or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by reefoid

Wrong on two counts.   First, Apple didn't file the lawsuit, Samsung filed for clarification on whether they infringed on Apple's registered design.   Second, the whole reason Apple had to post the statement on their website is because they made the following statement after Samsung were ruled to have not infringed:   Too many people here don't understand what they are talking about, which is amazing considering how much this has been debated on these and other forums.
  You do know that will be a pretty short list of.......one country!!!   Australia - Preliminary injunction granted for Apple, but this has since been overturned and the final trial has yet to happen. Germany - Registered design case originally went in Apple's favour, but this has been superseded by the UK case so that judgement is no longer valid.  With regards to touchscreen patents, the court ruled against Apple. Japan - Ruled that Samsung did not infringe, other...
Talking of blatant lies:   OK, I'm back because your now providing some funny entertainment.   My quote:       Your response:       Like I say, smoke and mirrors.  Keep going TS, you're making me smile
  Yeah, nice try, but no.  I'm out of here because when all you have left is to put words into my mouth, its a sure sign your argument is destroyed.   Laters.
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?
New Posts  All Forums: