Apple: Where lies are acceptable

Summary: A question raised following Apple's case against Android devices shows mysterious behaviour from Apple

MUKTWARE covers some interesting news from the most major patent case of Apple versus Android:

Apple has now declined to answer Samsung's question in its motion that when did Cupertino learn about the jury foreman's previous court case with Seagate. Apple in its response says that it is not compelled to respond as it was Samsung who accused Hogan of misconduct and not Apple.

Pamela Jones writes about this apparent trial misconduct, noting:

Apple very much does not want to have to answer Samsung's question in its motion to compel about when Apple learned about the jury foreman's earlier litigation with Seagate.

Denial like this does not bode well for Apple. It's not as though Apple is an honest company; we have a whole resources page dedicated to Apple deception, which is now hiding an apology (for lying!) to further legitimise the label "reality distortion field". Watch this response to what Apple has been doing:

Oh, Apple. As someone who (as yet) has no children, it's been an educational experience watching the company's reaction to a UK judge ordering them to put a public apology on their website over false claims that Samsung copied them. From the very beginning, it felt like Apple had gone out of its way to prepare me for raising children. It all started with a little "But, Daaaaad! He's copying me!" Then, once parental admonishment is administered, Apple went into what child psychologists call "pouty-pants mode," with the kind of apology statement that was almost literally playing one parent/country off of another, by which I refer to their referring to the fact that all of the other countries' judges that had ruled opposite of the UK courts. And when the UK courts were less than thrilled with that petulance, they issued another apology, with a link buried at the bottom of the page -- using a little javascript magic to ensure that you wouldn't see it unless you were specifically looking for it. If this isn't a perfect analogy for a young child mumbling a half-hearted apology to his little brother for kicking him, I don't know what is, but I thank Apple for all the lessons in child-rearing they've given me. I feel, having watched the judge in this case, I have a good understanding on how to handle a petulant child.

This childish, bratty behaviour (as Jones called it in Groklaw) is what makes me reluctant or unwilling to buy a friend of mine an iPhone 5 for Christmas (like he asked me to). This even led to a small argument last night. Who would want to help such a spoiled, destructive company? How far can a boyoctt stretch? Well, today we'll have several more articles about Apple. More education is clearly needed. ⬆