Posts by Crowley

Quote: Originally Posted by Tulkas  But I guess it has come down to parsing and semantics. Always a sure sign you've got nothing.  "But what Apple wrote was true" isn't an attempt at a semantic...

Quote: Originally Posted by Tulkas   A quote is meant to be exact.     Fantastic.  Two words, devoid of any context, in separate quotation marks are entirely valid examples as the...

Find me a proper attributed quote and we can argue the point.  Until then, it's just a couple of words in a sentence.   Besides which, I think it's been quite clearly established that Apple's claim that a German court had...

Quote: Originally Posted 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...

Quote: Originally Posted by Tulkas  Note the basically identical use of quotations in the first sentence. Even though they don't hold your hand and explicitly clarify who exactly said those words, the sentence is...

That is an unsatisfactory reference; it's not clear who is saying that, or what it refers to.  Hardly just cause for criticising the entire legal process and integrity of the judges.     Better luck next time.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tulkas  I ask simple questions which you guys don't seem to be able to answer...   It is unbecoming for them to instead make up reasons, like Apple making false statements,...

Quote: Originally Posted by Tallest Skil    They've been doing it for years.   No they haven't.  Trading Standards don't interfere with subjective superlatives, only factual claims,...

Where did the court claim Apple provided false information?

But it isn't relevant and affects the context of the court ordered statement.  It's wilfully clouding the intent.  That's the problem, and that's why they're in trouble.