Apple ad

Remember how Apple got called out by a UK judge for basically being a dick when it "apologized" by saying the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 didn't "infringe" but still "willfully copied" the iPad? Yeah. Those were good times. Apple's revised advert is appearing in British papers today (please let it be on Page 6!), and it's a snoozer. It's a 87 words (or something like that -- we fell asleep) of pure legal drivel. But at least it's more in the spirit of what the judge intended, we suppose. Have a cup of coffee, and have a read. Then pour another cup.

(And in related news, it seems the earlier "non-compliant" statement has now been pulled from Apple's UK site -- go figure.)

 

Reader comments

Apple's 'apology' ad goes from snarky to snoozy

24 Comments

notice also how they give a long URL link to turn people off from typing it at the browser and read for themselves, rather than directing them to something like apple.com/samsungtrialstatement for example, which would be easier to remember and type... Apple as usual, brilliant with their choice of words, either in their own marketing, or in legal cases like this...

If it had been from a real smartphone company they would have included a QR code so the people could have quick access to the links and the "apology".

Note that Apple only mentioned themselves ONCE in the whole slab of text, and just 'Apple', with no specific corporate designation following, unless you count 'Community'. Hilarious

i thought these apologies were supposed to be on apple's uk website, not burried on page 6 of some newspaper. It just says advertisement, no where does it make it clear that it is a statement from apple. I say its still non-compliant.

Apple also made no reference to the iPad, instead just saying that Samsung did not infringe on registered design no.0000181607-0001... if i'm a average guy that did not follow on the Samsung vs Apple case, how the hell would i know what is that supposed to mean? people might think that Samsung did not infringe a particular item of Apple (wallpaper? button? logo? image?), but still might have copied the iPad...

For this to be in the spirit of what the UK Court ruled the above 'apology' would have to contain the word "SORRY".

I've yet to see that very recognisable five letter word.

Its clear what the court outcome was, simple printing it in text is not the definition of an apology and now makes apple look even more petty than they already do.

Take your medicine apple! like grown ups do. You're already rich but your greed and pride have no limits.

If I were the judge, i would fine them for not honoring the spirit of the order, and tell them now they have to not only re right the apology to actually contain an apology, but that now they have to make sure it is prominantly placed in every euopean paper within his jurisdiction; as well as writing an apology to the court for purposefully trying to muddle the order and skirt the spirit of the order.

Apple is on record now as having to say the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10 did not copy the iPad. That's the most important thing. That covers Europe. Even the infamous Lucy Koh jury found the Tab 10 didn't infringe the design patent. That takes care of United States.

Man, I hope Apple gets another lawsuit brought against it and it gets handed to this judge. I've got to think this judge is just fuming at the contempt.

-Suntan

This court is stupid. The judge should have wrote exactly what he wanted apple to post on their site and in advertisements. Should have never left it up to them unless of course he was hoping they would show contempt of court.

Apple could've done this graciously and really won some new fans and respect from non-fans, but instead they did the predictable thing and acted like a child.

Typographicly this ad is horrible. The leading is almost not existent, the large san-serif font gives the reader a sense of much less credibility than the small serif fonts usually used in newspapers. (there's actually a study about this http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/hear-all-ye-people-heark...). I'm actually surprised they didn't use comic sans to make it completely unbelievable. They did use every other trick to make it less desirable to read though.