or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

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
It was attributed to the court.   "Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges in a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) for posting a notice on its website that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”"   You think they wrapped those words in quotations just for fun?
 I'll correct some misconceptions for you.   -Apple never sued Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple. -The appeals court actually said they would not have even allowed Judge Biriss order for a public statement  to stand, other than because of the publicity generated by Biriss' statement that Samsung was not cool. They said that was the only reason the would allow the order for a public statement to stand.
Actually, the court did not say adding additional facts was not allowed. They ruled what the statement should include NOT what it should be in it's entirety. Apple didn't editorialize, they included factual statements, most of which came from the original judge.   And again, you seem to have a problem with the fact  that Apple added a link to their main page for their statement. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE ORDERED TO DO. How can that be a violation?
Have you even read the ruling from the appeal?   -They did not change the text of the apology. Actually, they was NO APOLOGY ORDERED. -They actually cut and pasted exactly  the text that was ordered -They put the link on their main page exactly as order by the appeals court. Again, read the ruling. The court ordered the link to appear on the main page. -The used the exactly font and size ordered -No apology was ordered. They were ordered to post the courts decision in...
The original Bloomberg report quotes the judges as saying Apple's notice included statements that were untrue and incorrect. That's plain English. Even someone without much of a grasp of the language could understand that,   http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html       Hence my question: why parts were untrue and incorrect.   Still waiting. (and please don't lecture me on not understanding the language when you...
Interesting. That actually demonstrates my point, As I have repeatedly asked: exactly what part of Apple statement was untrue?    The court did not say Apple could not add additional facts. They didn't even say Apple couldn't editorialize the statement, which the didn't do. They simply added additional facts, most of which were directly from the court record of judge Biriss' original ruling.   So, they posted what they were instructed to posted, how and where they were...
New Posts  All Forums: