or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

One could argue that the expectation was that the statement would contain only the text specified by the court, but one would have to argue that without any actual facts supporting that. Maybe I missed it (very possible) but I can find nothing in the ruling that supports the idea that Apple was not allowed to write the notice themselves and expect only to paste the suggested text.
They obeyed every aspect of the order against them. Nothing they added was factually inaccurate. In fact 3 of the added paragraphs contained only information from the UK court ruling itself. None of that seems disrespectful. Only the last paragraph is questionable at best and it is also factually accurate. Judges shouldn't feel disrespected by facts. Nor should they let personal feelings of disrespect lead them to making up their own facts, like accusing Apple of making...
Even with those statements in mind, Apple's notice did exactly what it was intended to do.     It was explicitly not intended to be an apology but a statement of fact meant to "dispel commercial uncertainty". The example they give is a company looking to purchase phones but might decide against Samsung because of uncertainty regarding the UK case.      Apple's statement very clearly stated the acknowledgement of the courts decision, posting it verbatim as the first...
Legally speaking, how were they wrong? It's easy to say they shouldn't have, but all they did was include factual statements most of which came from the original judge. They weren't instructed not to add anything. They were instructed to make the ruling public in order to clear the air.    If the judges feel Apple was wrong, fine, but back it up with factual reasons. Instead they claim Apple was wrong because the additional info they added was unrtue and incorrect. That...
So, apparently no a single person can come up with a single part of Apple's statement that was untrue and incorrect. No one person can provide evidence on how Apple was in breach.     I really an eager to read the actual details of this newest ruling. I want to understand the judges' reasoning here because so far nothing in the media reports is making any sense. Of course these are the same outlets that erroneously reported that Apple was order to apologize, which...
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html   Number 85   Font size is mentioned in #64, quoting the original ruling from Biriss. 11 was for the web, 14 was for the newspapers.   Exactly as ordered.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html   See #82      
Judges are human too and can make mistakes. Common sense seems to show these judges are acting out perhaps from a sense of personal insult which never happened.   Some are just soft headed.
For everyone saying Apple somehow disobeyed the court, broke rules, or included untrue statements, please at least read the ruling first. Don't make statements based in ignorance.   http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
New Posts  All Forums: