or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by reefoid

OK, more smoke and mirrors.     And were ruled against each time.  Seriously, take the hint.   I didn't mention  anything against Apple using words about iPad ANYWHERE on their site, which is what you stated.  I talked about the extra paragraphs they added in their statement on ONE page..  At no point did I mention the iPad, which is what you implied.  Smoke and mirrors, round and round we go.  I'm outta here.
As usual TS, your arguments are full of smoke and mirrors.   Clearly the court did have a right to prevent Apple posting inaccurate stuff (yes, yes, I know you don't agree it was inaccurate), because the court told them to republish and Apple did.  If the court had no right, why didn't Apple go back to court and tell the judge where he went wrong with his ruling?   Not sure what you mean by your last paragraph.  Where have I argued anything about Apple using words about...
  On what planet is a statement containing 360 words the EXACT same words as one containing 105 words?   Oh, I see, you mean the court mandated text.  So you're conveniently forgetting the extra stuff they added to the original statement which is the WHOLE REASON they had to republish.   Jeez, your Apple blindness knows no bounds.
  False.  Apple made the following company statement outside of court after the initial judgement ruled Samsung did not infringe:  
Looks like the fat lady has sung.
  Which part of "Subject to anything that may be submitted" did Apple not understand?  Seems pretty obvious to me.   And with that one statement you've killed off what little credibility you had in this thread. Do you seriously think you know more about English law than an English judge?
  What about the fact the German case they mentioned hasn't reached trial yet but they implied the German court had made a final decision?    Or bringing the US case into it where the Tab was actually found to not have infringed?   Apple's original statement implied that the UK decision was contrary to both of those decisons when it fact it wasn't.
  Judge's comment:       Which part of:   "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:"   do you not understand?   If Apple wanted to add more to the statement, they should have submitted a request to the judge.  They didn't. Therefore they got slapped down.   The fact that Apple have printed a statement in today's papers in full compliance with the court goes to show they knew exactly what needed to be done.  They tried to push...
Original statement is now gone from the Apple UK site.  At least Apple have managed to comply with the court in that regard.  24 hours left to get the revised statement up, unless Tim fancies explaining himself to the court.
  The xenophobia in this thread is strong.
New Posts  All Forums: