunts they pull, the more press the non-apologies are getting. :rolleyes:

It turns out that Apple's desire to skirt around the ruling of the UK court knows no bounds, or at least, no bounds on your computer monitor. Reddit user Dismiss discovered that the footer on Apple's United Kingdom page, which holds the mandated link to the apology, has been moved to just below the viewing area.
Click to expand...
 
Next up, the judge orders them to put the apology on the ENTIRE front page of the site for x2 the time + fine.
 
Apple is just digging themselves a deeper hole for future court cases too. If there's one thing I've learned, never piss off a judge because they all BS together in the lunchroom...
 
No one is not going to buy an Apple product because of this.

Funny how childish Apple is being? Yes.

Will Apple sales be affected? No.
 
ROFLs. Just like the previous "attempt" by Apple over this, I have to say stay clASSy Apple, stay clASSy.

I like the idea some people on other sites have said, $100,000/day fine until they get it right.
 
All the judge said was that it had to be on the front page and it is. If the judge was smart he would have written in specifics such as font size, placement such that the site doesn't have to be scrolled to see it, color of the font, etc. Next step Apple will make the color one shade higher than their backgroup color.
 
Honestly I'm rather surprised they haven't started charging people money to see the latest version of the webpage. :p
 
Globox said:
add about six more zero's and it will be fair for all the defamation and bs everyone has had to put up with
Click to expand...

Really? Really?

You poor human LOL

This shit is just so funny.

Did they quit handing out skin somewhere around 1985 or something?
 
What's even more mind-boggling is the number of tech sites that mis-report the court-mandated statement as an apology - if you actually read the judgement, not once do the judges use the word apology. The exact text they have posted is what the courts told them to post.

Moreover, Apple's homepage (however, not the US homepage) has been vertically-responsive like that long since before they had to post the statement regarding the Samsung trial... you're really just making a mountain out of a non-existent molehill here.
 
jefforange89 said:
What's even more mind-boggling is the number of tech sites that mis-report the court-mandated statement as an apology - if you actually read the judgement, not once do the judges use the word apology. The exact text they have posted is what the courts told them to post.

Moreover, Apple's homepage (however, not the US homepage) has been vertically-responsive like that long since before they had to post the statement regarding the Samsung trial... you're really just making a mountain out of a non-existent molehill here.
Click to expand...

Someone crammed a mole in it so now its at least a molehill!
 
LordCalin said:
and it's still not an apology.
Click to expand...
It was never meant to be an apology. It was meant to be a statement of the verdict. It was the mentally challenged journalists who decided to label it an apology.
JoeUser said:
Looks like they now fixed it:

http://www.apple.com/uk/
Click to expand...
Looks the same to me. Resize window, it resizes the images to keep the verdict out of the frame.
jefforange89 said:
Moreover, Apple's homepage (however, not the US homepage) has been vertically-responsive like that long since before they had to post the statement regarding the Samsung trial... you're really just making a mountain out of a non-existent molehill here.
Click to expand...
I could have sword when I saw their site before the revised statement, the verdict link was visible without any scrolling. When they changed the statement, they changed the site layout to hide it.

It's still on their homepage, they just decided to change their homepage layout to tuck it away. We'll see whether the courts have anything to say about it I suppose.
 
*sworn not sword, damned lack of an edit and my lack of proof reading before I hit submit. :D
 
can't apple just put freaking 'WE ARE SORRY' and get over it, seriously i would like to see that for once than damn iProduct on front page.
 
Tudz said:
I could have sword when I saw their site before the revised statement, the verdict link was visible without any scrolling. When they changed the statement, they changed the site layout to hide it.

It's still on their homepage, they just decided to change their homepage layout to tuck it away. We'll see whether the courts have anything to say about it I suppose.
Click to expand...
Well, in the very least, the Canadian homepage was vertically-responsive as well, from the moment they switched over to the iPad mini ads... I remember checking out their site after the press conference the other week and noticing how good a job they did of making it responsive. It isn't now, but France, Spain, Germany, to name a few, are (it seems only the ones that don't rotate between the iPad Mini and iPad 4 ads are vertically responsive).

I was reading a thread about it on another forum though and the JS file in question that handles the resizing was found to have been last modified on the 20th or something... before the original statement was posted.
 
Cbshahji said:
can't apple just put freaking 'WE ARE SORRY' and get over it, seriously i would like to see that for once than damn iProduct on front page.
Click to expand...
Why would they? That's not even what the court ruling said for them to do - the whole notion that Apple has to apologize was made up by tech sites looking to sensationalize the whole issue. The judges only asked that they put up link to a notice on their front page, which they themselves wrote.
 
This whole frivilous lawsuit thing is getting out of hand.

The whole world needs to adopt a "loser pays for both sides court and lawer costs" plaintiff policy.

On top of that, if the plaintiff loses, they should also have to give the defendant the amount the plaintiff was looking to get.

Would stop this crap dead in its tracks.
 
Steve said:
The more stunts they pull, the more press the non-apologies are getting. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You know what they say - any press is good press. Apple's getting free advertising still. And most stories about it are *STILL* mentioning the "the judge said Samsung's product wasn't cool" bit from their first non-apology.

Free advertising. In the end, the only people who actually care are people who wouldn't buy Apple products anyway.
 
LordCalin said:
and it's still not an apology.
Click to expand...

It's not really meant to be an apology. It's more of an acknowledgement.

That said, I believe the court ordered them to put it on the front page in plain sight. If it's hidden, it's not in plain sight.
 
JoeUser said:
Looks like they now fixed it:

http://www.apple.com/uk/
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are looking at but it is still the same.


jefforange89 said:
What's even more mind-boggling is the number of tech sites that mis-report the court-mandated statement as an apology - if you actually read the judgement, not once do the judges use the word apology. The exact text they have posted is what the courts told them to post.

Moreover, Apple's homepage (however, not the US homepage) has been vertically-responsive like that long since before they had to post the statement regarding the Samsung trial... you're really just making a mountain out of a non-existent molehill here.
Click to expand...

Registered 21 seconds ago....wait....is that you Mr. Cook? :D
 
Tudz said:
It was never meant to be an apology. It was meant to be a statement of the verdict. It was the mentally challenged journalists who decided to label it an apology.
Click to expand...

jefforange89 said:
the whole notion that Apple has to apologize was made up by tech sites looking to sensationalize the whole issue.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking. It's more like the sensationalist journalists who labeled it an apology and the the mentally challenged article readers that took their sensationalism at face value.
 
jefforange89 said:
Nope, just a longtime reader that felt the need to respond to the factual inaccuracies in your article.
Click to expand...

As for Apple's homepage doing automatic reflow... It has done that for product pages, but not the homepage. Adding it to the homepage is, right now, only a Europe thing. And even then it was only done after the judgment. The home page for the US (and most of the rest of the world,) doesn't do the reflow. Only product pages.
 
XamediX said:
It's more like the sensationalist journalists who labeled it an apology and the the mentally challenged article readers that took their sensationalism at face value.
Click to expand...

I LOL'd :D
 
CharonPDX said:
As for Apple's homepage doing automatic reflow... It has done that for product pages, but not the homepage. Adding it to the homepage is, right now, only a Europe thing. And even then it was only done after the judgment.
Click to expand...
Even if it's a first, does it matter?
 
CharonPDX said:
As for Apple's homepage doing automatic reflow... It has done that for product pages, but not the homepage. Adding it to the homepage is, right now, only a Europe thing. And even then it was only done after the judgment. The home page for the US (and most of the rest of the world,) doesn't do the reflow. Only product pages.
Click to expand...
It actually does it on any of the home pages that don't rotate between the two different ads - it used to on the Canadian and Australian pages as well, until they switched to display the the two. As someone pointed out here, the script was added leading up to the iPad Mini announcement, and was likely just coinciding with the new homepage for that.
 
jefforange89 said:
Nope, just a longtime reader that felt the need to respond to the factual inaccuracies in your article.
Click to expand...

You registered BEFORE I linked the article so you could report the "inaccuracies" in an article I didn't write? Damn man, you are good. :D
 
Oh god just fucking fine them already!

They only paid 2% in taxes last fucking year, its not like they don't have the money.
 
wonderfield said:
Even if it's a first, does it matter?
Click to expand...

I think it does matter to some extent, part of the court proceedings where it was decided that it would be a link on the homepage...
As regards publicity on the Apple home web page, Mr Carr realistically recognised that Apple had a genuine interest in keeping it uncluttered. 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.
Click to expand...

The bit where it says "There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment."".

That would imply that the judgement telling Apple to place a link on their homepage was in consideration of the layout of the site at the time. I'm actually struggling to remember what the site looked like before so I'm not going to say too much about it, but to me it sounds like the link should have been placed alongside other existing links, rather than the layout being redesigned to place the link away from viewers' eyes.
 
Adding to that, originally the statement was ordered to be placed ON the homepage itself (rather than just a link), and the decision was made that placing a link would be sufficient instead, so I think there's a good chance Apple could be selling themselves in to more trouble with this.
 
Steve said:
You registered BEFORE I linked the article so you could report the "inaccuracies" in an article I didn't write? Damn man, you are good. :D
Click to expand...
Naw, the time it says I've been here must round up. I registered after the article was posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top