Not necessary. The court order already applies to Samsung, it's partners and those acting in concert with them. This includes the retailers. Retailers that don't comply will be reported to the presiding judge, who decides whether to cite them for contempt or not.
Right, so Apple sending out this notice just makes them look foolish. A - Hey judge, since you are not doing your job in a manner we see fit we will do it for you B - Hey retailers, since you are not doing your jobs in a manner we see fit we will threaten you.
Not necessary. The court order already applies to Samsung, it's partners and those acting in concert with them. This includes the retailers. Retailers that don't comply will be reported to the presiding judge, who decides whether to cite them for contempt or not.
Getting an injunction is one mountain climbed, getting it enforced is another. Local law enforcement have bigger fish to fry than a retailer selling devices.
Right, so Apple sending out this notice just makes them look foolish. A - Hey judge, since you are not doing your job in a manner we see fit we will do it for you B - Hey retailers, since you are not doing your jobs in a manner we see fit we will threaten you.
I didn't realize when a judge issues an injunction, he is responsible for telling all the retailers about it too.
Not necessary. The court order already applies to Samsung, it's partners and those acting in concert with them. This includes the retailers. Retailers that don't comply will be reported to the presiding judge, who decides whether to cite them for contempt or not.
That is not correct.
The retailers were not party to the court case and therefore the court case is not binding on them without further action. A decision is only binding on parties to the case. The fact that partners and others are mentioned in the case doesn't mean that they can be found in contempt.
There are a number of options:
1. Apple could let the retailers sell the product and then drag Samsung into court for contempt and/or for any damaged caused by the retailers selling the product. Their argument would be that Samsung was obligated to issue an immediate recall when the order was handed down.
2. Apple can simply ask the retailers to abide by the decision voluntarily - which is what Apple did.
3. Apple could drag the retailer into court to notify the retailer legally that they are covered by the decision.
Apple chose the least intrusive and heavy handed of the three options.
I hope Apple know what they're doing and this, or some other patent they may possibly infringe upon, doesn't blow up in their face. As a shareholder, that's my biggest fear. I'm all for protecting IP but no one should be an a-hole about it. It's all about the 'karma/burning bridges' thing.
Indeed, I didn't realise Apple were the courts and the enforcement now too!
What Apple hater? I own a white 16 GB WiFi iPad 3, 17" MacBook Pro, 2 x iPhone 4S' for my wife and I, and an iPhone 3GS for my four-year-old daughter. I do not even own any Android products.
I would hardly call anything Apple has done thus far a "thermonuclear war" against Android. It is more eye-rolling at best.
Don't worry, he thinks everyone that doesn't agree with him is a Apple hater and doesn't realise there is actually a world outside of his Appledome. It's even scarier to note that some people can like Apple while also liking other brands at the same time!
There is no phone plan tied to the 3GS phone and the casing is heavily cracked. I tossed some toddler educational apps and storybooks onto it. I gave it to her after I upgraded to an iPhone 4S rather than just recycling the phone. Any questions?
Either way Apple looks like a giant douche, bully.
Apple looks like a WINNER, a winner who is stopping a convicted price fixer of selling PIRATE copies of their stuff.
Samsung is being proven guilty left, right and centre.
Everyone knows what they did, apart from those poor sheep who drink the Google Koolaid and are looking at the world through the Google goggle's reality distortion field.
...and now the latest in the Galaxy Nexus injunction saga. It looks like the appeals court will continue to stay any injunction on it, perhaps into August at least. Sales will be allowed to continue for the time-being.
But Apple is not a law enforcing entity. They have no authority. The best they can do is contact local authorities and have them handle it. If any of these providers tell's Apple to pound sand, there is Zero Apple can do about it. What, breach contract and pull Apple products? Go to other carriers? Right, Apple needs the carriers more than the carriers need Apple. Here Jimmy, a nice new iPhone but it has no network.
This is not true at all. You don't have to be a part of law enforcement to enforce the law, and even if you did, this is not that. This is Apple reminding the carriers and distributors (as is the right of literally anyone on earth) that they might be breaking the law and that they probably shouldn't do that.
Anyone can do this. Anyone has the right to do this. In fact, the original concept of democracy would imply that everyone has an obligation to this. The fact that people are selfish a-holes lately and mostly just think of themselves, and that strangers generally will get upset at you "judging" them if you point out the law to them is all irrelevant.
Laws have existed since pre-civilised times, whereas the "police" were only really invented about a hundred years ago.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheviot
Not necessary. The court order already applies to Samsung, it's partners and those acting in concert with them. This includes the retailers. Retailers that don't comply will be reported to the presiding judge, who decides whether to cite them for contempt or not.
Right, so Apple sending out this notice just makes them look foolish. A - Hey judge, since you are not doing your job in a manner we see fit we will do it for you B - Hey retailers, since you are not doing your jobs in a manner we see fit we will threaten you.
Getting an injunction is one mountain climbed, getting it enforced is another. Local law enforcement have bigger fish to fry than a retailer selling devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Right, so Apple sending out this notice just makes them look foolish. A - Hey judge, since you are not doing your job in a manner we see fit we will do it for you B - Hey retailers, since you are not doing your jobs in a manner we see fit we will threaten you.
I didn't realize when a judge issues an injunction, he is responsible for telling all the retailers about it too.
if its about karma then samsung got a lot coming to them and google...
That is not correct.
The retailers were not party to the court case and therefore the court case is not binding on them without further action. A decision is only binding on parties to the case. The fact that partners and others are mentioned in the case doesn't mean that they can be found in contempt.
There are a number of options:
1. Apple could let the retailers sell the product and then drag Samsung into court for contempt and/or for any damaged caused by the retailers selling the product. Their argument would be that Samsung was obligated to issue an immediate recall when the order was handed down.
2. Apple can simply ask the retailers to abide by the decision voluntarily - which is what Apple did.
3. Apple could drag the retailer into court to notify the retailer legally that they are covered by the decision.
Apple chose the least intrusive and heavy handed of the three options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65C816
I didn't realize when a judge issues an injunction, he is responsible for telling all the retailers about it too.
He is the authority that enforces it. If retailers are not complying, the judge is informed and he enforces it through law enforcement. Pretty simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
I hope Apple know what they're doing and this, or some other patent they may possibly infringe upon, doesn't blow up in their face. As a shareholder, that's my biggest fear. I'm all for protecting IP but no one should be an a-hole about it. It's all about the 'karma/burning bridges' thing.
Indeed, I didn't realise Apple were the courts and the enforcement now too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox
...and an iPhone 3GS for my four-year-old daughter.
Society is going down the tubes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox
What Apple hater? I own a white 16 GB WiFi iPad 3, 17" MacBook Pro, 2 x iPhone 4S' for my wife and I, and an iPhone 3GS for my four-year-old daughter. I do not even own any Android products.
I would hardly call anything Apple has done thus far a "thermonuclear war" against Android. It is more eye-rolling at best.
Don't worry, he thinks everyone that doesn't agree with him is a Apple hater and doesn't realise there is actually a world outside of his Appledome. It's even scarier to note that some people can like Apple while also liking other brands at the same time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by fartheststar
Society is going down the tubes.
lol yes, I'm sure she is going to grow as a normal non-materialistic girl.
As not even an old fart, I agree with you, but not necessarily entirely because of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fartheststar
Society is going down the tubes.
There is no phone plan tied to the 3GS phone and the casing is heavily cracked. I tossed some toddler educational apps and storybooks onto it. I gave it to her after I upgraded to an iPhone 4S rather than just recycling the phone. Any questions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Either way Apple looks like a giant douche, bully.
Apple looks like a WINNER, a winner who is stopping a convicted price fixer of selling PIRATE copies of their stuff.
Samsung is being proven guilty left, right and centre.
Everyone knows what they did, apart from those poor sheep who drink the Google Koolaid and are looking at the world through the Google goggle's reality distortion field.
Build a bridge, pal, get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
None pf this will matter once congress and the president sign into law the "no banning for software patent" legislation.
You left out "standards essential".
Is that the Google koolaid talking?
This sounds like another poorly executed legal strategy from the offices of Apple's General Counsel - Mr Bruce Sewell.
...and now the latest in the Galaxy Nexus injunction saga. It looks like the appeals court will continue to stay any injunction on it, perhaps into August at least. Sales will be allowed to continue for the time-being.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/2012-1507.7-13-12.2.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
But Apple is not a law enforcing entity. They have no authority. The best they can do is contact local authorities and have them handle it. If any of these providers tell's Apple to pound sand, there is Zero Apple can do about it. What, breach contract and pull Apple products? Go to other carriers? Right, Apple needs the carriers more than the carriers need Apple. Here Jimmy, a nice new iPhone but it has no network.
This is not true at all. You don't have to be a part of law enforcement to enforce the law, and even if you did, this is not that. This is Apple reminding the carriers and distributors (as is the right of literally anyone on earth) that they might be breaking the law and that they probably shouldn't do that.
Anyone can do this. Anyone has the right to do this. In fact, the original concept of democracy would imply that everyone has an obligation to this. The fact that people are selfish a-holes lately and mostly just think of themselves, and that strangers generally will get upset at you "judging" them if you point out the law to them is all irrelevant.
Laws have existed since pre-civilised times, whereas the "police" were only really invented about a hundred years ago.
Apple, doing what it does best: using the legal system to do business.
If you cant compete, litigate!
Hey, there it is!
This needs to be a bannable statement.
[SIZE=128px]????[/SIZE]