|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:17 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "upheld" link broken - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT
- iPad NOT iPhone - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT
- Legal - Did Samsumg/Appeal Court agree the wording? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- Apple did not provide you with a link -> they have, now - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- noting the update in the article title - Authored by: IANALitj on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 01:24 AM EDT
- s/coicidence/coincidence NT - Authored by: RichardB on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT
- that they'd they'd - Authored by: jbb on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT
- Newspick truncated? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 03:34 AM EDT
- Motorola v MS - Authored by: Tufty on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 10:41 PM EDT
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Canada - Supreme Court's Common Sense Cans Conviction - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:14 PM EDT
- "open and hackable" android tablet - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 06:40 PM EDT
- United States Copyright Office: Ripping is Illegal - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 10:24 PM EDT
- WRONG - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- H-1B visa abuse limits wages and steals US jobs By Robert X. Cringely - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 02:37 AM EDT
- OT here (sort of ) - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 04:05 AM EDT
- New Scientist defends Italy against Earthquake FUD - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 04:43 AM EDT
- Canada - The True North Strong and Free! - Until it comes to free speach? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
- Unusual lawsuits - Man sues wife for being ugly and wins lawsuit - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 01:22 PM EDT
- Do you, or did you, live in South Carolina? - Authored by: Jamis on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 06:07 PM EDT
- Grrrr... Why!?!? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 12:44 AM EDT
- Echostar vs NDS - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 11:25 PM EDT
- Echostar vs NDS - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 03:23 PM EDT
- Faulkner estate claims that quoting his novels in films is both a trademark and © infringement - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 01:59 AM EDT
- Windows 8 ads ignore enterprise - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 02:31 AM EDT
- Prior art found invalidating Apples patent on rectangles and rounded corners. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 09:10 AM EDT
- Mesopotamian? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT
- EFF Wins Renewal of Smartphone Jailbreaking Rights Plus New Legal Protections for Video Remixing - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 10:47 AM EDT
- iPhone 5 commercials - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 10:56 AM EDT
- are we really leaving links to questionable zip files here now? - Authored by: sumzero on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- Poll: Scant demand for Microsoft's Windows 8 - Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 02:05 PM EDT
- Lawyer fodder - Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- Why First to File won't work - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 11:18 PM EDT
- OT here - Authored by: eric76 on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 05:55 AM EDT
- Microsoft fumbles the ball with Surface preorders - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT
- Please comment on Microsoft TypeScript open source technology - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Man Claiming Facebook Ownership Arrested on Fraud Charges - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:17 PM EDT
- Ah, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 07:34 PM EDT
- Ah, but... - Authored by: RichardB on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 06:34 AM EDT
- You mean... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- Statement of the Librarian of Congress - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT
- US: Slow legal proceedings are Megaupload's fault, don't unfreeze assets - Authored by: jbb on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 11:28 PM EDT
- Microsoft annoys developers with Windows Phone 8 secrecy - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 01:12 AM EDT
- Steve Jobs' Yacht, 'Venus,' Sets Sail - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 01:34 AM EDT
- Steve Jobs' Yacht, 'Venus,' Sets Sail - Authored by: dio gratia on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 05:39 AM EDT
- Who boy, he woudna a liked that video: - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 06:44 AM EDT
- Steve Jobs' Yacht, 'Venus,' Sets Sail - Authored by: Chromatix on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 08:48 AM EDT
- Steve Jobs' Yacht, 'Venus,' Sets Sail - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 09:11 AM EDT
- Steve Jobs' Yacht, 'Venus,' Sets Sail - Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 09:13 AM EDT
- Steve Jobs' Yacht, 'Venus,' Sets Sail - Authored by: stegu on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 09:59 AM EDT
- My curious question is: - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 10:02 AM EDT
- Steve Jobs' Yacht, 'Venus,' Sets Sail - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- I'm sure it looks great on the inside - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT
- Steve Jobs' Yacht, 'Venus,' Sets Sail - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- "Climate change" chicken little stories now? Really? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 03:42 AM EDT
- Microsoft’s Pivot — A Plan to Dominate “Devices and Services” - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT
|
Authored by: tknarr on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
I can hear the response my Mom would've given if I'd done this as a kid: "I
told you to apologize. Saying I told you to apologize is not the same
thing as apologizing. Since you want to be that way, go out and get me a lilac
switch.". Offering to go back and apologize at that point wouldn't save you,
you'd made your choice about how you were going to handle it and now you
would suffer the consequences of that choice. We kids quickly learned
that of all the options, playing word games with Mom was never a good
one. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
As the judge in the UK court case said the case in Germany,
quoted by apple, should not have taken place. This is because
the case in the UK had already started and any result there
would be applicable across europe.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
I thought the US jury found the design of the iPad was not copied. Isn't
Apple's statement wrong:
"A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and
utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc.
So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other
courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung
willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
PJ I suggest we go further and just grab our apple devices
and create a bonfire and throw all Apple products on the
bonfire..
Signed Fred Grott
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
Is Apple complying with the court's order?
And if they aren't will the court force them to comply?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:51 PM EDT |
Is this pushing things far enough to provoke a response from the court?
I am not a lawyer but I think courts have a very wide discretion on contempt of
court in the UK and very wide powers including imprisonment and unlimited fines.
It seems extremely foolish to put this sort of notice up both in reputational
terms and in legal terms. If Apple's lawyers have judged it correctly their may
be no immediate come back but if there is any similar future case then this will
certainly be drawn to the judges attention when deciding remedies.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Shadow Wrought on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
PJ-
I spent several years as a litigation paralegal in the Bay Area working on
intellectual property matters for high tech businesses. While I can certainly
understand laying the balme for this as listening to the lawyers, my
experience would indicate the opposite.
Lawyers are obligated to give their clients the best legal advice they can,
but they cannot always prevent their clients from doing something stupid. I
know because I watched, and I also witnessed the lengthes to which the
attorneys attempted to protect the clients from their own poor decisions.
If you look at Apple you will see, I believe, a culture of arrogance, control,
and secrecy. When has Apple ever admitted they were wrong?
This kis not to say that there are not law firms out there giving poor advice,
but I think an honest look at Apple's culture and decisions over the last
decade would seem to indicate that this is all on them.
---
"It's a summons." "What's a summons?" "It means summon's in trouble." -- Rocky
and Bullwinkle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:00 PM EDT |
It's actions like these which make me look at the Apple brand with disgust.
I was actually considering buying an Apple tablet, but this is not the kind of
company I want to support.
Probably Asus or Samsung will get my business. Anxiously waiting for October 29
(for the possible Nexus 10, 3G Nexus 7 revelations and price cuts for existing
Android tablets)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
Excercising contempt against a ruling where you've already appealed - and lost. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
But the fact that Apple have posted this means, I assume, that
they are not going to appeal to a higher court. As such does
this make the UK case the first legal battle between Apple and
Samsung where we have reached the end of the judicial process?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
I mean, he should have put forth a one or two paragraph detail of what he'd like
Apple to publish.
After this, he should have gone further to say that nothing should be added to
this detail, save for the litigants, the date litigation started, the date of
judgment and appeal and nothing more...not even on any subsequent pages or media
outlets, in order to preserve the "spirit of the judgment."
How about that?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT |
Is this not a clear case of what we here call contempt of
court ?
Here in the U.K. we are famous for our Libel laws (in the
same way the US is famous for it's patent law :-)) if I was
Samsung I would be looking at these laws to see if they can
be used to negate any advantage Apple my gain through what
seems to be failing US Patent law.
And in Korea I would look at getting the government to make
a complaint to the W.T.O.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChrixOne on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
" it's not all right with me for a corporation to publicly show disrespect
to a court of law, "
It is with me. That's because it is the legal system itself that encourages this
kind of empty, predatory litigation. The legislatures and executive
bureaucracies are for sale, and both Europe and the U.S. get the kind of law
they deserve. If one is part of what amounts to a criminal shake-down scheme one
must expect to catch a little mud every now and then from your disappointed
clients.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
Well almost. Microsoft has an entrenched monopoly. Apple has a monopoly in
tablets at the moment, and still a lead in smartphones IIRC, but they are hardly
entrenched. Not like MS was entrenched in business. Which makes this all the
more stupid. It's like scoring a touchdown in the last five minutes of the game
when you are losing 42-0 and gloating about it.
It is the same behavior that Microsoft used to engage in that got TPJackson to
rule they should be broken up. I doubt Apple wiil be broken up, but I's sure the
judge will find some way to inflict just as much pain.
Mouse the Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:59 PM EDT |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/samsung_q3_2012/
Samsung seem to be doing alright.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
Surely they have to recognise that Apple have not complied
with the letter (and certainly not the spirit) of the order
the court has made.
There is nothing about the statement that would correct the
misapprehension that Samsung have copied, indeed quite the
reverse.
If it's contempt of court for a company, who ends up in
prison?
- Stevos[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
The headline:
<blockquote>Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool
Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj</blockquote>
clearly shows PJ's bias in this instance.
The ruling did not, in any way shape or form, ask for an apology to Samsung. It
asked for an *acknowledgement* of the ruling.
In fact, the first paragraph, and the paragraph following the quotes from the
original ruling, are *exactly* what the judge specifically required Apple to
publish.
If you're going to call someone out, you should be certain that they've actually
done what you're accusing them of.
This is especially true of your claim that they didn't include the required
link, which you should have known was false, because it's there (plain as day)
in the block quote where you show the full text of what Apple published.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT
- Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT
- Outside their jurisdiction - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- Ha Ha - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- Ha Ha - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:20 PM EDT
- Ha Ha - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT
- Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT
- Localization - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 03:49 AM EDT
- Localization - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- Localization - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
The headline:
Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not
Cool
Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
clearly shows PJ's bias in
this instance.
The ruling did not, in any way shape or form, ask for an apology
to Samsung. It
asked for an *acknowledgement* of the ruling.
In fact, the first
paragraph, and the paragraph following the quotes from the
original ruling, are
*exactly* what the judge specifically required Apple to
publish.
If you're
going to call someone out, you should be certain that they've actually
done what
you're accusing them of.
This is especially true of your claim that they didn't
include the required
link, which you should have known was false, because it's
there (plain as day)
in the block quote where you show the full text of what
Apple published.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rps on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
It's interesting from a historical perspective as well as educational to watch
as Groklaw chronicles the downward spiral and eventual self-inflicted demise of
Apple Inc. No doubt there will be wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth as it
were as this process unfolds. Oh how the mighty have fallen.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
Apple could change it's name to Arrogant and be even easier
to recognize! Everyone will want to own an
imbetterthanyouphone. The new phone will have a camera that
always looks down at everyone.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
When different district courts come to different decisions, the next step is to
petition the Supreme Court.
Given this you would think next stop for this is it should go to the World Court
(I know that this isn't what the world court normally does, but if Apple can try
to create new precedents, then why not Samsung)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
The World Press Seems to Agree With PJ
Apple Posts 'Apology' to Samsung
on U.K. Website... Well, sort of. pcmag.com
Apple Issues Samsung Snarky Apology Letter On Its U.K. Website
huffpost.com
Leave it to
Apple to transform a court-ordered apology into a rival-skewering piece of
advertising. allthingsd
Apple acknowledges Samsung
UK patent loss in unapologetic advert telegraph.co.uk
The Register's headline violates GL's posting rules, but the
article text is quite moderate.
theregister.co.uk
Apple Posts Cheeky Non-Apology to Samsung in the
UK Forbes
APPLE: 'Dear Samsung, sorry
you're not as cool
heraldsun.com.au
Apple's 'apology' to Samsung is a hoot tgdaily.com
Just go to google-news and search
apple samsung for more "Apple ... insults Samsung in apology", "Apple Posts
Backhanded Apology", "spiteful non-apology", "Hilariously
Backhanded
Concession", "arm-twisted mea culpa", and on and on ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
Comment on the register:
"Rattled
Well at least you can tell from reading it that the order really rattled them
and they have put it up through gritted teeth.
It's nice to think that they are actually having a bit of a tantrum about it.
In reality it doesn't matter how many people actually see it, I think it's good
enough to know that Apple had to do it and hated doing it (and also many layers
of management were involved in hating it)"
----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/apple_apologises_sort_of/
NSFW headline warning :-)
---
APPLE: [censored] YOU, BRITS, everyone else says Samsung copied us
But we will apologise because the judge said we had to
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
;-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
To take my Cindy Lou Who quote a step further:
Imagine:
Take the
scene where the Grinch gets all excited and Cindy Lou suggests he needs a time
out
Replace the Grinch with the Apple Mascot
Have the Mascot
say something like "We've been told to say Samsung did not infringe but we still
say Samsung did!" - quite energetically of course with the pause for breath to
match the Grinch.
Don't change a thing about Ciny Lou's response about
the time out.
Post it on Youtube!
Value: Priceless!
IANAL,
but I'd think such would fall into the fair use provisioning of Copyright
Law.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GriffMG on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:29 PM EDT |
ask them a few questions and tell them to print 'exactly this...' or I will hold
you in comtempt - for which the fine is unlimited.
'did I make myself clear?'
---
Keep B-) ing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
Perhaps I've missed something, but everyone is talking about how the
court might react. What about ordinary people? I'm sure the Apple fanboys
are delighted, but everyone else will see this as Apple acting like a 4 year
old and be disgusted. I predict this will cost Apple more than any judgement
the court might impose.
(Written on my iPhone while I wait for the Samsung Chromebook I just
ordered to arrive.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 06:32 PM EDT |
“It's all over the Internet, and you wouldn't be human if you didn't find
Apple's
disdainful "compliance" with the UK order graceless and
unattractive.”
Wouldn’t be human because I disagree with you? Because I found the court’s
order graceless and unattractive? Because I think that Apple’s solution to this
disdainful “court order” is actually pretty funny, and I’m not so invested in
either
a foreign court or local corporation that I would feel guilt just pulling my
laptop
out of my bag in public?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TJ on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
The UK judge is requiring
them to post a statement that would have
effects outside the UK.
And it does. The Judge was sitting in
his role as a European Community Design Judge and at issue was Apple's assertion
that their European Community Design right had been infringed.
This
judgement is also superior to the the recent local German court's
finding.
A registered Community design is a monopoly right for
the appearance of the whole or part of a product resulting from the features of,
in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and materials of the
product or its ornamentation. Applications are filed at the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM). Approved Community designs cover
all 25 member states of the European Union.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 10:57 AM EDT
- Have you read up in full? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 03:11 PM EDT
|
Authored by: IANALitj on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 01:41 AM EDT |
I have (with PJ's help) found the notice on the Apple web site.
I do not now see the notice in the Apple site map. It is neither listed in the
extensive list of the contents of the site, nor -- as with the Site Map itself
and a few other items on the next to last line, and the "Terms of Use"
and a few additional items on the very last line -- as links at the bottom of
the Site Map page.
The purpose of the site map is just this sort of search. Putting something on
the web site but omitting it from the site map arguably amounts to hiding it.
If this state of affairs continues (and in a sense, Apple is on notice of this
lapse from the time this post becomes public) I would think that this might be
just one more element for Samsung to bring to the attention of the judge
considering a contempt charge in due course. (It will be interesting to see who
would be charged. If there is a contempt proceeding, it will be interesting in
many other respects as well.)
I hope that Samsung (and its counsel) read Groklaw. It would not surprise me if
neither Apple nor its counsel do.
The disclaimer in my username applies to the British courts as well as to my
present location.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 05:55 AM EDT |
Although I think the English libel laws should be reformed and there is a bill
going through Parliament to do that, the current law still applies until it has
been passed.
Under the current law (and there's nothing in the new bill to change that) the
onus of proof is clearly on the Defendant.
So if Samsung sued Apple would have to prove that Samsung "wilfully
copied" their tablet, Samsung wouldn't have to prove they didn't (although
Judge Birss' opinion would help).
And - although this is going to be changed in the Defamation Bill - it would be
before a jury. Alas in the UK it is contempt to interview jury members so we
wouldn't have that excitement.
I think Apple will live to regret their action in a very big way.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Libel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- Libel? - Authored by: soronlin on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 05:52 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
Which part of "German unfair competition law" did Samsung break to
cause the injunction?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
Apple followed the court order.
And it told the truth.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple followed the court order - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 09:31 PM EDT
- No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 12:32 AM EDT
- No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 06:19 AM EDT
- Actually... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 02:51 PM EDT
- Actually... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT
- No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT
- Nonfunctional requirements - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 07:20 AM EDT
- No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- Apple followed the court order -- or not - Authored by: IANALitj on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 01:55 AM EDT
- Apple followed the court order - Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- Apple failed to comply - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 11:36 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jcbarlow on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 02:19 AM EDT |
Apple's arrogance will be rewarded appropriately. See this analysis on semiaccurate.com [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
"That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by
the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012."
"However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court
found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad
design."
Perhaps more problems with Apple Maps? ;-)
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: HenchmenResource on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 01:20 PM EDT |
Perhaps I missed something but reading the order listed in
the second paragraph
(for reference here it
is again) the court ordered that the
notice needed to be placed on multiple
regional versions of
Apple's website including the German and French sites. I
selected a handful of the other sites and the notice only
seems to appear on
the UK site. Did I miss something and
that part of the order was changed to
only apply to the UK
site? I guess it could be taking Apple some time to get it
translated, especially if they are reluctant to use Google
Translate (couldn't
resist), but it appears to me that they
are defying the order by not placing a
link to the notice on
the other sites in the order. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT |
Perhaps, instead of getting into the whole free speech and
"advertising for your competitor" issues, the judge should
have just decided: Apple, you wronged Samsung with this
lawsuit and your public statements. My job is to make whole
the wronged party. Therefore, you are ordered to compensate
Samsung for the damage to their reputation and brand. US$2.0
Billion aught to do it. Payable net 10 days or interest
accrues 1%/month, compounded. Have a nice day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
In addition to slapping Apple with contempt, the judge should write the precise
wording he wants Apple to publish. That exact wording should be in black on a
white background, in a large non-decorative font, and be the only thing to
appear on Apple's home page apart from a "proceed to the rest of the
site" link at the bottom in a small font - a similar size and position to
the link they currently use for the apology.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 07:48 PM EDT |
Apple has proven their striking originality by introducing
a 7" tablet. Nobody else thought of such a form factor in
the entire history of civilization. If anybody else does
introduce such a product, Apple will sue the copycat in
Cupertino, and surely deserves to win. After all, Apple
is just protecting its intellectual property.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|