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
Quite right, and exactly in the form of the print correction | 627 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Quite right, and exactly in the form of the print correction
Authored by: Tolerance on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 09:26 AM EDT
Absolutely I was wrong, and rarely have I been so happy about it!

I notice the corrected report linked from the main page is exactly the wording used in the printed media too. That is exactly in the terms suggested by the appeal court judges:
"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given]. That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on .. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link []. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe."

---
Grumpy old man

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

'Fraid not.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 10:16 AM EDT
Where is the 'we were not true' statement? The press stuff I've seen looks like
an anonymous hack's end of page stuff. I doubt that's going to satisfy the court
and Apple have had their chance.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apparently not
Authored by: Tolerance on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 04:17 AM EST
My earlier agreement was premature. It looks as though Apple
have indeed been a cleverboots, by reformatting their home
page so you don't see the link without actively scrolling
down!

Yes, it's bad. Honestly, though, in some ways you just have
to admire them. What's the word? Chutzpah?

---
Grumpy old man

[ 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 )