or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

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
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.
New Posts  All Forums: