Apple Accused of Keeping Samsung Statement Out-of-Sight

By Jane McEntegart
published

The saga continues...

Apple was last week ordered to alter the statement posted to its website regarding its UK lawsuit against Samsung. Part of the order demanded that Apple also post the statement to its UK homepage. Previously, the statement appeared only as a link at the foot of the homepage. A judge last week demanded that Apple post the actual statement on its homepage in at least 11 point font.

However, though Apple complied with this request, it seems the company has sneakily found a way to ensure the statement isn't the first thing visitors to the site see when the load up Apple.com/uk. The text that appears on the bottom of the Apple UK homepage reads as follows:

On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement.

That hyper-link leads to the same statement that we saw printed in the Guardian newspaper last Friday. However, CNet reports (via Reddit), that no matter how no matter how you resize your browser window, you'll always have to scroll down to see the message thanks to a bit of JavaScript code that ensures the iPad Mini image always takes up as much space as possible.

Redditors point out that Apple's websites in other countries feature a similar design, but the fact that Apple has already gotten itself into hot water over this statement makes it hard to believe the placement was an accident. On the other hand, Apple was never told that the statement had to appear 'above the fold' on its homepage, so one could argue the company is well within its rights to put it at the bottom of the page.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback           

Jane McEntegart
34 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Tomtompiper
    Typical Apple, the law only counts when it is on their side, no wonder they are haemorrhaging users.
    Reply
  • spartanmk2
    Even though I dont care for Apple, I would do the same unless given more specifics other than showing it on the front page in 11 point font :/
    Reply
  • Against this apology should look like the one they made for Apple Maps...
    Reply
  • rohitbaran
    Well, they did the bare minimum, so they are safe, for now.
    Reply
  • Kryan
    the only reason I have ever accessed an apple website of any country was to follow up on this. On the day after they changed it, after being reprimanded the first time, I *immediately* noticed the website behaving differently. The whole website had now adjusted itself to have the Samsung apology bit out of site, and the day before the whole site was visible. That's proof enough for me that crApple will go to any sneaky means to avoid facing the shame like the LOSERS they are.

    My gf wanted an ipod nano...I showed her the sony/samsung/creative alternatives. She didn't get an apple product.
    My ENTIRE immediate family has Android or WP7/8 phones, because I steer them away from apple. They are now all saying to me: "Gee, , how right you were about that company being really low down and dirty, and gee, look at the slowly declining interest due to lacklustre new iphone and ipad mini 'innovations'. It really is nice to have someone as clever as you showing us the way, ."

    I may have paraphrased a little.
    Reply
  • Au_equus
    The judge should hold Apple CEO Cook for contempt of court and throw him in jail the next time he steps foot in the UK for 24-48hrs.
    Reply
  • cookoy
    A bitten apple when exposed will show its rotten tendencies
    Reply
  • aracheb
    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 not infringe 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.



    wtf is this, this is the quoted text from the site? this is not an apology this is an statement of what happened?
    Am I wrong or they are violating the court order again?
    Reply
  • hate machine
    arachebSamsung / Apple UK judgmentOn 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 not infringe Apple’s Community registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment ofthe 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.wtf is this, this is the quoted text from the site? this is not an apology this is an statement of what happened? Am I wrong or they are violating the court order again?
    That is all they were ordered to do, an apology via dissemination.

    Apple keeps dragging this out, they could easily just posted this and let it fade out of the limelight quickly. Instead they keep trying to "legally" circumvent as much as possible and it keeps popping up in the news and doing more damage.
    Reply
  • I800C0LLECT
    Wasn't the purpose of the apology to help reverse some of the bad press Samsung may have received? Does hiding the apology in a location where it receives no attention satisfy the intent? Doesn't this behavior also look poorly on the court/judge?

    Could this blow up any more? I obviously don't understand etquette concerning these circumstances but it looks like Apple might get smacked around a bit more.
    Reply