comScore
Uncategorized Saturday, November 3rd 2012 at 1:05 pm

Apple Intentionally Tries to Hide Samsung Statement on U.K. Homepage Using JavaScript

By ( ) Comments

As if things weren’t already silly enough in the decision against Apple in the United Kingdom, the technology giant’s gone and made things even worse. The company’s original statement was deemed noncompliant and inaccurate by the U.K. courts, as it was meant to alleviate the slander caused by Apple against the Samsung Galaxy Tab. The courts insisted that Apple issue a revised statement on their U.K. website within 48 hours, and they’ve certainly complied. That’s not all they’ve done, though. Apple’s also included a bit of JavaScript that intentionally tries to hide it.

While it may at first simply seem like something that’s included for aesthetic reasons, as the JavaScript’s function is to resize the iPad banner, it’s telling that the code is included on the U.K. homepage. Some of the other versions of the homepage resize in the same way, but it’s certainly not universal. Canada and Japan both resize, but not the regular homepage for the United States.

By resizing the banner, the JavaScript makes it to where users will always need to scroll down in order to see Apple’s statement. Even though the other versions of the site have the same layout, minus the statement about Samsung, they don’t include the JavaScript bit in question. Here’s the offending code, according to reddit:

var HeroResize=AC.Class({initialize:function(b){this._height=null;this._hero=$(b);

AC.Object.synthesize(this);this.__boundResizeHero=this.resizeHero.bindAsEventListener(this);

if(typeof window.ontouchstart===”undefined”){this.resizeHero();Event.observe(window,”resize”,this.__boundResizeHero)

}},setHeight:function(b){this._height=(b<0)?0:b;return this._height},resizeHero:function(){this.setHeight(parseInt(window.innerHeight||(window.document.documentElement.clientHeight||window.document.body.clientHeight),10)-310);

this.hero().style.height=this.height()+”px”}});Event.onDOMReady(function(){var b=new HeroResize(“billboard”)

});

Apple’s looking to hide the statement as best they can, is how this comes across. Considering that the revised statement is far more cut and dry, it’s no surprise they’d want to avoid showcasing it.  Here’s how the statement currently reads on the homepage, with a link to further explanation:

On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung’s Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement.

That little tidbit reads pretty badly for Apple, but trying to hide it through screen manipulation isn’t going to do them any favors.

(Apple via reddit)

Relevant to your interests

Filed Under | • • • •
  • Jack Bond

    Odd. I’m comparing the US and UK versions of the site, and the UK banner is smaller. I still have to scroll though.

  • Anonymous

    Just tried this on a 27″ 1440p screen. When you enlarge the window, you can see the bottom text…then bam the javascript kicks in to make the images larger to hide the footer.

    This is hilarious. I hope they get sanctioned for it.

  • Anonymous

    I try to be company and brand agnostic (i don’t care who makes something, as long as it meets my needs), but the people at Apple are such pricks that I can’t in good conscience give them my money.

    They appear no longer to be about making innovative, disruptive products; instead they seem more to be about using patent law and the courts to throw up barriers to protect their market share.

    I hope the UK courts throw some Apple executives in jail for contempt and award Samsung punitive damages equivalent to those awarded to Apple in the US courts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bryan.leasot fxspec06

    Really? Who cares? I’d try to hide it too. It’s still on the page, just because you have to scroll to see it doesn’t make it less on the page. The article makes it seem like using javascript is sneaky by apple — as if they don’t write software for a living. It’s just a block of code. I could have written it.

  • jid93

    Why should they get sanctioned for this? The US found Samsung guilty as charged for ripping off Apple. The UK courts are simply, flat-out wrong. If I were Apple, I would stop selling products in the UK, and name and shame the judges who are “making it too difficult for Apple to conduct business in the UK, due to their protection of intellectual property theives (aka Samsung)”, and then let the UK’s population direct their ire towards those judges until they are forced to resign.

    I’m not an Apple fanboy by any means. I own android devices, however it’s PAINFULLY obvious that Samsung deliberately copied Apple’s products as closely as they thought they could get away with. This backfired for them in the US, but apparently not the UK.

  • Andrew

    Apple just want ti all their way. Their products are one finger no brainers. At least my new Samsung Note Tablet has far more things to use and explore. People are just brain washed by Apple buying their new devices which are just the same thing over and over. Nothing innovative there.

  • tz

    I’ve been searching commentaries under the story numerous places and nowhere does anybody send any kind of criticism towards the judges. So allow me.

    This strikes me as capricious judicial pique, or perhaps a little punitive judicial arrogance?

  • Davud

    Apple fan boy.

  • Chris

    All Apple is doing by trying to be clever about this is draw more and more attention to Samsung products, if they had followed the letter of the ruling this would have all gone away by now.

  • Anonymous

    You mean a non-technical jury influenced by a jury foreman with biased views of the patent system decided that Samsung infringed on Apple’s patents. And they weren’t even following the jury instructions properly.

    One of the patents (U.S. Patent No, 7,469,381 — “rubber band scrolling effect”) that made up a key part of Apple’s argument has recently been tentatively invalidated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    There are so many facets of that case that are questionable. Go read up on the background of the case before trying to talk about it. That outcome of that verdict is far from decided, it will drag on for YEARS.

    Oh and by the way, even ignoring what I just wrote, your whole comment makes no sense because in the US case you’re referencing, the jury decided that the Galaxy Tablet did NOT infringe on Apple’s iPad.

  • Martin

    Isn’t it also false advertising making the iPad mini look absolutely massive on certain screens.

  • Steve

    As much as I’d love to see Apple products banned in the UK, it goes against my belief in consumer choice.

    After all Apple have took their case all over the world to try to ban samsung products (and succeeded for awhile in the US). At the end of the day all they are doing is screwing consumers for the their right to choose.

    Anyone that walks into a store and mistakenly buys a Galaxy instead of an iPad, either needs to get their eyes checked or get someone with some intelligence to their shopping for them.

  • Anonymous

    That is why you will never run a company, or work at one abouve minimum wage. Becuase you think it is in a company’s best interests to excluse an entire large, and fairly well off company.
    jid…Steve Jobs has been dead for OVER A YEAR now…there is no way any of his semen is still left for you to swallow.

  • Anonymous

    Try this: open both sites on a tablet. First landscape, then portrait. Ths US site remains the same, but you will be able to see the whole site and nothing is changed.
    In the UK version, they even change the design of the site. The result is: on iPads you can’t see the reference to Samsung verdict any longer. This is definitely intention behind it.

  • Anonymous

    Again..considering he has been dead for over a year, it is time to give up your quest to swallow Steve Jobs’ semen. There is no way it tastes as good as you dream it does.

  • Anonymous

    Seriously, tz…you are NEVER goign to suck Steve Jobs’ penis! He is dead! Give it up already! His penis will never be in your mouth just as yours will never be in anyone else’s mouth.

  • Anonymous

    You shouldn’t lecture people about working minimum wage when you have minimal wage spelling and grammar.

    abouve excluse “…large, and…”

  • http://www.facebook.com/oscarbrown Oscar Brown

    They’ve been resizing the hero shot since they announced the iPhone 5. This is nothing new and a silly conspiracy theory.

  • txclt

    You anti-Applites sucking off Micro$oft dicks are even funnier and more pathetic than Apple fanboys.

  • http://avgjoegeek.net/ avgjoegeek

    I don’t even see it from the US homepage. I had to add the /uk for it to show up. These patent lawsuits have grown into a circus a long time ago. So I’m not surprised that Apple is acting like a bunch of clowns about it!

  • Bill

    Actually, a lot of us use Linux. You are the fools paying $1200 for a PC I can build for $500

  • anna

    Dear Rollin,

    I compared Apple’s UK website (left browser window) with the US website (right browser window). I cannot find anything abnormal in the size of the IPad banner.

  • SPM

    I think you have defined the quintessential Apple customer right there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bryan.leasot fxspec06

    Excuse me? How old are you? Do you always treat people like this?

  • Idlethoughts

    hmm… I smell knew I smelled smoke, turns out its just an Apple vs Anti-apple flamewar. Carry on.

  • Anonymous

    And you lost your job at McDonald’s over a year now. Get a job and move out of your grandma’s basement.

  • Mike Hayes

    Actually, it makes a ton of difference whether the statement is above or below the fold. This is, for example, why you will usually see more advertisements above the fold, some (usually CPM) networks even require this.

    How many people do you think scroll down once they hit the Apple homepage? Not many, they click through to where they want to go next from above the fold, hence they will never see the statement.

  • Dan Justus

    So apparently you were so engrossed in his spelling that you completely missed his valid points.

  • Anonymous

    What valid points? You mean like this:

    “Becuase (sic) you think it is in a company’s best interests to excluse (sic) an entire large, and fairly well off company.”

    What point do you think he is trying to make here?