|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
If it says the same thing as the web site it could be very interesting.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
The printed version (at least the version on page 4 of the FT) is just the two
paragraphs they were required to publish. One about the original ruling and the
other about the appeal. No added stuff.
So basically, what they should have done on the website in the first place.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 03:52 AM EST |
They've run the advert again this week, but there's a
significant
difference. Last week's advert could have been
posted by anyone, nowhere on it
did it mention Apple as the
source. This week there is a new sentence at the
foot of the
advert "A notice issued by Apple Inc. pursuant to court
ruling"
Finally, I think they've actually managed to do what the
court
asked for in the first place. I wonder whether the
judge has nudged them
further after the first 'anonymised'
set of adverts or if they just realised
the oversight and
corrected it spontaneously.
I uploaded a photo of
the revised advert for comparison
with the previous one. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|