Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 04:56 AM EDT |
Used to dealing with the US and no real awareness of the EU court system. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
In what way? The judge gave them the wording and the size of text, fairly
directly. By not simply complying they are clearly in contempt, if that contempt
is gross enough for the court to stamp on them is for the court itself to
decide.
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 08:17 AM EDT |
The original order was for the short/succinct statement
(supplied by the court) to go on the Apple home page, but
Apple argued on appeal that it would "clutter" (their words)
it. The appeals court decided that it would be Ok to just
have a link on home page. However, Apple decided to use the
extra space on a new page to add their own spin and
commentary. It seems to me that they had a deliberate ploy
to get it off their home page so they could add their own
spin. Risky.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
Too vague?
The the order was clear. The reason behind it was well understood. The parties
had just spent quite a bit of effort on their cases, it's not as if they were
given the order with no context.
It's impossible for the judge to specific every detail. They need to rely on
the good faith efforts of the parties, or at least the parties attorneys, to not
deliberately twist an order.
Posting a modified notice that was at best confusing, and could be read as
stating the opposite of the order was not misunderstanding a "vague"
order. Using "pixel" instead of "point" sizes could have
been passed off as a technical mistake. But when combined with a scaling image
that always pushed the link off the displayed screen and the modified text,
there is a pattern.
"Technically this wasn't precluded by the exact wording of the order"
and "those are trivially small violations of the wording" are hard to
reconcile.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 11:51 AM EDT |
Some people will deliberately look for and find vagueness in anything even
though they know exactly what the situation is about.
Sometimes all
doesn't mean all!
I don't think the order was vague at
all.
- Apple knew of their public campaign.
- Said public campaign
was deliberately selected in order to harm Samsung. For example - Apple
deliberately going to the distributors and telling them (allegedly wrongfully)
that the order preventing Samsung from bringing new devices in also prevented
the distributors from clearing their stock.
- Said public campaign was
specifically built on Apple's Court Claims.
- Said Court Claims were
specifically dealt with by the various Courts.
- Said UK Court handling
such an instance recognized the public harm caused by Apple.
- Said Judge
clearly outlined the problem and Apple's deliberate harm.
- Said Judge
clearly outlined the fact that Samsung is Legally cleared of wrongful
behavior.
- Said Judge clearly outlined the harm to Samsung needed to be
corrected.
- Said Judge clearly outlined Apple had to publicly clear
Samsung's name of "wrongful doing".
And you're saying all the above is
somehow vague?
I put forth: it's only vague if you're a child looking to
continue to pick on your younger brother even when your mother has clearly told
you to stop!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|