 |
 |
Apple places second attempt at 'apology' statement online
|
|
|
|
|
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status:
Offline
|
|
Apple has updated its website in order to follow a court ruling for a second time. After the UK Court of Appeal attacked the original attempt, deeming it non-compliant, Apple has put another notice up for UK-based website viewers. While toned down from the original attacking-style of the first version, the new statement forces users to scroll down in order to see it in the first place. While it could be claimed that this is just how the website is designed, users of Hacker News have found what appears to be code that forces the iPad mini advisement to fill the entire page, regardless of browser resolution. It could also be argued that the statement itself flouts the court's wishes, as it admits fault for the first statement and links to the new statement on a separate page, instead of having the statement on the front page.
As per the court order, advertisements started to appear in newspapers, displaying a statement about the case. In contrast to the original website statement, the printed version is more straightforward in its approach, fulfilling the court's criteria.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arcadia, CA USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Apple could certainly use a shell company to place another ad opposing this one and state the facts.
Court ruling could be delusional. Facts shouldn't be.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
The line "That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 18 October 2012" would seem to imply that England decides the law for all members of the European Union. Is this true? I'm not familiar with their new system.
Yes, Apple's original statement was a little immature. It WAS, however, completely factual. The revised statement by the English Court seems very Orwellian. Allowing for only Their version of the truth.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
SEE?? BIG GIRLS DO CRY. crApple is definitely greedy, pompous, totalitarian, etc..... 1984 style. They don't want to comply to a smack in the face, and a kick in the buttocks. What nads?
Someone should piss on their doorstep and upload it to youtube. I'd donate.... Anyone else?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ham Sandwich
|
|
Originally Posted by blahblahbber 
SEE?? BIG GIRLS DO CRY. crApple is definitely greedy, pompous, totalitarian, etc..... 1984 style. They don't want to comply to a smack in the face, and a kick in the buttocks. What nads?
Samsung deserves the smack in the face 
BTW: They used to have SmashMyIPod... or you could blend the new iPad mini Will it blend?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Andrej
Samsung deserves the smack in the face
BTW: They used to have SmashMyIPod... or you could blend the new iPad mini Will it blend?
Clash of the Titans as I say. They can sue each other to oblivion!!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top