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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Apple is now in the firing line | 627 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple is now in the firing line
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 | # ]

These guys over at Patently Apple aren't too bright...
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 | # ]

These guys over at Patently Apple aren't too bright...
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 | # ]

These guys over at Patently Apple aren't too bright...
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 | # ]

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 )