or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad - Page 8

post #281 of 446
1wink.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

In other words, you agree that I lost.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #282 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

This latest ruling is the result of Samsung seeking clarification.

Apple has every right to seek clarification regarding Samsung's latest action and reserve the right to question the courts motives based on this request from Samsung.

They have every right to present a written submission as was laid out in the original appeal ruling.

Just as Apple has every right to appeal this latest ruling.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #283 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Just as Apple has every right to appeal this latest ruling.

I believe their only remaining option for appeal is to the European Court of Justice, the equivalent of the US Supreme Court.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #284 of 446
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
I believe their only remaining option for appeal is to the European Court of Justice, the equivalent of the US Supreme Court.


He's changing the ruling on a whim, and after Apple complied with the old one. The counter ticks back down to zero, yeah? 

 

Also in before "the court is stuffed with Germans; they're in Apple's pocket!"

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #285 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


He's changing the ruling on a whim, and after Apple complied with the old one. The counter ticks back down to zero, yeah? 

 

Also in before "the court is stuffed with Germans; they're in Apple's pocket!"

Each country only gets one judge in that court, which makes for 27 I think. Could be wrong on the exact number.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #286 of 446
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
Each country only gets one judge in that court, which makes for 27 I think. Could be wrong on the exact number.

 

Oh, that won't stop them.

 

"The court is stuffed with Germanic languages! They're in Apple's pocket!"

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #287 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I believe their only remaining option for appeal is to the European Court of Justice, the equivalent of the US Supreme Court.

 

The ECJ is the highest court for questions of EU law. This case is under British law, not EU law. The ECJ is irrelevant in this case, unless Apple wants to argue that Britain's decision violates EU law.

 

The relevant highest court for this case is...the Supreme Court. It has existed only since 2009. Before that it would've made sense to talk about the Privy Council.

 

I realize we're (almost) all Apple cheerleaders here, but if I were Apple I'd simply issue the bare-bones statement the judge originally had in mind, without trying to turn him into an involuntary ad subject. That's what ticked him off. 

post #288 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

 

The ECJ is the highest court for questions of EU law. This case is under British law, not EU law. The ECJ is irrelevant in this case, unless Apple wants to argue that Britain's decision violates EU law.

 

The relevant highest court for this case is...the Supreme Court. It has existed only since 2009. Before that it would've made sense to talk about the Privy Council.

 

I realize we're (almost) all Apple cheerleaders here, but if I were Apple I'd simply issue the bare-bones statement the judge originally had in mind, without trying to turn him into an involuntary ad subject. That's what ticked him off. 

 

So Apple are within their rights to continue their actions in Germany?

 

I suggest you refer to the reference to "community court" made within the ruling and these appeals.

 

The idiotic UK judges can't have their cake and eat it too.

 

One more thing, the ruling also forced Apple to provide links to the rulings, which include the "coolness" remarks among other things.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #289 of 446

The United Kingdom is old money... and this is an old money judge.  Old money however, in interesting times - these times, gets you only so far.  It doesn't give you wisdom for the age we're now entering.  Clearly, Samesung copied the iPad and the iPhone to within an inch of the obvious even to the likes of this ... judge.  Of this there is no question.  Deniers will deny but denials don't obviate the truth.

 

There are very clearly companies in the UK that are new age businesses (http://www.reactionengines.co.uk - one of my favourites) and in such enterprises there is a great deal of hope.  Making ... judgements against the world's preeminent company though serves only to dampen enthusiasm.

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #290 of 446
Originally Posted by period View Post
My understanding is that it was Apple who initiated the legal case against Samsung saying that it copied iPad, not the other way around.

 

Everything I've read says that's not the case.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #291 of 446
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post
Did you guys really thought that this Apple escapade will fly?

 

Yeah, we figured doing exactly what the court said would work. How silly of us to not expect a judge to renege on, you know, law.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #292 of 446
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post

You can figure what ever and how ever you please but even you knew what will happen. 1wink.gif

 

Yes, again, I'm sure we all apologize for thinking the judge would obey the law, particularly when Apple had.

 

I'm sure we won't make that mistake again—about the UK, at least.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #293 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

For everyone saying Apple somehow disobeyed the court, broke rules, or included untrue statements, please at least read the ruling first. Don't make statements based in ignorance.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

 

They did disobey the court. Apple included extra statements beyond what was proposed. They could have left it at that and this whole thing would have blown over. Those additional statement colour the intent of the notice which is to inform the reader that the design in dispute was not infringed by Samsung.

 

The extra statements try and conflate the iPad and the registered design: "the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung *products*"

 

What the iPad looks like was never at issue. Nor how the iPad compared to the Samsung product. It was comparison of the Samsung products against the Registered Design - the reasoning as to why those products did not infringe is made clear in the ruling.

 

It's not that complicated, and it doesn't surprise me that Apple were ordered to rewrite the document.

 

The whole thing strikes me as a little petty on Apple's part but at the same time I'm surprised they were ordered to make such a statement in the first place. They just have just done the bare minimum to comply and not try to score points by chucking in their own two bob on the matter.

post #294 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrystalClear View Post

I notice that several people state that there are no "untruth" in the Apple statement.  As it pertains to the UK information, it is correct and accurate.  The "Untruth" was in the last paragraph where Apple states:"However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.". 

According to the Bloomberg article " The court’s initial order to post a notice was designed to correct the impression that the South Korean company was copying Apple’s product. Apple’s post, criticized by judges today, inserted four paragraphs including excerpts of the original“cool” ruling and details of similar German lawsuits that the court today said weren’t true."

So someone at Apple wrote the extra paragraph at the end to basically tell the U.K. judges that they are wrong and everyone should disregard what was decided.

 

I don't understand why the judge should be upset.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Wrong.

 

Under UK law "infringement of a design patent" and "copying" are not the same thing.

 

"Samsung blatantly copied Apple yet did not infringe Apple's design patent" is a perfectly valid statement.

 

I agree that the statement: 

A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

is WRONG.  After all, that statement was in the final paragraph of the APPLE posting and it was completely wrong of them to post anything that had nothing to do directly with the U.K. case.  

I am so glad that you agree with the wrongness of the Apple statement. 1tongue.gif

BTW, the statement says US court claims infringement, the UK court does not.1wink.gif

post #295 of 446
  • UK judge rules that Apple has to post a certain notice on their website.
  • Posters say that the rogue judge's ruling will never be upheld on appeal.
  • Judgment upheld on appeal by three other judges.
  • Posters say Apple should add extra snark to water down the judge's ordered notice.
  • Apple posts notice with added commentary.
  • Posters say that it's totally compliant with the judge's order and there's nothing the court can do about it.
  • Same three judges say it's not compliant and order Apple to fix it.
  • Posters make new predictions.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure why any of the previous posters has any faith in their predictions.  Sure, there were some posters who said "In my opinion, it should be A, but that's probably not which way the court will go."  No issue with those folks.  But if you go back and look at those older threads and these, it's chocked full of people making bold predictions that they have been utterly wrong about.  I'm not talking about opinion, I'm talking about prediction of what will actually happen.

 

And yet those posters keep putting their predictions out there like they're fact.  I guess they're hoping they'll eventually get to their "stopped clock" point...

post #296 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by period View Post

My understanding is that it was Apple who initiated the legal case against Samsung saying that it copied iPad, not the other way around.

 

Plaintiff initiates the action.

 

Defendant defends against the action.

 

Samsung is the plaintiff, Apple is the defendant.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #297 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post

Yes I saw what you mean by "figuring":
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/153785/apples-uk-site-says-samsung-devices-not-as-cool-in-compliance-with-court-ruling

There is a saying "thinking (figuring) and knowing are two (similar but ultimately) different things".

You can figure what ever and how ever you please but even you knew what will happen. 1wink.gif

 

Colin Birss made the "coolness" statement, quoted by Apple and forming part of the ruling Apple was ordered to provide a link to.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #298 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

 

They did disobey the court. Apple included extra statements beyond what was proposed. They could have left it at that and this whole thing would have blown over. Those additional statement colour the intent of the notice which is to inform the reader that the design in dispute was not infringed by Samsung.

 

The extra statements try and conflate the iPad and the registered design: "the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung *products*"

 

What the iPad looks like was never at issue. Nor how the iPad compared to the Samsung product. It was comparison of the Samsung products against the Registered Design - the reasoning as to why those products did not infringe is made clear in the ruling.

 

It's not that complicated, and it doesn't surprise me that Apple were ordered to rewrite the document.

 

The whole thing strikes me as a little petty on Apple's part but at the same time I'm surprised they were ordered to make such a statement in the first place. They just have just done the bare minimum to comply and not try to score points by chucking in their own two bob on the matter.

 

Apple followed the letter of the law, as the ruling required.

 

This idiot judge has now created the precedent that ignorance is a defence for not knowing the law, with his statement that the legal definitions of "copying" and "infringing of a design patent" are incomprehensible to the general public.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #299 of 446

Time to give it a rest.

 

Everyone thinks he or she is right.

 

Online life isn't real life, get a life and go out and smell the roses and enjoy the sunshine, yes tell your mum you love her.

 

But then there will always be people who think they can suck an egg better than others so don't get upset with such people, they are there to make life interesting.

post #300 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Apple followed the letter of the law, as the ruling required.

 

This idiot judge has now created the precedent that ignorance is a defence for not knowing the law, with his statement that the legal definitions of "copying" and "infringing of a design patent" are incomprehensible to the general public.

 

 

 

Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:

 

On 9

th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given].

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

 

The order did not say, "also include any additional commentary that you see fit."

 

 

post #301 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

 

The order did not say, "also include any additional commentary that you see fit."

 

 

 

 

 

It also did not say DO NOT "include any additional commentary that you see fit."

 

Guess what, that's grounds for appeal.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #302 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

It also did not say DO NOT "include any additional commentary that you see fit."

Guess what, that's grounds for appeal.

Lol
post #303 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

 

 

 

Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:

 

On 9

th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given].

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

 

The order did not say, "also include any additional commentary that you see fit."

 

 

 

Unfortunately djsherly, it appears that the majority of posters on here simply don't get it; or are that arrogant that they genuinely believe that what apple did was perfectly acceptable.  It's laughable; why would any sane judge accept a snidey, sarcastic comment as following their instruction?   They knew that what they were doing was exactly what the court presumed a professional company wouldn't do.  If anything I'm surprised it took the court this log to haul them back in.  Yet more legal time wasted by the idiotic legal teams involved in apple's never ending (mostly failed) legal quest, which ultimately is to try to retain them market share for them in a market that they are losing.  And before anyone claims that's bs; go check some simple statistics on global smart phone sales - Google Android & particularly Samsung have this market in their pocket.  Yes, apple kick started the market which we could be thankful for as look at the phone availability now; but to act as they are looks like the behaviour of a company knowing they've lost the market & are also losing the respect of potential & existing customers.

post #304 of 446

There ya go..

 

post #305 of 446

Imo the usa traditionally expect that others follow their rules not the other way around. It seems the judge still doesn't get it.

"I invented the rectangle"  - Steve Jobs

"We Bomb you" - USA

Reply

"I invented the rectangle"  - Steve Jobs

"We Bomb you" - USA

Reply
post #306 of 446
Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

The idiotic UK judges

 

Calling these judges idiotic just shows up your own ignorance. 

 

To become a QC takes remarkable intelligence and hard work. These aren't judges from some backwater US state.

post #307 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by binglyboop View Post

  • UK judge rules that Apple has to post a certain notice on their website.
  • Posters say that the rogue judge's ruling will never be upheld on appeal.
  • Judgment upheld on appeal by three other judges.
  • Posters say Apple should add extra snark to water down the judge's ordered notice.
  • Apple posts notice with added commentary.
  • Posters say that it's totally compliant with the judge's order and there's nothing the court can do about it.
  • Same three judges say it's not compliant and order Apple to fix it.
  • Posters make new predictions.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure why any of the previous posters has any faith in their predictions.  Sure, there were some posters who said "In my opinion, it should be A, but that's probably not which way the court will go."  No issue with those folks.  But if you go back and look at those older threads and these, it's chocked full of people making bold predictions that they have been utterly wrong about.  I'm not talking about opinion, I'm talking about prediction of what will actually happen.

 

And yet those posters keep putting their predictions out there like they're fact.  I guess they're hoping they'll eventually get to their "stopped clock" point...

Very good, but you missed "insult the judge, insult the country of origin of the judge, and at all stages insult anyone who offers any dissenting opinion."

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #308 of 446

Original statement is now gone from the Apple UK site.  At least Apple have managed to comply with the court in that regard.  24 hours left to get the revised statement up, unless Tim fancies explaining himself to the court.

post #309 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post


Your point being?
Apple got the order to put this EXACT quote (and link) on its webpages - nothing more nothing less:

“On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001.
A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink].”

How hard it is to follow this?
If they did EXACTLY that without WHINING about German and US courts everything would have been fine.
But Apple being Apple ...


 

 

You state "nothing more nothing less", care to point out the precise point at which the judgement and original appeal ruling states this?

 

Reporting true statements of fact is not whining.

 

The whining from Samsung and these Judges is enough to drown out Heathrow.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #310 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71 View Post

 

Unfortunately djsherly, it appears that the majority of posters on here simply don't get it; or are that arrogant that they genuinely believe that what apple did was perfectly acceptable.  It's laughable; why would any sane judge accept a snidey, sarcastic comment as following their instruction?   They knew that what they were doing was exactly what the court presumed a professional company wouldn't do.  If anything I'm surprised it took the court this log to haul them back in.  Yet more legal time wasted by the idiotic legal teams involved in apple's never ending (mostly failed) legal quest, which ultimately is to try to retain them market share for them in a market that they are losing.  And before anyone claims that's bs; go check some simple statistics on global smart phone sales - Google Android & particularly Samsung have this market in their pocket.  Yes, apple kick started the market which we could be thankful for as look at the phone availability now; but to act as they are looks like the behaviour of a company knowing they've lost the market & are also losing the respect of potential & existing customers.

 

What Apple should do then is make no statement at all and only provide a link to the ruling.

 

That should shut those idiot judges up.

 

They can leave it like that until the appeals process is exhausted, including to the EU.

 

Cut through the confusing, dithering rulings of these obviously incompetent fools.

 

So how do you get to be a Lord anyway?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #311 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

 

Calling these judges idiotic just shows up your own ignorance. 

 

To become a QC takes remarkable intelligence and hard work. These aren't judges from some backwater US state.

 

To become a Lord requires being born to the role, usually via inbreeding, which interestingly enough is also often associated with backwater US states. 

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #312 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Very good, but you missed "insult the judge, insult the country of origin of the judge, and at all stages insult anyone who offers any dissenting opinion."

 

Yeah, why not, it's called freedom of speech.

 

Perhaps when you get off your knees long enough and stop grovelling at the feet of your "betters", you may come to understand this.

 

Just because someone is born a Lord it doesn't make them any better than anyone else, except in the eyes of hard done by UK subjects.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #313 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

To become a Lord requires being born to the role, usually via inbreeding, which interestingly enough is also often associated with backwater US states. 

Hey man, the olden days sent a rider, they want their prejudices back.

 

Only about 12% of the House of Lords are hereditary peers, likely to be 0% within the next decade, and inbreeding doesn't happen.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #314 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Yeah, why not, it's called freedom of speech.

 

Perhaps when you get off your knees long enough and stop grovelling at the feet of your "betters", you may come to understand this.

 

Just because someone is born a Lord it doesn't make them any better than anyone else, except in the eyes of hard done by UK subjects.

Why are you even talking about Lords?  This is a matter of law, not Lords.

 

I'm actually a republican (means a different thing over here), not that it has any relevance to the thread topic.

 

I love the implication that because you have freedom of speech you should use it to be a jackass.  Because "Yeah, why not".  Says a lot.


Edited by Crowley - 11/2/12 at 4:18am

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #315 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

 

The ECJ is the highest court for questions of EU law. This case is under British law, not EU law. The ECJ is irrelevant in this case, unless Apple wants to argue that Britain's decision violates EU law.

 

The relevant highest court for this case is...the Supreme Court. It has existed only since 2009. Before that it would've made sense to talk about the Privy Council.

 

I realize we're (almost) all Apple cheerleaders here, but if I were Apple I'd simply issue the bare-bones statement the judge originally had in mind, without trying to turn him into an involuntary ad subject. That's what ticked him off. 

 

 

Yeah, I'm mad at them about that...now that they've appointed Jonathan Sumption to the Supreme Court, he'll never finish his series on the Hundred Years War!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sumption

post #316 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Very good, but you missed "insult the judge, insult the country of origin of the judge, and at all stages insult anyone who offers any dissenting opinion."

 

No kidding. And the people who are doing this now are some of the same ones who were making jokes about "Judge KOHrea" until she sided with them. Then she became a brilliant sage. 

post #317 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

 

 

Yeah, I'm mad at them about that...now that they've appointed Jonathan Sumption to the Supreme Court, he'll never finish his series on the Hundred Years War!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sumption

 

Oh no! I hadn't heard that. He was taking an age to begin with, and now this?!

post #318 of 446

Am I getting the facts correct ? 

 

Apple has been asked to write the original 'apology' letter because they tried to sue over design patents but lost ? it that it ? the fact that they lost is the whole reason they were being asked to do this ? 

post #319 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Why are you even talking about Lords?  This is a matter of law, not Lords.

 

P.S. I'm a republican (means a different thing over here), btw.

 

So they are Lord justices, not Lords, oh well I was never much for all these fancy titles.

 

Time for Apple to hit up the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to sort this mess out if that fails then off to Europe.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #320 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

What Apple should do then is make no statement at all and only provide a link to the ruling.

 

That should shut those idiot judges up.

 

They can leave it like that until the appeals process is exhausted, including to the EU.

 

Cut through the confusing, dithering rulings of these obviously incompetent fools.

 

So how do you get to be a Lord anyway?

 

Isn't it through inbreeding rather than merit?

I think that's exactly what the judge expected & required.  Just a simple statement as to the findings of the English court of appeal.  I believe the appeals process is exhausted - as far as the original case was concerned anyway.  Or do you mean apple should appeal against the notification decision?  If so, surely you can see that with the amount of press this is receiving all that will achieve is harming the apple reputation & perception more?

 

Hmm, as for becoming a Lord.  Can't say I really know but recent examples seem to imply that if you get famous on tv that's good for starters.  Or are you referring to a Lord in a legal position?  Not that I have a clue on that either, it's something that doesn't interest me.

 

You're entitled to your opinion on the judges or incompetent fools as you refer but that's all that can ever be, your opinion.  I'm sure one could easily point fingers at US judges & legal systems as having muppets in there.  Judge Koh Doesn't exactly appear to be the brightest spark that's ever climbed the legal ladder does she?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad