News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by duiker101 on Thursday November 01, 2012 @09:55AM (#4727486)
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.

Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by saurik on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:19AM (#4727628)
> Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose...

Supposedly, in the UK, Apple pays a £50/day fine rather than posting the required no-smoking signs in the windows of their stores. (I mention this as another example.)

http://blog.lewisking.net/post/318110435/apple-store-madness

Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by mmcnickle on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:27AM (#4727994)
I can't find any reliable source for this claim. They range from "a friend who works in the Apple Store in Norwich"[1] to a "man who told it in the pub"[2] which makes me doubt its authenticity.

[1] http://blog.lewisking.net/post/318110435/apple-store-madness

[2] http://simonmorley.co.uk/2010/08/13/worlds-busiest-apple-sto...

Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by saurik on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:44AM (#4728085)
(Hence why I said "supposedly"; the claim, however, is trivially falsifiable, and I have yet to see anyone attempt to argue with it, despite I having been been posted around a bit last year. I realize that does not make it true, again hence "supposedly". Even if it was true at one point, it might no longer be.)
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by count on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:04AM (#4727546)
Attitudes are not illegal.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by duiker101 on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:07AM (#4727553)
It is when your attitude makes you illegal things, see the warranties things.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by cobrophy on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:33AM (#4727691)
It is when your attitude is a contempt towards a court ruling.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron... by walshemj on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:34PM (#4729845)
not if they are showing contempt of court they don't