or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

Two exact words are as exact as a full sentence. The full sentence provides context.
What Apple wrote was true. In no way was it untrue or incorrect. That's not parsing. It was a statement of fact. No parsing required.   No double standards on my part. I look at facts. They work better than fiction, fantasy, parsing and weaseling. 
While related in meaning, "inaccurate" and "misleading" are not the same words as "untrue" and "incorrect". A quote is meant to be exact. Otherwise it is paraphrasing. No doubt those are Carr's words. But the Bloomberg article quotes the court.
How can you know understand it is attributed to the court? "Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges for posting a notice on its website about a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”"   Otherwise they could have saved themselves the effort and just left off the quotes. There is only one subject in the sentence to which those quotes could be attributed.     But I guess it has come down to parsing and semantics. Always a...
I think the UK judges are buffoons because: 1) The order for the notice was ridiculous to begin with. Even the appeal court recognized that. 2) The order was punitive against Apple for having the gall to exercise their legal rights in Germany 3) because they subsequently supported the notice, even acknowledging it is flawed, because of the notoriety of a single comment from original buffoon. 4) because the supported the order for he notice, stating it was not intended to...
Are all references you don't agree with unsatisfactory? They clearly state, in the very first paragraph that they are referring to the UK judges. The quotation marks designates quotes from the subject, being the courts.   You mention you saw described as "non-compliant". I will guess you took that from the Guardian or a site that took from them. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement     Note the basically identical use of quotations in...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html    
They absolutely can find that there was infringement in that case. They cannot enforce their judgement in this instance but they can and did find infringement. The UK decision might legally override the German injunction, but that doesn't go back in time and change history such that the German court didn't decide what they did decide. The UK ruling make the German decision obsolete. It doesn't erase it from having happened. Unless the UK courts are using time traveling...
I ask simple questions which you guys don't seem to be able to answer, at least not with resorting to making up facts.   I'll answer your question: did Apple intend their notice to be a middle finger to the UK courts? maybe. And if the UK courts were convinced that it was, then say that and do something about it. It is unbecoming for them to instead make up reasons, like Apple making false statements, and then using that to claim breach. If they have to resort to make...
Maybe that is true. That is not what the court said. If you are correct, then the court should have said that. Did they? No. They instead claimed Apple posted false information, which is not true.  Maybe the judges are just softheaded and didn't realize that making up their own reasons is bad form, even for a UK judge.
New Posts  All Forums: