decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Brilliant! | 627 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Brilliant!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 03:20 PM EDT
I was enjoying the mordant wit I relished in the late lamented Punch,
then came to the part where El Reg is held up in court as a
sample of Apple's malfeasance. Oh dear, it'll take more than
a 999 call to put this fire out.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

(Sort of) Court Report
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 02:06 AM EDT
Most amusing. One additional point for those unfamiliar with
court procedure in the Commonwealth. If the respondent is
asked to lead by the bench, the judges think the
applicants/appellants have an almost unassailable case on
the papers that have been filed. It's rare in my experience.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

24hr and 48hr ruling is correct
Authored by: soronlin on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 09:07 AM EDT
Thanks, a most amusing read.

I note that it confirms what we had gleaned from the ambiguous media reports:
Apple have 24 hours to remove the offending notice and 48 hours to replace it
with something else.

I notice that they took probably 23 hours and fifty five minutes to comply with
the first part. Expect to see the replacement at precisely 10am GMT on Saturday.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

My takeaway form that:
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 09:59 AM EDT
If all the Apple fans hadn't made such a big deal about how Apple was "so
clever" in how it responded, then they might have gotten away with it!

Eat your crows indeed :)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )