A UK court order to Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) seemed simple and clear: Publish a statement saying Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Korea: SEC) did not copy Apple's design. Instead, Apple issued a rather tongue-in-cheek statement.
"I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this. That is a plain breach of the order," Judge Robin Jacob said. "I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can't put this on" its site. Jacob also declined Apple's request to wait two weeks to make the change.
A lower court issued a ruling (which was later upheld) that Samsung did not violate a specific Apple patent. The court ordered Apple to post a statement on its UK website affirming this position. Apple did what the court ordered but padded its published statement with several paragraphs indicating the same patent had been upheld in a German court. "While the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad," the statement said.
Apple clearly intended to send a message other than what the court had asked. In my opinion, it was directly challenging the ruling while pretending to comply with it. Were the executives who approved this being naïve or intransigent? Were they trying to score a point, or were they just plain stupid? A court order isn't supposed to be flouted or trifled with in this irresponsible manner.
If Apple had objections to the initial court order, it should have taken other steps to make its point. It could have filed an appeal with the UK Supreme Court. If that had failed, it could have taken the case before the European Court. Or it could have simply complied with the ruling and then used public relations propaganda to make the same point. Instead, it inserted comments that were not in line with the court's decision in the published statement.
A lawyer for Apple was quoted as saying the order was not "designed to make us grovel." But it wasn't meant to be trifled with, either, and now the company will have to grovel. The patent law system may be broken, but there are still ground rules companies must follow. Samsung itself lost a California case in which Apple was awarded $2 billion. If Samsung loses the appeal it has filed in that case, it will have to pay the full $2 billion and not a cent less.
That's what complying with the law means. If Apple fails to get this, it needs to and will hear again from the court. This time, it won't be a simple "what bloody cheek!"
We've all seen what happens when a person or organization believes they are above the law. Bernie Madoff comes to mind. OK, not everybody who flouts the law gets what they deserve, but the Apple-Samsung battle is playing out in a very public way. You are correct in that Apple should adhere to the letter of the law and not interpret it. Eventually, Apple will start to fail in the court of public opinion, if not the court of law.
@Barbara, absolutely. The law caught up with Bernie Madoff and he is serving his time in prison. But Apple appears to disregard authority and give no thoughts to its actions. I agree Babs; if Apple continues in this manner it may eventually start to fail in the court of public opinion.
@FlyingScot, agreed Apple published a statement. OK! However, adding a little extra is tantamount to sticking its middle finger at the court's ruling. I think Apple was plainly smirking. It's pure arrogance!
_hm, There must be a lot of eccentric judges in the United Kingdom! The first ruling was from one single judge and then three Appeal Court judges confirmed the order, reviewed Apple's "compliance," found it wanting and ordered it to do only what it was ordered. The eccentric here was . . . Apple.
Aside from the court problems, some consider Apple to have lost its innovative edge:
Apple's innovation is sputtering," Global Equities Research's Trip Chowdhry wrote in a research note to clients. "Why is that Apple, the company that brought touch to phones and tablets, stopped just there and did not bring touch to notebooks and iMacs? Why is it that Apple brought high-resolution screens to ... some MacBooks and not to all devices? High-resolution screens are a commodity today........
"The analyst added that he believed the company may be rushing products and lacking a viable roadmap, a fact that, Chowdhry said, possibly led to Scott Forstall's departure. "Our contacts speculate that Apple executive leadership may have rushed Scott Forstall to deliver products prematurely," the analyst wrote. "This may also indicate that Apple may be lacking a three- to four-year product road map, because if a roadmap existed, engineers would not be pushed to ship products prematurely - especially when they are not fully tested."
The new government rules and regulations may prove to be a double-edged sword: achieving some positive goals but costing organizations a great amount of money and work and, perhaps, lost sales as well.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This