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
Link | 627 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Newspaper advertisement
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 08:05 AM EDT
I can't see why anyone else would publish such a thing, so I don't think there's
any reason to doubt that it's from Apple. But I think the judge might well not
be pleased that it does not identify itself as a statement from "the
horse's mouth".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Yes, it could be anybody
Authored by: pem on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 09:39 AM EDT
Even worse, Apple can't claim that they didn't understand the ad had to identify
itself as being from Apple.

They were told the message had to be from the horse's mouth after specifically
asking the court why Samsung couldn't correct the misconception itself...

I suppose they could try to claim they didn't connect those dots, but it would
seem a difficult proposition to claim that you didn't connect the dots while
simultaneously claiming that you're smart enough to be a barrister.

Time to get another bag of popcorn.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Link
Authored by: soronlin on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT
Here's an article with a picture of the advert.

I can't help thinking Apple is in so much trouble now. To not identify itself in the advert is as bad or worse than the messing about they did on the website.

[ 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 )