or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

I never claimed the could enforce it. The UK courts saw to that. Don't try a strawman on me please.   Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html     Found to infringe (twice), preliminary injunction, EU wide.   A german court found they infringed. Apple stated this. Completely correct and completely true.
Actually, I clearly stated that the UK decision was a final decision.  The German decision contradicts the UK decision, but the UK was a final.    But the German decision was EU wide.
Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?
Did the german courts find that Samsung infringed? Did their higher court uphold that decision? Is this exactly what Apple stated? It is a factually correct statement to say "a German court found that Samsung infringed upon Apple's design". 100% factual.
Sure about that? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html           So, we are at a point where the UK made an EU wide decision and subsequently the German courts made a contradictory EU wide decision followed by a UK appellate court decision that was also binding EU wide. While the final decision by the UK appellate court might override the latest German decision, that...
Actually the German case they mentioned has reached trial and Samsung was found to have infringed on Apple's design in 2011. It was upheld by their higher court in Sept 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-21/apple-loses-german-court-ruling-against-samsung-in-patent-suit.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html   The cases you are referring to are patent case...
"propose" != "order". The original order included what should be posted, which differed slightly from what Judge Jacob proposed.  Biriss' order stated "The following notice shall be posted" and detailed what the notice would contain. The appeal ruling order the notice to be posted but only made a proposal as to what it should include (which added the details that it was upheld on appeal and was Europe wide). It was not ordered to contain exactly that information.   In...
If the court felt they were being disrespected (and perhaps they were) then they should have said so and explained how and why. Instead, all they said was that Apple was in breach because they posted false information (untrue and incorrect actually). I will throw it back to you, use some common sense and explain what part of their notice was factually untrue and incorrect. Because if it wasn't then the court used bad reasoning to reach their conclusion for clarification....
      In other words you completely made up the part about the ruling saying nothing more and nothing less. They were instructed what the notice had to included. These instructions said nothing about that having to be the entirety of the posting. One can assume the judge meant nothing more, but that would be an assumption.
New Posts  All Forums: