or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

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.
I didn't ask you why. I asked you did a German court find that they infringed. I suppose if you couldn't understand the question, you wouldn't be able to find the answer.   Since you tried so hard and couldn't find the answer, I will help you: yes, in fact a German court found that Samsung did infringe on Apple's design. That is a matter of fact. You may not like that fact. But it is a fact. You don't get to make up your own facts (seems to be something a few of you need...
Bullshit. The Düsseldorf is the German court authorized to make EU-wide community design decisions, exactly as the High Court is the UK's designated court for the same matters. Don't make up facts just because you don't have the facts. That's pathetic. It is also irrelevant to the statement of fact.   How were they playing with the facts? The fact is, a german court found Samsung infringed. Apple stated that a german court found that they infringed. That isn't playing...
Where did they editorialize? They added 4 paragraphs. Three directly referenced the UK decision and the judge's own words. The forth mentioned two other court decisions. Those are facts not opinion, thus not editorialized.
Another useless strawman. I guess if you have nothing of value to say, then attacking the person instead of the argument makes sense.
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?
New Posts  All Forums: