Apple's New Apology Ad

That doesn't look like much of an apology to me. Maybe Apple should just "fire" whoever wouldn't apologize.

Oh... Too soon??
 
LOL wtf is that I want a big ass Apple logo on the page!...it has no indication at all that it is coming from Apple themselves and that's not an apology, it's just the court's ruling verbatim.
 
wonderfield said:
Apple added to the original statement statements the court didn't agree with. Those statements were removed for this ad. What's left is what the court demanded they publish (verbatim) and little else.
Click to expand...

You want to provide a link that shows what your saying is even remotely true? Considering how rabidly you defend apple, everything you say is extremely suspect at this point.
 
wonderfield said:
Apple added to the original statement statements the court didn't agree with. Those statements were removed for this ad. What's left is what the court demanded they publish (verbatim) and little else.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't know what people are up in arms about. They were told to make a statement of the verdict with a link to where the verdict could be read in detail. Initially, they made that statement exactly as the court told them... then they added to it. Now, they've made that statement again without adding to it.

If you follow the link in the notice that Apple has posted, you can see they wrote exactly what they had to write... nothing about making an apology or any of that crap...

I turn to the form of the publicity order. No more than that which is proportionate is necessary. As regards the newspaper publicity we had no complaint about the detail of that and, subject to the wording, I would affirm Judge Birss's order. 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.

As regards the period for which the link should appear, Mr Carr recognised that a one month period would probably suffice. So I think it should be required for a month from the date the order of this Court is made. But for the fact that Apple have agreed to obtain discharge of the order of the Oberlandesgericht I would have considered a longer period necessary.

Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:

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.
Click to expand...

In the result I would dismiss both appeals but vary the publicity order as indicated or in such other way as may be agreed or settled by further argument. I would hope that any such argument (and any other consequential) arguments can be resolved by written submissions.

Lord Justice Kitchin:
I agree.

Lord Justice Longmore:
I also agree.
Click to expand...
 
dr.stevil said:
some of you guys need better reading comprehension skills
Click to expand...

1351864997zYEl2RXJb3_1_1_l.jpg


I beg to differ. The word "Apple" is only mentioned once in this "apology", and it is in a descriptive fashion, not in a "With Regards, Apple" fashion.

If we didn't know better, anyone could have written it.

There is also no apology to be seen in it.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039288890 said:
If we didn't know better, anyone could have written it.
Click to expand...
True, anyone could have put the ad in.
There is also no apology to be seen in it.
Click to expand...
It's not supposed to be an apology, the court ordered them to make a statement that said exactly what that ad says. They aren't supposed to take artistic licence with it and make up their own statement, the court gave them a statement they had to make and that was the statement in the ad.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039288890 said:
1351864997zYEl2RXJb3_1_1_l.jpg


I beg to differ. The word "Apple" is only mentioned once in this "apology", and it is in a descriptive fashion, not in a "With Regards, Apple" fashion.

...snip...

There is also no apology to be seen in it.
Click to expand...

*sigh* I don't know why I even bother lol
 
darkstarcow said:
You want to provide a link that shows what your saying is even remotely true? Considering how rabidly you defend apple, everything you say is extremely suspect at this point.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Follow the links in the picture of the ad, or the links in Apple's original statement on their website and stop listening to what media sites are saying Apple should have said and instead read what the course actually told them to say. It has nothing to do with rabidly defending Apple, it's written in the court's decisions which are posted online.

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

The media invented this story that Apple was supposed to make an apology when that was never the case. What was actually the case was written in the links Apple themselves provided on their website (as per the court order :p).
 
*courts not course, damned lack of an edit button.
 
Better to rabidly defend Apple than to rabidly embrace ignorance, I always say.
 
While I'm not an apple fan by any standards, I'm okay with this published statement. Looks like if follows what the courts ordered (even if it was written by the judge). This whole "apology" thing could have gone away quietly if they had published the same on their webpage instead of taking the haughty stance that they did.

However, personally I would have liked to see the courts require them to make the link another "button" on their UK page right next to the iPhone, iPad, etc., just to make it obvious instead of practically hiding it at the bottom of the page where real customer's/visitors wouldn't even notice it....
 
TheMadHatterXxX said:
LOL wtf is that I want a big ass Apple logo on the page!...it has no indication at all that it is coming from Apple themselves and that's not an apology, it's just the court's ruling verbatim.
Click to expand...

dr.stevil said:
some of you guys need better reading comprehension skills
Click to expand...

Explain to me why I need better reading comprehension skills. Thread title called it Apple's new apology ad. That's not an apology and it's not by Apple.
 
TheMadHatterXxX said:
Explain to me why I need better reading comprehension skills. Thread title called it Apple's new apology ad. That's not an apology and it's not by Apple.
Click to expand...

Apparently because it was initially a "statement" whereas every single media outlet called it an "apology".

Some people around here just like to argue semantics for lack of substance. *shrug*
 
I think you're confused, Mav. People here are calling for more substance in Apple's statement, in the form of an "apology". They're doing so because they're under the false impression that Apple was ordered to apologize to Samsung for their accusations of patent infringement (as a result of fallacious media reporting), when they weren't. They were ordered to publish a notice verbatim, and that's what's being done. See Tudz's post above, or see the link I posted above.

This isn't an issue of mere semantics: it's an issue of — as you called it — "substance".
 
Well either way Apple is safe since the average person won't bother looking at the page while shuffling thru a newspaper since it doesn't have anything to really catch the eye.
 
there should ve been the apple logo on there, other wise looks like a random city by-law advert
 
People will read that and go "WTF is this gibberish ?!"
and then flip the page without giving it a second thought.
 
jstnomega said:
the Court is out of line here - except when swearing an oath or taking a pledge, ever putting words in the mouth of another just rubs me the wrong way

the notions of duress and coercion come to mind, tho, apparently, the courts are ultimately free to exercise such tactics & like Neo, I, too, have been living in a dream world

to my ears, this smacks more of YOU VILL SIGN ZEE DOCUMENT! OR ELSE! than of meaningful justice rendered

other than a chance to gloat & guffaw at Apple's expense, such public humiliation renders any of the allegedly injured parties precisely what?

inflicting shame as a form of punishment seems outright Medieval - may as well sentence the offender to a few days in the stocks in the town square

meh :mad:

(disclosure: haven't owned/used an Apple device since 1987/1988)
Click to expand...
first of this for not happen in America two all they had to do was something like this the first time if they had this would have been over but they had to be snarky. Apple is lucky the judge did not fine them or ban products they got off a few words of apology fror wasting time and money of the court and samsung.
 
The only way it will ever be worded as anything remotely resembling an actual apology will be if the wording is dictated to Apple by the court.
 
I dont really consider the new one right either but if they had done that one first i might have let it slide i really see samsung and the uk court being very dickish when it gets down to it being accepted.

If i was apple i would have made it short and sweet as i could have i would have even been a bit dickish about it


i would have done a full page ad and put a large bold link for a week on my front page near the top corner.


iSorry on a big white page with an apple logo above it. Classy pretentious probably what the judge expected.
 
Apple was not ordered to apologize. Apple was ordered to place a notice regarding the court ruling on the homepage of their UK site.

Apple reworded the judges ruling, which the judge found to be unacceptable. The judge ordered them to fix it within 24 hours and so far Apple has not complied.

It's not an apology. It's a declaration of the court verdict. These headlines are just the media trying to get attention and rile emotions.
 
Eseipel said:
Apple was not ordered to apologize. Apple was ordered to place a notice regarding the court ruling on the homepage of their UK site.

Apple reworded the judges ruling, which the judge found to be unacceptable. The judge ordered them to fix it within 24 hours and so far Apple has not complied.

It's not an apology. It's a declaration of the court verdict. These headlines are just the media trying to get attention and rile emotions.
Click to expand...

^^ this...RDFA people.

rflcptr said:
The wording was dictated by the court.
Click to expand...

and yet Apple managed to change it with their RDF...shocker
 
SkribbelKat said:
I like it. It seems genuinely remorseful and demonstrates that Apple is willing to enter into a new, enlightened era of understanding together with Samsung. I look forward to a future filled with happy corporate unity between the two companies.
Click to expand...

can i have some of the drugs you are taking?
 
The courts only wanted apple to place a notification staying that samsung had not violated their patents according to uk law. The original stated the ruling but continued to challenge the verdict. what apple placed its exactly what the court wanted to the t.
 
As if I could lose any more respect for Apple, yet I have. What a diva company.
 
Apple making an apology for anything is like watching a Unicorn being forced to fuck a beaver. Both REALLY don't want to be involved.
 
Samsung should buy an ad spot next to the Apple one. It should have a big arrow pointing at Apple's ad, then the words,"IN YOUR FACE, APPLE!!! -by Samsung"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top