|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 05:39 PM EDT |
Which in some respects is interesting, because that's meant
someone has deliberately taken a different view on what is
required. Why have they taken that different view? If they
knew it was needed , then doesn't that mean they were wilful
with the web version?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 09:47 PM EDT |
I'm not sure of the time frames here.
How long in advance would it be necessary to submit the text to the Financial
Times?
Does that time frame predate the publication on the website or Samsung's
objection or the order subsequently issued by the court?
It seems to me that Apple likely anticipated the courts displeasure and
published a plain version in the print media but assumed that the electronic
version on Apple's website would be unnoticed by the troglodyte English courts.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|