Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
They have donned a target on themselves and pinned themselves to the wall.
Others have commented that either they have no awareness of EU and UK court
systems or they elected to thumb their noses at the courts. That's not a good
idea in the UK or elsewhere in Europe. I doubt the court will give them another
chance. From what has been reported the court seems to be flashing bright red
warning lights. Apple and its lawyers would be wise to notice and act as
instructed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
So then why did the Court order Apple to take their original statement down
and put up one that complied with the order, and give them such a short time to
do it? That doesn't sound like a Court that's seeing something that matches what
they ordered... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
Even now, Patently Apple persists in claiming that the original Apple statement
that other courts had found Samsung copied the iPad was true. It was never
true, and now the Court has said so.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 03:52 AM EDT |
From what I can tell, the court just wants Apple to post the results of the
ruling. That's all. No apologies, no excuse, nothing else. Just the plain
results, without any spin. Inform consumers of the judgement, and let them
interpret as they see fit. I'd assume they can add some addendum, but it has to
be CLEARLY noted and separate as addendum (possibly requiring it to be on a
separate page), so as not to confuse the public of what the results of the case
is about.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|