or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

Browett was obviously not going to last. He was a mistake and no one could really deny that. I think Forstall must have been a more complicated matter. He was reputed to see himself as Jobs protege but without Jobs charisma. Talented and egotistical and not afraid to step on those below and stab those beside and ahead. But without the ability to inspire that sort of personality without a Jobs to keep him in check is going to bump heads with everyone.
I've read people that justify the public shaming aspect of the order with "well, Apple sued, they lost, so they should have to acknowledge that". Except Apple didn't sue. In this case, it was Samsung that initiate the lawsuit. They won. Good for them. It then just becomes petty for the judge to require a public shaming. His decision might be valid (debatable) but his order is just nonsensical. 
Did the order say they had to say they were wrong?   If all the order said was they had to post the court decision, they have done so. Beyond that, what else do you want? You say nothing, but only because you assume more was asked. Maybe that is the case. Show me. Otherwise, my question stands, beyond what they did, anything else you would like is 'more'.   Apple has a lot of lawyers on their payroll. I am pretty sure them ensured the met every part of the order. So,...
The judge made a fool of himself by writing such a petty, childish order. He needed no help from Apple.
I am a parent. Do you think the courts can somehow impose sincerity? The bully could say say "I am soooo sorry Tommy for calling you a liar. You aren't a liar at all. I mean it". Would that be more sincere?   First of all, has anyone read the order itself? Did it order a warm, heartfelt and sincere apology, maybe with gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes? Or did it order that Apple post a notice of the UK court decision that Samsung didn't copy? If the latter, then...
It's not libel if it is 100% true and provable. They mentioned that other courts have decided differently. 100% factual. Therefore not libelous. 
In your taxes comparison, it would actually be more like someone getting away with paying exactly what they are legally required to pay.    I really don't see why people are getting bent about Apple following the order. Did you expect them to get down on the knees and wail an apology? They were order to publish a notice with specific requirements. They did so. Wanting anything more is simply being childish.
No more childish than a petty requirement for them to post the notices to begin with. It was a petty order and it deserves a petty implementation.
There is a reason the Samsung and HTC chose the UK to sue Apple. Their judges seem to be clowns. In what other country could Samsung sue Apple, win and then demand an apology from Apple for Samsung suing them?     Does anyone have a copy of the court order? I've read the decision but have not found the order online. I would be interested in exactly what was ordered. Was it an order to apologize or an order to publish a notice of the court ruling? 
Nice how they repeatedly embedded the words "copied" and "infringed" in their post.     I would like this for the print ads:     "While many have have accused Samsung of copying their products over the years, according to the UK courts, they have not copied us. We are so sorry for thinking they did. How could we have been so confused? Not sure what we were thinking" "Not copied at all" Again, so sorry Samsung for thinking you copied. Obviously we...
New Posts  All Forums: