or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's UK site says Samsung devices 'not as cool' in compliance with court ruling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's UK site says Samsung devices 'not as cool' in compliance with court ruling - Page 5

post #161 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Those observations notwithstanding, you are still misrepresenting why the judge required the announcement and what he wanted it to say, and, by extension, what Apple could or could not include in the announcement. Samsung sought two things:

 

(1) an injunction against Apple (or any of its agents) from suggesting that the Samsung products infringe on the registered community design in question, and 

 

(2) an order for dissemination of the decision by Apple.

 

Apple resisted the first, arguing that it restricted freedom of speech and represented a sinister attempt to restrain public discussion of verdicts, and resisted the second, saying that they were no longer asserting infringement so it was not necessary.

 

The judge denied (1), primarily because he agreed with Apple and found that it would interfere with free speech and unfairly restrain the right to disagree with a judgement. With a number of reservations, including the observation that similar claims were being heard elsewhere with varying outcomes, he found for Samsung on the order because he felt that Apple, by innuendo, were continuing to imply infringement.

 

Note that he was explicitly not suggesting that Apple did not have the right to disagree with the decision or make those comments, but that in view of their apparent continued disagreement he felt that the order to disseminate was reasonable. Now, considering the order itself, the requirement was, in both intent and wording, simply to disseminate that this particular court had found that Samsung had not infringed, not to state absolutely that Samsung had not infringed - a distinction clearly made by his comments on other jurisdictions.

 

Apple's announcement contained the following elements:

 

(1) a clear statement of this court's decision, exactly as required by the judge;

 

(2) some of the judge's comments in support of his ruling;

 

(3) the observation, also noted by the judge in his decision, that other courts had arrived at different conclusions.

 

The announcement did not include a statement that Apple disagreed with the ruling, even though the judge had made it clear in his decision that they were entitled to do so, and that he had denied Samsung's requested injunction in support of precisely that right.

 

In view of which, it would seem most unlikely that the judge would even be troubled by the way that Apple complied with his order, let alone view it as failing to comply. It is not surprising to read uninformed drivel from multiple posters about contempt of court, Apple's childish behavior etc. that inevitably drowns these kind of discussions, but you would do us a service if you did not try to legitimize their misconceptions.

Vindicated.

 

Apparently - although I would like to read the latest ruling. Did you actually disagree with my assessment - you did not say anything after I posted it? Having re-read the original order and the earlier appeal decision, I still cannot see where Apple failed to comply.

post #162 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Apparently - although I would like to read the latest ruling. Did you actually disagree with my assessment - you did not say anything after I posted it? Having re-read the original order and the earlier appeal decision, I still cannot see where Apple failed to comply.

I didn't reply as I agreed with your suggestion not to spread ammo. As far as the ruling I felt it could go either way. In the end I didn't think Apple really met the intent of the publish order, but less certain that the Appeals Court would order additional sanctions because of it.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #163 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Apparently - although I would like to read the latest ruling. Did you actually disagree with my assessment - you did not say anything after I posted it? Having re-read the original order and the earlier appeal decision, I still cannot see where Apple failed to comply.

I didn't reply as I agreed with your suggestion not to spread ammo. As far as the ruling I felt it could go either way. In the end I didn't think Apple really met the intent of the publish order, but less certain that the Appeals Court would order additional sanctions because of it.

 

Fair enough. This whole business about intent bothers me though. The law is not about intent. There is no requirement to interpret the law or the intent of the rulings of its agents. And in this case, the specific requirement of the court was not to publicize that there was no infringement, which Birss himself noted there was no unanimity on, but to publicize that this particular court had found there not to be infringement. That rather devalues the argument that the non-compliance was due to the statement that other courts had found otherwise.

post #164 of 167

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/23/13 at 6:06am
post #165 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Fair enough. This whole business about intent bothers me though. The law is not about intent.

Read law much?  For a wide range of offenses, intent make a big difference.  For example, intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder.

 

I agree - but I was specifically referring to compliance, so I'm not sure that's a good comparison. You are referring to the intent behind the commission of a criminal act, which may significantly affect the penalty. This is about the intent behind legal compliance with a court order and, in law, compliance either occurs or does not occur - intent is not an issue. Or, more accurately, at least not in my experience.

post #166 of 167

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/23/13 at 6:06am
post #167 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I agree - but I was specifically referring to compliance, so I'm not sure that's a good comparison. You are referring to the intent behind the commission of a criminal act, which may significantly affect the penalty. This is about the intent behind legal compliance with a court order and, in law, compliance either occurs or does not occur - intent is not an issue. Or, more accurately, at least not in my experience.

Try to pay any penalty a court requires in pennies and you'll get an earful about intent. ;)

 

Indeed. But I'm still not sure that you have failed to comply. I'm still waiting to see the detailed ruling to find out precisely what the court did not like. Samsung's complaint was that it contained inaccurate statements, but only claimed damage in that customers might think that the UK court was out of step, which suggests only by inference. I saw no inaccurate statements, but I have not yet seen the written decision.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's UK site says Samsung devices 'not as cool' in compliance with court ruling