A senior judge has -- to use legal speak for a second -- torn Apple a new one over how it handled a dispute with Samsung. "Which dispute?" you might be wondering. This is the apology Apple was ordered to give by a UK court, saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad's design. Apple half-heartedly said sorry, before being made to say it like it meant it.
In its first attempt at apologising, Apple referenced court cases abroad where Samsung's Galaxy Tab was found to have copied the iPad. Sir Robin Jacob criticised this as "false and misleading", the Guardian reports.
Jacob said: "There is a false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true."
He also said Apple showed a "lack of integrity" when it claimed it would need two weeks to take down the non apology and post the new one.
"I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to its own website in less time beggared belief. In the end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous.
"I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple."
Apple was forced to apologise by UK courts after Samsung was found innocent in a patent infringement case. It did so, but not to the court's satisfaction. Apple corrected the apology, but then it was noticed the revised version was -- while admittedly in a larger font than the previous version -- hidden down the bottom of the page. Because of code Apple used to resize images, you had to scroll down to find it.
Would you say Apple showed a "lack of integrity"? And is it "entirely atypical" of the company? Or is this just how it rolls? Let me know what you reckon below in the comments, or on our Facebook page.
Android App 
RSS Feeds 
iPhone App 
Newsletters 
Comments 10
Add your comment
Al Muhammad 11 November, 2012 15:01
Apple made the CLASSIC mistake of trying to cover up something it didn't need to and having it BLOW UP IN THEIR FACE and giving it FAR MORE publicity and exposure than if they just did the right thing in the beginning.
And they did this not just once, but THREE TIMES and counting.
First by drafting the extremely poor "apology" that rather made them look like the annoying smart-alec kid in 6th grade that had snappy answers for the teacher for everything and always got sent to the dunce corner.
Then they made the mistake of taking the piss with the judge and arguing there was "nothing wrong" with the first "apology" and that they would need 14 days to make any changes to the website.
Now they've made the mistake of trying to "hide" the re-written "apology" on their website by artificially forcing it to appear off the user's screen no matter the layout, screen resolution and zoom size of the browser.
In each case Apple was reprimanded not only by the judges, but by the international media and by public opinion. They gave their humiliating defeat to Samsung in the already high-profile case at least THREE TIMES the amount of publicity that they needed to, and needlessly extended the story's life cycle.
Worse, they mocked and destroyed what little reputation they still had, and came across as an extremely arrogant, self-righteous, out-of-touch and disrespectful BULLY that not only showed CONTEMPT toward the law and legal system of the UK, but toward the public in general for thinking they would be "fooled" by the dishonesty of their "apology" and the dishonesty in manipulating the positioning of the "apology" on their website.
Sadly it seems that without a strong leader, visionary and public icon like Steve Jobs to lead the company, Apple is falling apart much faster than anyone anticipated.
With their share price having plummeted 170 points in just seven weeks and wiping off US$140 BILLION off their market cap, despite launching the iPhone 5, iPad Mini and iPad 4 in that timeframe, it is now obviously apparent the "Golden Era" of Apple built by Steve Jobs has come to a screeching end.
anonymous 11 November, 2012 15:29
I though this was the comment section not the article section
anonymous 11 November, 2012 16:31
It took Cnet a while to report this extra kick in the Gemimas to Apple. In fact none of the US tech blogs have mentioned this until now. Why?
You also fail to mention that Apple have not only been ordered to pay Samsungs costs but have in effect been prdered to pay damages to them.
In all this Apple really have acted with a lack of integrity. I don't agree with the guy above. Apple's attitude is completely the culture of Jobs. Arrogant and entitled. I remember Apple as the plucky upstart breaking the mould but now they have become an all powerful bully. In all the yers that Microsoft were the baddies they disn't act like this. They took rulings on the chin, even paying huge fines for questionable EU rulings without any of the arsehole behaviour we see from Apple. It really is time to strip the "upstart" tag from Apple and treat them like the greedy, bullying and restrictive monster they now are. Where's the anti trust authorities in this case?
anonymous 11 November, 2012 21:22
Again, this article is full of the terms "apology", "apologise", "sorry" etc.
How many times does it have to be stated that there was NEVER any requirement or necessity to apologise or say sorry for anything whatsoever. No court order has been given to any such effect, So why does this CNET journalist insist on using such language and misrepresenting the facts?
Apple were required by the UK court to make a statement to the effect that the UK court case had dismissed Apples claim and found that Samsung had not copied the Ipad with the named 3 tablet devices. That is all there is to it..
TobesEtc 11 November, 2012 22:54
Did Apple lack integrity: yes.
It's it entirely atypical: no.
anonymous 12 November, 2012 09:16
Its sucha miscarriage of justive, I can understand why it hurt Apple to print an apology!
Samsung never had anything that resembled an ipad before apple launched it. This farce only came about because of the archaic il- informed old boy justice system we have here in the UK of which I am thoroughly embarrassed about!
anonymous 12 November, 2012 16:43
Where does the "false and misleading" come into it?
Apple may have flaunted the Judge's intentions in ordering a statement that was intended to confirm the court judgement and remove any commercial uncertainty about the "legitimacy" of the Samsung tablets in question; but the unnecessary "extra's" they included in the statement were all based on fact.
anonymous 12 November, 2012 17:52
@anonymous 16:43 like you said the extra facts was unnecessary and made it misleading because it was not what the court asked for and makes it into something false because people probably went on the rotten apples site for the first time in thier life to read an apology or whatever it's supposed to be but it looks like apple is run by children stupid ones at that
anonymous 12 November, 2012 18:41
Apples lawsuits against its competitors are all about restriction of those companies ability to bring products to market. This market manipulation demonstrates Apples lack of integrity just as much as their botched apology.
Bottom line is Apples strategy is to remove competition as it is unable to better it.
anonymous 18 November, 2012 10:33
If it wasn't for the way Apple behaved I would never have known about the Company loosing the UK Court Case. In now know not only that they lost, but that they have proved untrust-worthy. I'm writing this on a MacBookPro with an iPhone on the table next to me. My current 'dilemma' is whether to get an iPhone 5 now I'm out of contract. The dilemma is the result of the loss of Google maps to be replaced by Apple's cartoon version that is utterly useless. This further adds to my developing sense of distrust of the Company. I can't help feeling that Apple has reached its Zenith and is now losing its way.