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 2

post #41 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

For those that agree with this new ruling, a question. The judges explained their ruling as being based on Apple breaching their order by including untrue and incorrect statements in their notice. Please list for us all of the incorrect and untrue statements in Apple's notice.

 

We'll wait.

 

Until then, without any untrue and incorrect statements, the judge's excuses for this new ruling appear to be based on personal bias and feelings of being insulted (wrongly) and so have no basis. 

 

The ruling says the statement was inaccurate, which anyone with any kind of grasp of the English language knows is not the same as untrue or incorrect.  So why on Earth anyone should provide you with an irrelevant list is pretty pointless.  Just except Apple are acting like spoilt brats and move on please.

post #42 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

 

And which of these rules did Apple supposedly violate?

 

Changing the text of the apology.

Not putting the apology where they were told to (i.e., they hid it away behind a small link, when it should be prominent on the front page).

Not making the text of the apology large enough.

Turning an apology into an advert.

 

Apple's lawyers would have been aware of the legal requirements of such notices, so this is a wilful failure to follow the court order.

post #43 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

 

 

The person acting like a child here is the judge. The guy is clearly a total imbecile.

While that may or may not be true, he is still the judge.  Apple need to respect the judgements against them, in the spirit in which they are judged (i.e. don't jerk around with the wording to undermine the judgement), or face legal consequences.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #44 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

 

"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."

 

Apple were told what to write, and where to post it.

 

Apple decided to post something else (by adding four paragraphs), and they didn't post it on the web site's front page, as instructed.

 

Apple has been slapped down for it.

 

Some people here are way too protective of Apple. Apple was in the wrong according to UK law. Their actions show utter disrespect and contempt for UK law, and by extension, the UK and its inhabitants.

Interesting. That actually demonstrates my point, As I have repeatedly asked: exactly what part of Apple statement was untrue? 

 

The court did not say Apple could not add additional facts. They didn't even say Apple couldn't editorialize the statement, which the didn't do. They simply added additional facts, most of which were directly from the court record of judge Biriss' original ruling.

 

So, they posted what they were instructed to posted, how and where they were supposed to post it. So they were slapped down for including facts. A court should never be afraid of facts, especially when the factual statements are from the court itself. So, given Apple's statements were facts, they cannot be untrue or incorrect and the judges said. If their reasons are flawed, then their ruling is wrong.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #45 of 446
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post
Obviously Apple stepped over a line.

 

And, again, WHAT line is that? Even the judges did not say.


They had to have known they were going to piss off the judge.  

 

Doing exactly what the judge says will… make him mad. Got it. What whacked out world do you think this is?


Don't understand why you always think Apple can do w/etf they want?

 

Including obeying incorrect legal orders correctly! I know, so silly of us to think they could do that.


Originally Posted by fredawest View Post
The ruling says the statement was inaccurate, which anyone with any kind of grasp of the English language knows is not the same as untrue or incorrect.

10001000

1000

 

Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Apple need to respect the judgements against them, in the spirit in which they are judged…

 

The spirit of fallacy? 


Edited by Tallest Skil - 11/1/12 at 6:58am

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #46 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredawest View Post

 

The ruling says the statement was inaccurate, which anyone with any kind of grasp of the English language knows is not the same as untrue or incorrect.  So why on Earth anyone should provide you with an irrelevant list is pretty pointless.  Just except Apple are acting like spoilt brats and move on please.

The original Bloomberg report quotes the judges as saying Apple's notice included statements that were untrue and incorrect. That's plain English. Even someone without much of a grasp of the language could understand that,

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html

 

 

 

Quote:
Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges in a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) for posting a notice on its website that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”

Hence my question: why parts were untrue and incorrect.

 

Still waiting. (and please don't lecture me on not understanding the language when you appear to have a tenuous grasp at best)


Edited by Tulkas - 11/1/12 at 7:00am

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #47 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

 

Apple DID NOT comply with the court order. There are very specific rules for placement and font size in cases like this. The judge has confirmed that Apple broke these rules.

 

If you believe that the judge is making this up as he goes along then you have no idea about how the English legal system works.

Well having read the original court order, I have to come to the conclusion, that the English legal system doesn't work. It sounded rather like coming straight out of a Monty Python episode. And Apple responded exactly in the right fashion.

post #48 of 446
That's no surprised and completely justified. That was a very stupid move Apple did.
post #49 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The court did not say Apple could not add additional facts. They didn't even say Apple couldn't editorialize the statement, which the didn't do. They simply added additional facts, most of which were directly from the court record of judge Biriss' original ruling.

 

 

The fact is that the court has made a ruling that Apple did not follow the legal requirements for posting a notice.

 

I.e., the court has said that adding additional "facts" is not allowed. Editorializing is not allowed.

 

This will have been driven by prior case law that determines how such public notices should be delivered to consumers so that consumers see them. I.e,. not via a small link on the front page of the website leading to editorial comment around the statement they should have made.

post #50 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

If Apple can be punished for obeying a court order, they'd be better off leaving your country entirely. As would every company.

Get real.  They "obeyed" it with a twist, and now they're getting flack for the twist.  They knew exactly what they were doing and I'm sure they felt very clever about it.  Even Gruber described it as a "burn" - http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/10/26/uk-cool-judgment

 

No court will tolerate a judgement being turned into a competitive burn, entirely against the spirit of the judgement.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

We'll see how long that lasts. 

I'm going to hazard a guess that it'll be at least 14 days, which is as long as it takes Apple to delete some text from their website.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Apple's a singular entity, and your belief that the original wasn't in legal compliance is embarrassing. 

Embarassing, and yet entirely correct according to the article we're commenting on.  Are you in  the same reality I am?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Nope, I know exactly who I'm talking about. "Conformity, Safety, Servility." What, exactly, is wrong with the first one? Even the judges didn't say. 

You're on a different, Apple-shaped planet.  Open your eyes.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #51 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

 

Changing the text of the apology.

Not putting the apology where they were told to (i.e., they hid it away behind a small link, when it should be prominent on the front page).

Not making the text of the apology large enough.

Turning an apology into an advert.

 

Apple's lawyers would have been aware of the legal requirements of such notices, so this is a wilful failure to follow the court order.

Have you even read the ruling from the appeal?

 

-They did not change the text of the apology. Actually, they was NO APOLOGY ORDERED.

-They actually cut and pasted exactly  the text that was ordered

-They put the link on their main page exactly as order by the appeals court. Again, read the ruling. The court ordered the link to appear on the main page.

-The used the exactly font and size ordered

-No apology was ordered. They were ordered to post the courts decision in order to clear up any confusion from potential buyers about the status of the case. Period

 

Please read the ruling. Apple followed exactly what was ordered. All you can fault them for is adding to the notice additional facts. That's it.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #52 of 446
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
You're on a different, Apple-shaped planet.  Open your eyes.

 

Still waiting for anyone to tell me what was actually wrong or non-compliant in what Apple did.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #53 of 446

A little background to this story wouldn't go amiss before people start throwing their toys out of the pram.

 

As far as I can remember Apple Samsung initiated proceedings against Samsung Apple in the UK, but [Apple] lost.  However as the UK is part of the EU, that was an EU-wide verdict.  They [Apple] then took a similar case to Germany and won.  That's why the Judge Birss ordered the 'clarification' in the first place.  Apple were effectively trying to get another EU state to overturn the original case whilst simultaneously appealing it in the UK.  Apple's counsel tried to get smart and it bit them on the ass.  Then they compounded their mistake by trying to get clever with the wording of the clarification.  Apple should get a new EU legal team.  They're the ones that have dropped the ball here.

 

 

Edited for accuracy - Samsung took Apple to court in the UK not vice versa


Edited by webweasel - 11/1/12 at 7:08am
post #54 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

As I've already stated, there's very clear pre-existing rules on the printing (electronically or otherwise) of apologies like this one. Apple's lawyers would have been aware of these rules before the statement was posted on Apple's website.

Would you mind the posting the rules. If they exist and Apple broke them then Apple would be in the wrong, but I don't recall these rules ever been brought up before.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #55 of 446
Apple are were ordered to say, "We were wrong!". Instead they said, "Somebody else said we were wrong!". So they didn't follow that order. It's that simple.

Of course, personally I don't agree with the UK courts judgement, but that's another matter.
post #56 of 446
Originally Posted by AugustMoon View Post
Apple are were ordered to say, "We were wrong!". Instead they said, "Somebody else said we were wrong!".

 

Nope. They copied down exactly what they were told to say.

 

Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
…I don't recall these rules ever been brought up before.
 

They likely didn't exist until Apple posted their in-compliance, correct in regard to the incorrect legal judgement answer. 

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #57 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

 

The fact is that the court has made a ruling that Apple did not follow the legal requirements for posting a notice.

 

I.e., the court has said that adding additional "facts" is not allowed. Editorializing is not allowed.

 

This will have been driven by prior case law that determines how such public notices should be delivered to consumers so that consumers see them. I.e,. not via a small link on the front page of the website leading to editorial comment around the statement they should have made.

Actually, the court did not say adding additional facts was not allowed. They ruled what the statement should include NOT what it should be in it's entirety. Apple didn't editorialize, they included factual statements, most of which came from the original judge.

 

And again, you seem to have a problem with the fact  that Apple added a link to their main page for their statement. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE ORDERED TO DO. How can that be a violation?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #58 of 446
I am sorry, but as a British citizen I agree with the Juge on this. I love Apple, it's products but this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.
 
Can you imagine if Samsung found itself in this position in the US how you would react? Apple not only twisted the Order from the judge to the furthest limits (and apparently beyond), but it stuck up it's middle finger at the judge and THEN.. unbelievably claimed it needed 14 DAYS to update it's front page!
 
I think it's perfectly clear why they claimed it would need 14 days - to kick things down the track, away from the recent announcements which are currently taking up prime real estate on the front page.. 
 
They would have been better off just obeying things in the first place, instead of attracting additional bad publicity over this little 'stunt'

William
iMac 21.5" Late 2012, iPad 3 (Works fine for films), iPhone 5 (6 on order)

Reply

William
iMac 21.5" Late 2012, iPad 3 (Works fine for films), iPhone 5 (6 on order)

Reply
post #59 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Still waiting for anyone to tell me what was actually wrong or non-compliant in what Apple did.

An analogy.

 

I'm your dad.  I don't like pickles, which you're fully aware of.  You've misbehaved, and as part of making it up to me, I tell you to go make me a ham sandwich, which you do, but knowingly put a couple of pickles in it.

 

Doesn't matter how much you whine "I did what I was told to", you're getting grounded.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #60 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

 

Some people here are way too protective of Apple. Apple was in the wrong according to UK law. Their actions show utter disrespect and contempt for UK law, and by extension, the UK and its inhabitants.

 

 

I'm sorry, but I do not blindly accept the law of ANY country. For that matter, I do not particularly care for the UK's increasingly Marxist inhabitants either. 

Sometimes the legal system is just plain wrong and should be questioned. Without questioning the system, we get no progression. If it were not for the Suffragettes questioning the status quo, women's rights would still be in the dark ages.

 

Here's to the crazy ones :)

post #61 of 446
The solution is so simple. Write the notice and have the judge approve it. Place it on the web page as instructed.

Then right below it put a link to all Apple's other court cases around the world. This will "separate" the judges ordered statement from "regular " website content.

And I have the perfect title for the link: "One More Thing".

Seriously, though, the court has no right to tell Apple what they can and can't post on their website that they own. They can only tell Apple what to do regarding this notice. Separate the notice from "other content" and Apple gets compliance while still making people aware of Samsungs blatant copying of Apple in many other areas.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #62 of 446

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/23/13 at 6:07am
post #63 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The original Bloomberg report quotes the judges as saying Apple's notice included statements that were untrue and incorrect.

 

The original Bloomberg report quotes are not attributed to the Judge, you'll find it is what Samsung claimed at the hearing, the Judges upheld the view that the statement was inaccurate.

post #64 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by webweasel View Post

A little background to this story wouldn't go amiss before people start throwing their toys out of the pram.

 

As far as I can remember Apple initiated proceedings against Samsung in the UK, but lost.  However as the UK is part of the EU, that was an EU-wide verdict.  They then took a similar case to Germany and won.  That's why the Judge Birss ordered the 'clarification' in the first place.  Apple were effectively trying to get another EU state to overturn the original case whilst simultaneously appealing it in the UK.  Apple's counsel tried to get smart and it bit them on the ass.  Then they compounded their mistake by trying to get clever with the wording of the clarification.  Apple should get a new EU legal team.  They're the ones that have dropped the ball here.

 I'll correct some misconceptions for you.

 

-Apple never sued Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple.

-The appeals court actually said they would not have even allowed Judge Biriss order for a public statement  to stand, other than because of the publicity generated by Biriss' statement that Samsung was not cool. They said that was the only reason the would allow the order for a public statement to stand.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #65 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredawest View Post

 

The original Bloomberg report quotes are not attributed to the Judge, you'll find it is what Samsung claimed at the hearing, the Judges upheld the view that the statement was inaccurate.

It was attributed to the court.

 

"Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges in a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) for posting a notice on its website that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”"

 

You think they wrapped those words in quotations just for fun?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #66 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

 

 

I'm sorry, but I do not blindly accept the law of ANY country. For that matter, I do not particularly care for the UK's increasingly Marxist inhabitants either. 

Sometimes the legal system is just plain wrong and should be questioned. Without questioning the system, we get no progression. If it were not for the Suffragettes questioning the status quo, women's rights would still be in the dark ages.

 

Here's to the crazy ones :)

Are you seriously equating Apple and Samsung butting heads over design with universal suffrage?

 

Can't believe the hubris of the Apple faithful.

 

 

Marxist lol.gif  We have a way more right wing government than the US right now.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #67 of 446
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
An analogy.

 

Doesn't apply. 

 

1. Hey, look, more CHILDREN references. Companies and countries aren't children and parents.

2. Once a legal order is complied with, that's it, period. 

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #68 of 446

To slightly alter a very witty rhyme penned by Humbert Wolfe, an Italian-born British poet, man of letters and civil servant. regarding the British journalist, here it is amended to read "jurist" instead (which is pretty close and just as apt):

 

"You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British jurist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to!"

post #69 of 446
Quote:

-Apple never sued Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple.

-The appeals court actually said they would not have even allowed Judge Biriss order for a public statement  to stand, other than because of the publicity generated by Biriss' statement that Samsung was not cool. They said that was the only reason the would allow the order for a public statement to stand.

 

Point 1 - That makes more sense. I've corrected my post.

Point 2 - Do you have a link for that?

post #70 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

It was attributed to the court.

 

"Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges in a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) for posting a notice on its website that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”"

 

You think they wrapped those words in quotations just for fun?

 

When the full judgement comes out boy will you have some humble (apple) pie to eat.

post #71 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Doesn't apply. 

 

1. Hey, look, more CHILDREN references. Companies and countries aren't children and parents.

2. Once a legal order is complied with, that's it, period. 

1. It's an analogy to illustrate the simple point that you don't seem to understand.  Sorry for trying to be helpful; enjoy your ignorance.

2. I quite agree, and await satisfactory compliance.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #72 of 446

Don't know much about their government in this regard: is the UK capable of being sued for damages? Apple needs to just turn around and do that, bringing the lies back to the table.


Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
1. It's an analogy to illustrate the simple point that you don't seem to understand.

 

Yes, the point that… what, again? The point that never do anything you're not told to do at any time for any reason, despite doing exactly what we told you to do? Sounds like that's the case.


2. I quite agree, and await satisfactory compliance.

 

What does your education system look like? Do people get Fs on their papers for getting all the answers correct?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #73 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

2. Once a legal order is complied with, that's it, period. 

 

Well, the judge thought otherwise. Forgive me for valuing the legal acumen of a high court judge over that of an internet forum moderator.

post #74 of 446

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

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #75 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Never happened.  Stick to actual arguments and facts please.

 

My response was to your nonsense even more unrelated to facts. 

 

Also please see the previous AI article comments (http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/153785/apples-uk-site-says-samsung-devices-not-as-cool-in-compliance-with-court-ruling) where the following posters & posts insisted that Apple was in contempt of court and should be punished. 

 

Post #11 e_veritas , #21 stike vomit, #47 Lamewing, #52 Galbi, #135 Sensi

 

The judge did not and will not hold Apple in contempt because they weren't and aren't.

post #76 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

 

Well, the judge thought otherwise. Forgive me for valuing the legal acumen of a high court judge over that of an internet forum moderator.

Judges are human too and can make mistakes. Common sense seems to show these judges are acting out perhaps from a sense of personal insult which never happened.

 

Some are just soft headed.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #77 of 446
I think the "job is done", so to speak. Look at the press Apple has received over this. Even if they altered the order, nobody will care anymore.

I'm surprised nobody has suggested Apple make two notices. The original one and a second one apologizing to the court for the first notice. 1wink.gif

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #78 of 446

Can't see anything about putting Tim Cook in prison.  Never happened.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #79 of 446

Some people get way too hung up on Apple & simply refuse to see this company for the arrogant beast they've become.  If anyone wants an inaccuracy pointing out well try the German decision for one.  The English court's decision overrode that one, something to do with community court & so their verdict is europe wide.  Another fact that can be argued as factually correct for now is the US decision - how many would genuinely beta against that one being thrown out in december; especially with the bounce back patent being tentatively ruked invalid by the US Patent office.

 

Please open your eyes to what the majority of people can see - Apple don't care about customers nor whatever means they have to apply to attempt to keep their dwindling market share in both tablet and phone markets.  They are fighting a losing battle; made even more difficult for them since they opened the pandoras box of patent litigation.  Do you really think the likes of google will just sit there & watch this whilst at the same time seeing apple blatantly ripping off their technology such as the patent pending drop down notifications bar - or should I guess that apple users see this as an innivative apple development rather than something rippoed from a 2yr old version of Android?

post #80 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by webweasel View Post

 

Point 1 - That makes more sense. I've corrected my post.

Point 2 - Do you have a link for that?

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

 

See #82

 

 

 

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
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