Basically it says Samsung was found not guilty by this court, but guilty by these other courts. By tacking on the commentary they are undermining the intent of the court.
Agreed and they should be punished for this act. It is irritating when adults cannot simply follow the rule of law. In this case, Apple lost and needs to follow through with the judge's decision in good faith. This post is nothing more than playing a complicated game of semantics. If Apple had followed through, in an honest manner, I would have simply thought, "Okay, Apple did as instructed. Life moves on.". But, now, after reading their post, all I can think about is how Apple choose to act in a childish manner. I am neither an Apple fan or an "other" fan, but this really makes me think less of Apple. Just another example that people won't take responsibility. And yes, Samsung will also have to take responsibility as well.
People make jokes about Apple getting around the court's decision, and don't think twice that it is wrong to do so. I guess that is no different than finding any loophole to avoid paying a person's fair share of taxes. More of the self-entitlement mentality...or better yet, the sandbox "Me!!! Me!!! ME!!!" mentality.
Contempt of court?????? They complied with the exact rulings and even quoted the judge's comments.
How fair can they get. Of course if you just hate Apple, anything except closing the doors and giving the money back to the shareholders (are you listening Dell) is not acceptable.
Just a thought. Thanks to asdasd for a well focused comment.
Agreed and they should be punished for this act. It is irritating when adults cannot simply follow the rule of law. In this case, Apple lost and needs to follow through with the judge's decision in good faith. This post is nothing more than playing a complicated game of semantics. If Apple had followed through, in an honest manner, I would have simply thought, "Okay, Apple did as instructed. Life moves on.". But, now, after reading their post, all I can think about is how Apple choose to act in a childish manner. I am neither an Apple fan or an "other" fan, but this really makes me think less of Apple. Just another example that people won't take responsibility. And yes, Samsung will also have to take responsibility as well.
People make jokes about Apple getting around the court's decision, and don't think twice that it is wrong to do so. I guess that is no different than finding any loophole to avoid paying a person's fair share of taxes. More of the self-entitlement mentality...or better yet, the sandbox "Me!!! Me!!! ME!!!" mentality.
Grow up people.
In your taxes comparison, it would actually be more like someone getting away with paying exactly what they are legally required to pay.
I really don't see why people are getting bent about Apple following the order. Did you expect them to get down on the knees and wail an apology? They were order to publish a notice with specific requirements. They did so. Wanting anything more is simply being childish.
In your taxes comparison, it would actually be more like someone getting away with paying exactly what they are legally required to pay.
I really don't see why people are getting bent about Apple following the order. Did you expect them to get down on the knees and wail an apology? They were order to publish a notice with specific requirements. They did so. Wanting anything more is simply being childish.
Sigh. No, I don't want the to "wail". I never said anything such as that. I expected them to state that they were wrong in their statement. If they wanted to add something along the lines of "pursuant to court order number xxxxxx we were wrong in our statement regarding Samsung...."
Adding the extra nonsense about the other cases bypasses the actual point of the court's order and they should be held in contempt for the act.
What more did "I want"? Nothing. Never said I did. Reread my post.
In your taxes comparison, it would actually be more like someone getting away with paying exactly what they are legally required to pay.
I really don't see why people are getting bent about Apple following the order. Did you expect them to get down on the knees and wail an apology? They were order to publish a notice with specific requirements. They did so. Wanting anything more is simply being childish.
Here's the deal, Apple's post is childish. If you are/were a parent, would you accept this as a proper apology for bullying another kid? "Sorry for calling you a liar Tommy... but John and Jane's parents say you are!"
... but they declare Samsung DID infringe. Twice even.
Providing more libel...something they should be punished for. If Samsung can be held up by their short and curlies, so should Apple (if and when they make an error...as they did here).
Providing more libel...something they should be punished for. If Samsung can be held up by their short and curlies, so should Apple (if and when they make an error...as they did here).
It's not libel if it is 100% true and provable. They mentioned that other courts have decided differently. 100% factual. Therefore not libelous.
Here's the deal, Apple's post is childish. If you are/were a parent, would you accept this as a proper apology for bullying another kid? "Sorry for calling you a liar Tommy... but John and Jane's parents say you are!"
I am a parent. Do you think the courts can somehow impose sincerity? The bully could say say "I am soooo sorry Tommy for calling you a liar. You aren't a liar at all. I mean it". Would that be more sincere?
First of all, has anyone read the order itself? Did it order a warm, heartfelt and sincere apology, maybe with gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes? Or did it order that Apple post a notice of the UK court decision that Samsung didn't copy? If the latter, then job done. If the former, then the UK courts are dumber than I thought.
The deal is that Apple's post is not childish. It appears to obey the order, as I understood it. There was no editorializing, but it did include related facts. I see no problem with it unless someone can produce the order itself and show me where it had to be an apology that sounded sincere.
It's not libel if it is 100% true and provable. They mentioned that other courts have decided differently. 100% factual. Therefore not libelous.
Well. .kinda.
I don't believe the mention of the German court is telling the whole story and therefor still a bit misleading. I think I'm correct in remembering that a higher German court overruled the flawed finding of the lower one that found Samsung to infringe. AFAIK only the recent US jury trial finds Samsung to be infringing on that particular design patent, either the US or EU version. The German, Dutch and UK courts all found they did not.
EDIT: I'll take a few minutes to check for certain later, but the German ruling Apple refers to may be the preliminary one where they suggested ways that Samsung could avoid Apple's design claims on the original Tab. Samsung listened and made minimal changes, and the German court then agreed Samsung was not infringing. In any case I think Apple is only mentioning half the story. The German courts found Samsung in the clear rather than guilty IIRC.
... but they declare Samsung DID infringe. Twice even.
Which is accurate as they were found guilty in other courts of law and Apple states that clearly. Apple isn't lying about anything.
The UK court could have ruled that the page should only state that Samsung didn't infringe on their products but they didn't do that. Apple's lawyers know what they are doing.
This court was clearly trying to use their ruling to influence other courts by making a global statement - a UK website is not limited to UK residents. If other courts find Samsung guilty, that's their decision to make.
This court was clearly trying to use their ruling to influence other courts by making a global statement - a UK website is not limited to UK residents. If other courts find Samsung guilty, that's their decision to make.
This ruling of non-infringement applies to the entire EU, not just the UK.
Looks like Apple failed to follow court order here
Not at all. They were ordered to post the statement by the court. They did.
It had to be on the front page, in a common font and no less than 14 pt type. With a link to the ruling. It is.
Yes they took the order by letter of the law, not intent. But that's not contemptible. The Judge likely expected it or he would have been more careful with wording the order. Especially in not prohibiting additional comments from the court record.
Apple. basically mocked the orders of the UK judge and made a fool of him.
Not agreeing with his ruling is one thing, but to bring in other European courts decisions is going too far.
This is contempt of court.
So when there is no contempt of court finding will you and all the others of your ilk posting on this thread come and admit that you were wrong? You're welcome to post a link to a page where it says "the UK court did not find Apple in contempt but Fandroids throughout the world think Tim Cook and his lawyers deserve to rot in jail for their childishness."
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Basically it says Samsung was found not guilty by this court, but guilty by these other courts. By tacking on the commentary they are undermining the intent of the court.
Agreed and they should be punished for this act. It is irritating when adults cannot simply follow the rule of law. In this case, Apple lost and needs to follow through with the judge's decision in good faith. This post is nothing more than playing a complicated game of semantics. If Apple had followed through, in an honest manner, I would have simply thought, "Okay, Apple did as instructed. Life moves on.". But, now, after reading their post, all I can think about is how Apple choose to act in a childish manner. I am neither an Apple fan or an "other" fan, but this really makes me think less of Apple. Just another example that people won't take responsibility. And yes, Samsung will also have to take responsibility as well.
People make jokes about Apple getting around the court's decision, and don't think twice that it is wrong to do so. I guess that is no different than finding any loophole to avoid paying a person's fair share of taxes. More of the self-entitlement mentality...or better yet, the sandbox "Me!!! Me!!! ME!!!" mentality.
Grow up people.
They complied with the exact rulings and even quoted the judge's comments.
How fair can they get. Of course if you just hate Apple, anything except closing the doors and giving the money back to the shareholders (are you listening Dell) is not acceptable.
Just a thought.
Thanks to asdasd for a well focused comment.
en
LMAO at everyone butthurt about Apple's cleverness.
They followed the ruling, and their legal dept. cleared the wording. *shrugs*
If Samsung doesn't like it they can apply to the courts.
Meanwhile, Apple is selling iPads well into the double digits, and over 100 million in total so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
Agreed and they should be punished for this act. It is irritating when adults cannot simply follow the rule of law. In this case, Apple lost and needs to follow through with the judge's decision in good faith. This post is nothing more than playing a complicated game of semantics. If Apple had followed through, in an honest manner, I would have simply thought, "Okay, Apple did as instructed. Life moves on.". But, now, after reading their post, all I can think about is how Apple choose to act in a childish manner. I am neither an Apple fan or an "other" fan, but this really makes me think less of Apple. Just another example that people won't take responsibility. And yes, Samsung will also have to take responsibility as well.
People make jokes about Apple getting around the court's decision, and don't think twice that it is wrong to do so. I guess that is no different than finding any loophole to avoid paying a person's fair share of taxes. More of the self-entitlement mentality...or better yet, the sandbox "Me!!! Me!!! ME!!!" mentality.
Grow up people.
In your taxes comparison, it would actually be more like someone getting away with paying exactly what they are legally required to pay.
I really don't see why people are getting bent about Apple following the order. Did you expect them to get down on the knees and wail an apology? They were order to publish a notice with specific requirements. They did so. Wanting anything more is simply being childish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
The judge didn't say they couldn't tack on additional commentary. The judge said Apple had to say Sammy didn't infringe and the site does say that.
... but they declare Samsung DID infringe. Twice even.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
In your taxes comparison, it would actually be more like someone getting away with paying exactly what they are legally required to pay.
I really don't see why people are getting bent about Apple following the order. Did you expect them to get down on the knees and wail an apology? They were order to publish a notice with specific requirements. They did so. Wanting anything more is simply being childish.
Sigh. No, I don't want the to "wail". I never said anything such as that. I expected them to state that they were wrong in their statement. If they wanted to add something along the lines of "pursuant to court order number xxxxxx we were wrong in our statement regarding Samsung...."
Adding the extra nonsense about the other cases bypasses the actual point of the court's order and they should be held in contempt for the act.
What more did "I want"? Nothing. Never said I did. Reread my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
In your taxes comparison, it would actually be more like someone getting away with paying exactly what they are legally required to pay.
I really don't see why people are getting bent about Apple following the order. Did you expect them to get down on the knees and wail an apology? They were order to publish a notice with specific requirements. They did so. Wanting anything more is simply being childish.
Here's the deal, Apple's post is childish. If you are/were a parent, would you accept this as a proper apology for bullying another kid? "Sorry for calling you a liar Tommy... but John and Jane's parents say you are!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
... but they declare Samsung DID infringe. Twice even.
Providing more libel...something they should be punished for. If Samsung can be held up by their short and curlies, so should Apple (if and when they make an error...as they did here).
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
Providing more libel...something they should be punished for. If Samsung can be held up by their short and curlies, so should Apple (if and when they make an error...as they did here).
It's not libel if it is 100% true and provable. They mentioned that other courts have decided differently. 100% factual. Therefore not libelous.
Priceless
Not agreeing with his ruling is one thing, but to bring in other European courts decisions is going too far.
This is contempt of court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Here's the deal, Apple's post is childish. If you are/were a parent, would you accept this as a proper apology for bullying another kid? "Sorry for calling you a liar Tommy... but John and Jane's parents say you are!"
I am a parent. Do you think the courts can somehow impose sincerity? The bully could say say "I am soooo sorry Tommy for calling you a liar. You aren't a liar at all. I mean it". Would that be more sincere?
First of all, has anyone read the order itself? Did it order a warm, heartfelt and sincere apology, maybe with gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes? Or did it order that Apple post a notice of the UK court decision that Samsung didn't copy? If the latter, then job done. If the former, then the UK courts are dumber than I thought.
The deal is that Apple's post is not childish. It appears to obey the order, as I understood it. There was no editorializing, but it did include related facts. I see no problem with it unless someone can produce the order itself and show me where it had to be an apology that sounded sincere.
looks still wrong in the first sentence
...regional website to state that Samsung did infringe on its ...
should it not say .....Samsung did NOT infringe on its ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
It's not libel if it is 100% true and provable. They mentioned that other courts have decided differently. 100% factual. Therefore not libelous.
Well. .kinda.
I don't believe the mention of the German court is telling the whole story and therefor still a bit misleading. I think I'm correct in remembering that a higher German court overruled the flawed finding of the lower one that found Samsung to infringe. AFAIK only the recent US jury trial finds Samsung to be infringing on that particular design patent, either the US or EU version. The German, Dutch and UK courts all found they did not.
EDIT: I'll take a few minutes to check for certain later, but the German ruling Apple refers to may be the preliminary one where they suggested ways that Samsung could avoid Apple's design claims on the original Tab. Samsung listened and made minimal changes, and the German court then agreed Samsung was not infringing. In any case I think Apple is only mentioning half the story. The German courts found Samsung in the clear rather than guilty IIRC.
Which is accurate as they were found guilty in other courts of law and Apple states that clearly. Apple isn't lying about anything.
The UK court could have ruled that the page should only state that Samsung didn't infringe on their products but they didn't do that. Apple's lawyers know what they are doing.
This court was clearly trying to use their ruling to influence other courts by making a global statement - a UK website is not limited to UK residents. If other courts find Samsung guilty, that's their decision to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
... but they declare Samsung DID infringe. Twice even.
Was that a lie? The judge order did not say Apple cannot mention the outcome of other lawsuits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
This court was clearly trying to use their ruling to influence other courts by making a global statement - a UK website is not limited to UK residents. If other courts find Samsung guilty, that's their decision to make.
This ruling of non-infringement applies to the entire EU, not just the UK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Apple. basically mocked the orders of the UK judge and made a fool of him.
Not agreeing with his ruling is one thing, but to bring in other European courts decisions is going too far.
This is contempt of court.
The judge made a fool of himself by writing such a petty, childish order. He needed no help from Apple.
Not at all. They were ordered to post the statement by the court. They did.
It had to be on the front page, in a common font and no less than 14 pt type. With a link to the ruling. It is.
Yes they took the order by letter of the law, not intent. But that's not contemptible. The Judge likely expected it or he would have been more careful with wording the order. Especially in not prohibiting additional comments from the court record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Apple. basically mocked the orders of the UK judge and made a fool of him.
Not agreeing with his ruling is one thing, but to bring in other European courts decisions is going too far.
This is contempt of court.
So when there is no contempt of court finding will you and all the others of your ilk posting on this thread come and admit that you were wrong? You're welcome to post a link to a page where it says "the UK court did not find Apple in contempt but Fandroids throughout the world think Tim Cook and his lawyers deserve to rot in jail for their childishness."