UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad - Page 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley 

I'd love to see that full sentence.  Still waiting.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

What Apple wrote was

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

untrue

I'd love to as well. Guess we'll have to wait until the courts release their records (assuming they document everything said during the proceedings) or for a journalist that was present to further detail the discussions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas  On the other hand, google has gone on record as saying that Apple's patents should made available to all, even though Apple did not make them FRAND licensable, because they have become common through other parties using them to the point of being defacto standards.

Um...  no they didn't. Apple wasn't even mentioned by Google in that regard. That was put to rest months ago when it first came up here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Um...  no they didn't. Apple wasn't even mentioned by Google in that regard. That was put to rest months ago when it first came up here.

ummm, it was mentioned in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that was looking into google behavior with regard to Apple and MS and SEP/FRAND patents that Google is attacking them with. They specifically argue that standards should be standard even if not ratified or approved by a standard body but because they have become common.

They may not have mentioned Apple by name, but they didn't have to. The subject of the hearings was Google's abuses of their patents with Apple and MS. Their comment on that subject, presumably, was related that subject. Whether they named Apple or not, they are arguing to be able to use other people work just because customers like it. They want companies that develop popular ideas to be forced to license those as SEP, under FRAND terms, in the same way a company that actually declared they would with their patents (in order to get them into standards). That is just sneaky, dirty shit.

Mind if I come and take your car and house? I sort of like it. Some people give their cars and houses away, so I'd like to take yours. 

The subject of Google's mention was Microsoft IP like their FAT patent, properly considered a "de-facto standard" IMHO, that's being asserted against Android vendors to force them into license agreements. You need to understand the context to properly understand some of the arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

Mind if I come and take your car and house? I sort of like it. Some people give their cars and houses away, so I'd like to take yours. 

If it's essential to public progress and improvements I believe they can do just that to me. No one's arguing that it should be free to use of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

The subject of Google's mention was Microsoft IP like their FAT patent, properly considered a "de-facto standard IMHO, that's being asserted against Android vendors to force them into license agreements. You need to understand the context to properly understand some of the arguments.

MS or Apple (neither mentioned by name, so either is an assumption) the concept is the same. Once you have popularized it, they want the government to force you to let them use it as though you promised to do so. That is wrong. Companies that obligate themselves to do something should have higher standards of behavior, with regard to those properties, than companies that never promised to do the same with theirs. I wonder, would the be willing to let any and all license their search algorithms. Certainly they are sort of popular in search, so shouldn't everyone be able to offer the same? The government really should step in and force them to license their work, else they ought to seize the patents and make them public domain. Ridiculous, no?

Tellingly Apple and MS both pledged, unconditionally,  to honour their FRAND commitments and not block any licensing of those patents. Google was not willing to make the same pledge without conditions that included "good faith negotiations". They have demonstrated what they mean by that with the Motorola arm, by demanding insane royalties amount, just from Apple. Their definition of good faith is a joke. 

Unbelievable that people scream and shout about Apple, when the best you can claim is their activities are unwise, questionable and maybe unethical. Meanwhile Google is breaking their pledges, not honouring their commitments, and is under government investigation in the EU, by the DOJ and the FTC, for their behaviors with their monbile patents and their activities with their search monopoly. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

If it's essential to public progress and improvements I believe they can do just that to me. No one's arguing that it should be free to use of course.

Once it's a standard, entirely different different expectations are set as to how much one can charge. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

I wonder, would the be willing to let any and all license their search algorithms. Certainly they are sort of popular in search, so shouldn't everyone be able to offer the same? The government really should step in and force them to license their work, else they ought to seize the patents and make them public domain. Ridiculous, no?

The difference being either:

A: Google's search patents are not essential nor even "de-facto essential" since there's no dearth of search engines without Google licensing to the patents, or

B. There are competitors with possible infringement of Google IP, but Google doesn't typically sue competitors.

Neither of these would apply to Microsoft's overt use of the FAT patent, impossible to work around for all intents, to force a licensing agreement. . . at just a few dollars per device of course. If it's essentially impossible to work around wouldn't you agree it's the definition of "de-facto essential"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

The difference being either:

 

A: Google's search patents are not essential nor even "de-facto essential" since there's no dearth of search engines without Google licensing to the patents, or

 

B. There are competitors with possible infringement of Google IP, but Google doesn't typically sue competitors.

 

Neither of these would apply to Microsoft's overt use of the FAT patent, impossible to work around for all intents, to force a licensing agreement. . . at just a few dollars per device of course. If it's essentially impossible to work around wouldn't you agree it's the definition of "de-facto essential"?

There are many, many alternative file systems companies could use. But FAT has become common. Google search is common too. I would disagree with any government action that forced either to effectively open up their IP to any and all. Just because they have successfully marketed their IP or otherwise made it popular does not mean the government should be able to dictate how they use their property or how much they can charge. If, however, they legally pledge to do so, then the ought to held to the fire to honour those commitments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

There are many, many alternative file systems companies could use. 

Which ones don't fall under the Microsoft FAT claims, at least according to Microsoft? If you can't find "many, many" would you agree that FAT licensing is essential to nearly every modern OS based on Microsoft legal claims, tho it's clear you'd prefer not to?

The stuff that Apple wrote in the statement may have been true but it was completely irrelevant to the purpose of the statement that the UK courts wanted Apple to make. .  The problem is the UK court wanted Apple to CLEARLY make the point that Samsung did not infringe on their patents.  Instead they decided to bury that point in four paragraphs of text, which people may or may not have the patience to read through completely.   If you think that it's okay for Apple to put whatever they want in the statement as long as it's true, then they could have rambled on for several more paragraphs about Grass being Green, the sky being blue, and clouds being white, or any other irrelevant topic by your argument as long as they have that one sentence buried somewhere in there that Samsung didn't infringe. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by arrowspark 

The stuff that Apple wrote in the statement may have been true but it was completely irrelevant to the purpose of the statement that the UK courts wanted Apple to make. .  The problem is the UK court wanted Apple to CLEARLY make the point that Samsung did not infringe on their patents.  Instead they decided to bury that point in four paragraphs of text, which people may or may not have the patience to read through completely.   If you think that it's okay for Apple to put whatever they want in the statement as long as it's true, then they could have rambled on for several more paragraphs about Grass being Green, the sky being blue, and clouds being white, or any other irrelevant topic by your argument as long as they have that one sentence buried somewhere in there that Samsung didn't infringe. 

They buried it? It was the opening paragraph.

Looks like Apple pulled the statement and has yet to post the new one. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Which ones don't fall under the Microsoft FAT claims, at least according to Microsoft? If you can't find "many, many" would you agree that FAT licensing is essential to nearly every modern OS based on Microsoft legal claims, tho it's clear you'd prefer not to?

It is essential only because those companies chose to use it. Apple used their own. MS uses NFTS for their desktops and servers. SUN/Oracle own a couple. 

It is essential only to those that decided FAT. Yes, they did so because it was common and interoperable, but that was still their choice. MS also has a choice how and for how much they choose to license it and to whom. And that is the problem I have with not just seeking to have it (or anything) declared a de-facto standard and subsequently imposing SEP obligations on it. The advantage for a company to submit their IP into a standard is a guaranteed source of licensing fees with the trade off of not being to otherwise monetize or control their IP or using it as leverage. But a company that never pledged to do so with their IP being forced to give up control of their IP, simply because it is popular is wrong. Popularity should not mean losing control of how your IP is used, by whom and for how much, de facto standard or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reefoid 

 

Judge's comment:

 

 

 

Which part of:

 

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

 

do you not understand?

 

If Apple wanted to add more to the statement, they should have submitted a request to the judge.  They didn't. Therefore they got slapped down.

 

The fact that Apple have printed a statement in today's papers in full compliance with the court goes to show they knew exactly what needed to be done.  They tried to push it as far as they could.

Which part of the difference between "I would propose" and "I hereby order", in a legal sense, do you not understand?

A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbi 

 

The judge's order was to publish on their website and print that the Galaxy Tab does not infringe on the design "patent" of the iPad. (aka "does not copy")

Design patents have nothing whatsoever to do with copying.

This was made clear by the judges who claimed that Apple, by using the fine legal distinction in their statement, could confuse the general public.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley 

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.

Court "ordered" or court "proposed"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

Which part of the difference between "I would propose" and "I hereby order", in a legal sense, do you not understand?

 

A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools.

Which part of "Subject to anything that may be submitted" did Apple not understand?  Seems pretty obvious to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools.

And with that one statement you've killed off what little credibility you had in this thread. Do you seriously think you know more about English law than an English judge?

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever71 

 As a matter of interest, what dumb ass cases have samsung instigated against apple?

Well there's this one that Samsung is suing Apple over:-

Emoticon input method for mobile terminal

:-)

Oops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reefoid 

 

Which part of "Subject to anything that may be submitted" did Apple not understand?  Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

And with that one statement you've killed off what little credibility you had in this thread. Do you seriously think you know more about English law than an English judge?

"Proposed" or "ordered", do you understand the difference?

Stop avoiding the question.

A judge proposing something is not the same as ordering something. "proposing" introduces a gray area, it is "wishy washy", it leaves room for interpretation, which Apple duly took advantage of, opening a can of Samsung whining to the Judges who in turn went whining to Apple, can of worms.

One doesn't need to know too much about law when expressing opinions about people making fools of themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley 

Hello semantics my old friend.  Invalid or unenforcable, either makes it irrelevant.  An irrevelant fact is a pretty flimsy springboard to base your objection on, and any weaselling is in the "but it's a fact" position.

Samsung's whining appeal and the Judges' subsequent whining response are based on this "pretty flimsy springboard" as you so handily put it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

Well there's this one that Samsung is suing Apple over:-

 

 

Emoticon input method for mobile terminal

 

:-)

 

Oops.

Now this is a classy one!  One that I'm sure apple would be more than happy to apply for patent & subsequently use in legal cases as would fit nicely with any claims to shape of tablets etc :)

Originally Posted by hill60 

A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools

Does this class as a double negative in which case being idiotic when already a fool makes them wise or clever!?  

on a serious note though it's very very sad when companies resort to legal action over stuff like the above.

And surely someone somewhere has challenged the patent application?

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever71 

Q

Ah, finally, something worth reading in the thread.

happy to oblige 

can i get sued for using a ?

if the below is correct then this really is a minor lawsuit, only affects one situation:

The smiley input method patent would affect only those of Apple's German customers who use Asian on-screen keyboards. The problem with Asian character sets is that smileys can't be entered with only a couple of keystrokes such as ":-)" but consist of several symbols, each of which requires multiple keystrokes. So it's more convenient to enter a special smiley input mode and select them from a list of on-screen choices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever71 

happy to oblige 

 

can i get sued for using a ?

Apparently in Europe when using a mobile device, unless of course you have a license to use this European software patent from Samsung.

Apple should bring that one to the UK where it will be immediately thrown out as software based and Samsung will have to publish a notice that Apple is not infringing their emoticon patent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever71 

if the below is correct then this really is a minor lawsuit, only affects one situation:

 

The smiley input method patent would affect only those of Apple's German customers who use Asian on-screen keyboards. The problem with Asian character sets is that smileys can't be entered with only a couple of keystrokes such as ":-)" but consist of several symbols, each of which requires multiple keystrokes. So it's more convenient to enter a special smiley input mode and select them from a list of on-screen choices.

So are there more asian language iPhone users in Germany or are there more Galaxy Tab 7.7 buyers in Germany?

Not that it matters, the fact that Samsung is using it to seek an injunction against Apple is enough according to the Justices of the High Court of England and Wales.

My MacBook has these, it's a "mobile device".

See (or not depending on the platform you are using}:-

😄😃😀😊☺😉😍😘😚😗😙😜😝😛😳😁😔😌😒😞😣😢😂😭😪😥😰😅😓😩😫😨😱😠😡😤😖😆😋😷😎😴😵😲😟😦😧😈👿😮😬😐😕😯😶😇😏😑👲👳👮👷💂👶👦👧👨👩👴👵👱👼👸😺😸😻😽😼🙀😿😹😾👹👺🙈🙉🙊💀👽💩🔥✨🌟💫💥💢💦💧💤💨👂👀👃👅👄👍👎👌👊✊✌👋✋👐👆👇👉👈🙌🙏☝👏💪🚶🏃💃👫👪👬👭💏💑👯🙆🙅💁🙋💆💇💅👰🙎🙍🙇🎩👑👒👟👞👡👠👢👕👔👚👗🎽👖👘👙💼👜👝👛👓🎀🌂💄💛💙💜💚❤💔💗💓💕💖💞💘💌💋💍💎👤👥💬👣💭

🐶🐺🐱🐭🐹🐰🐸🐯🐨🐻🐷🐽🐮🐗🐵🐒🐴🐑🐘🐼🐧🐦🐤🐥🐣🐔🐍🐢🐛🐝🐜🐞🐌🐙🐚🐠🐟🐬🐳🐋🐄🐏🐀🐃🐅🐇🐉🐎🐐🐓🐕🐖🐁🐂🐲🐡🐊🐫🐪🐆🐈🐩🐾💐🌸🌷🍀🌹🌻🌺🍁🍃🍂🌿🌾🍄🌵🌴🌲🌳🌰🌱🌼🌐🌞🌝🌚🌑🌒🌓🌔🌕🌖🌗🌘🌜

🎍💝🎎🎒🎓🎏🎆🎇🎐🎑🎃👻🎅🎄🎁🎋🎉🎊🎈🎌🔮🎥📷📹📼💿📀💽💾💻📱☎📞📟📠📡📺📻🔊🔉🔈🔇🔔🔕📢📣⏳⌛⏰⌚🔓🔒🔏🔐🔑🔎💡🔦🔆🔅🔌🔋🔍🛁🛀🚿🚽🔧🔩🔨🚪🚬💣🔫🔪💊💉💰💴💵💷💶💳💸📲📧📥📤✉📩📨📯📫📪📬📭📮📦📝📄📃📑📊📈📉📜📋📅📆📇📁📂✂📌📎✒✏📏📐📕📗📘📙📓📔📒📚📖🔖📛🔬🔭📰🎨🎬🎤🎧🎼🎵🎶🎹🎻🎺🎷🎸👾🎮🃏🎴🀄🎲🎯🏈🏀⚽⚾🎾🎱🏉🎳⛳🚵🚴🏁

🏠🏡🏫🏢🏣🏥🏦🏪🏩🏨💒⛪🏬🏤🌇🌆🏯🏰⛺🏭🗼🗾🗻🌄🌅🌃🗽🌉🎠🎡⛲🎢🚢⛵🚤🚣⚓🚀✈💺🚁🚂🚊🚉🚞🚆🚄🚅🚈🚇🚝🚋🚃🚎🚌🚍🚙🚘🚗🚕🚖🚛🚚🚨🚓🚔🚒🚑🚐🚲🚡🚟🚠🚜💈🚏🎫🚦🚥⚠🚧🔰⛽🏮🎰♨🗿🎪🎭📍🚩🇯🇵🇰🇷🇩🇪🇨🇳🇺🇸🇫🇷🇪🇸🇮🇹🇷🇺🇬🇧

1⃣2⃣3⃣4⃣5⃣6⃣7⃣8⃣9⃣0⃣🔟🔢#⃣🔣⬆⬇⬅➡🔠🔡🔤↗↖↘↙↔↕🔄◀▶🔼🔽↩↪ℹ⏪⏩⏫⏬⤵⤴🆗🔀🔁🔂🆕🆙🆒🆓🆖📶🎦🈁🈯🈳🈵🈴🈲🉐🈹🈺🈶🈚🚻🚹🚺🚼🚾🚰🚮🅿♿🚭🈷🈸🈂Ⓜ🛂🛄🛅🛃🉑㊙㊗🆑🆘🆔🚫🔞📵🚯🚱🚳🚷🚸⛔✳❇❎✅✴💟🆚📳📴🅰🅱🆎🅾💠➿♻♈♉♊♋♌♍♎♏♐♑♒♓⛎🔯🏧💹💲💱©®™❌‼⁉❗❓❕❔⭕🔝🔚🔙🔛🔜🔃🕛🕧🕐🕜🕑🕝🕒🕞🕓🕟🕔🕠🕕🕖🕗🕘🕙🕚🕡🕢🕣🕤🕥🕦✖➕➖➗♠♥♣♦💮💯✔☑🔘🔗➰〰〽🔱◼◻◾◽▪▫🔺🔲🔳⚫⚪🔴🔵🔻⬜⬛🔶🔷🔸🔹

Of course Apple uses a completely different method, but that didn't stop Samsung from accusing Apple of copying them.

Originally Posted by hill60 

See (or not depending on the platform you are using}:-

 

😄😃😀😊☺😉😍😘😚😗😙😜😝😛😳😁😔😌😒😞😣😢😂😭😪😥😰😅😓😩😫😨😱😠😡😤😖😆😋😷😎😴😵😲😟😦😧😈👿😮😬😐😕😯😶😇😏😑👲👳👮👷💂👶👦👧👨👩👴👵👱👼👸😺😸😻😽😼🙀😿😹😾👹👺🙈🙉🙊💀👽💩🔥✨🌟💫💥💢💦💧💤💨👂👀👃👅👄👍👎👌👊✊✌👋✋👐👆👇👉👈🙌🙏☝👏💪🚶🏃💃👫👪👬👭💏💑👯🙆🙅💁🙋💆💇💅👰🙎🙍🙇🎩👑👒👟👞👡👠👢👕👔👚👗🎽👖👘👙💼👜👝👛👓🎀🌂💄💛💙💜💚❤💔💗💓💕💖💞💘💌💋💍💎👤👥💬👣💭

🐶🐺🐱🐭🐹🐰🐸🐯🐨🐻🐷🐽🐮🐗🐵🐒🐴🐑🐘🐼🐧🐦🐤🐥🐣🐔🐍🐢🐛🐝🐜🐞🐌🐙🐚🐠🐟🐬🐳🐋🐄🐏🐀🐃🐅🐇🐉🐎🐐🐓🐕🐖🐁🐂🐲🐡🐊🐫🐪🐆🐈🐩🐾💐🌸🌷🍀🌹🌻🌺🍁🍃🍂🌿🌾🍄🌵🌴🌲🌳🌰🌱🌼🌐🌞🌝🌚🌑🌒🌓🌔🌕🌖🌗🌘🌜

🎍💝🎎🎒🎓🎏🎆🎇🎐🎑🎃👻🎅🎄🎁🎋🎉🎊🎈🎌🔮🎥📷📹📼💿📀💽💾💻📱☎📞📟📠📡📺📻🔊🔉🔈🔇🔔🔕📢📣⏳⌛⏰⌚🔓🔒🔏🔐🔑🔎💡🔦🔆🔅🔌🔋🔍🛁🛀🚿🚽🔧🔩🔨🚪🚬💣🔫🔪💊💉💰💴💵💷💶💳💸📲📧📥📤✉📩📨📯📫📪📬📭📮📦📝📄📃📑📊📈📉📜📋📅📆📇📁📂✂📌📎✒✏📏📐📕📗📘📙📓📔📒📚📖🔖📛🔬🔭📰🎨🎬🎤🎧🎼🎵🎶🎹🎻🎺🎷🎸👾🎮🃏🎴🀄🎲🎯🏈🏀⚽⚾🎾🎱🏉🎳⛳🚵🚴🏁

🏠🏡🏫🏢🏣🏥🏦🏪🏩🏨💒⛪🏬🏤🌇🌆🏯🏰⛺🏭🗼🗾🗻🌄🌅🌃🗽🌉🎠🎡⛲🎢🚢⛵🚤🚣⚓🚀✈💺🚁🚂🚊🚉🚞🚆🚄🚅🚈🚇🚝🚋🚃🚎🚌🚍🚙🚘🚗🚕🚖🚛🚚🚨🚓🚔🚒🚑🚐🚲🚡🚟🚠🚜💈🚏🎫🚦🚥⚠🚧🔰⛽🏮🎰♨🗿🎪🎭📍🚩🇯🇵🇰🇷🇩🇪🇨🇳🇺🇸🇫🇷🇪🇸🇮🇹🇷🇺🇬🇧

1⃣2⃣3⃣4⃣5⃣6⃣7⃣8⃣9⃣0⃣🔟🔢#⃣🔣⬆⬇⬅➡🔠🔡🔤↗↖↘↙↔↕🔄◀▶🔼🔽↩↪

ℹ⏪⏩⏫⏬⤵⤴🆗🔀🔁🔂🆕🆙🆒🆓🆖📶🎦🈁🈯🈳🈵🈴🈲🉐🈹🈺🈶🈚🚻🚹🚺🚼🚾🚰🚮🅿♿🚭🈷🈸🈂Ⓜ🛂🛄🛅🛃🉑㊙㊗🆑🆘🆔🚫🔞📵🚯🚱🚳🚷🚸⛔✳❇❎✅✴💟🆚📳📴🅰🅱🆎🅾💠➿♻♈♉♊♋♌♍♎♏♐♑♒♓⛎🔯🏧💹💲💱©®™❌‼⁉❗❓❕❔⭕🔝🔚🔙🔛🔜🔃🕛🕧🕐🕜🕑🕝🕒🕞🕓🕟🕔🕠🕕🕖🕗🕘🕙🕚🕡🕢🕣🕤🕥🕦✖➕➖➗♠♥♣♦💮💯✔☑🔘🔗➰〰〽🔱◼◻◾◽▪▫🔺🔲🔳⚫⚪🔴🔵🔻⬜⬛🔶🔷🔸🔹

… Wait, did you go through and double click every single one of those out of the Special Characters menu? Props.

Anyway, worldwide software compatibility with emoji is iOS 5 and above and Mac OS 10.7 and above, at least on the Mac side.

Can Windows machines even see emoji at all? Even with Windows 8?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Can Windows machines even see emoji at all? Even with Windows 8?

Yes.  Yes.

Don't be too impressed by my encyclopedic knowledge of all things Windows, though.  I just know how to use google.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

… Wait, did you go through and double click every single one of those out of the Special Characters menu? Props.

 

Yep and left the multiple ones out.

I always wanted to see what they all looked like in a big bunch like that.

Excellent, exactly what they should have done in the first place.  And they excelled themselves by delivering in less than 14 days!

Looks like it was a case of inaccurate rather than incorrect or untrue, who'd have guessed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredawest 

Looks like it was a case of inaccurate rather than incorrect or untrue, who'd have guessed?

I'm mildly surprised Apple actually posts that it's original statement was inaccurate.

http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/screen-shot-2012-11-03-at-7-35-42-am1.png

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 
I'm mildly surprised Apple actually posts that it's original statement was inaccurate.

http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/screen-shot-2012-11-03-at-7-35-42-am1.png

I'm extraordinarily surprised, given that the original statement was not only not incorrect, it's the same as the current statement.

They didn't not copy, they were found to have not infringed. 

Originally Posted by ClemyNX 
Someone at the legal department took the reins and corrected the stupid mistake that was done the first time.

The stupid mistake of… saying exactly the same thing they said the first time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

I'm mildly surprised Apple actually posts that it's original statement was inaccurate.

http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/screen-shot-2012-11-03-at-7-35-42-am1.png

Just following orders. Again.

(and the raspberry they tossed in while doing it was brilliant. Just scroll)