I'd love to see you explain what the hell you mean by this? How does me objecting to casually tossed around nationalistic barbs about school massacres (on both sides of the Atlantic) have anything to do with what we're talking about?
I don't see anything nationalistic about that. He threw up some false comment about how Americans have to bring guns to school for protection, ignoring the point of the thread, and someone else replied with a school shooting in your own country.
Specifically, he claimed that all US schools are shot up regularly enough that students must protect themselves with weapons. Nonsense on the face of it and wholly off-topic, ignoring the point I was making, but stated nonetheless. Within his context, he implied not only that US schools are dangerous, but that UK schools are safe—or at the very least, that this doesn't happen.
Someone else replied in the negative in that regard, and then you decided that his point was invalid simply because it would have proven incorrect his implication. It did not, on its own, disprove his explicit statement, but that's already so far gone that we know it not to be true.
EDIT: Corrected for pronouns. But this one is still correct.
No. You still are missing the point that dad didn't provide specific instructions and only ASSUMED that child would respect his wishes. This was your analogy, remember. Now, you are testy over someone pointing out it's flaws. Are you actually the judge? You are doing the exact same thing!
Not getting testy at all, just checking that we have the same understanding. Not that it's cleared up that we are I can wholeheartedly say that I think you're wrong, and that what you claim is a flaw is not a flaw.
There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption. Reasonableness can be tested in court, but it is something that underpins a lot of judicial process. I think that the dad in the analogy, and the judge in actuality were both completely reasonable in their expectation; that the kid would not be a little sod, and Apple would not be a creatively contrarian worm. The law does not exist solely to spell out in precise step-by-step instruction exactly what should be done, there are also expectations and intentions and the spirit of the law; just like there is a spirit of responsible sandwich making.
I don't see anything nationalistic about that. You threw up some false comment about how Americans have to bring guns to school for protection, ignoring the point of the thread, and someone else replied with a school shooting in your own country.
Specifically, you claimed that all US schools are shot up regularly enough that students must protect themselves with weapons. Nonsense on the face of it and wholly off-topic, ignoring the point I was making, but stated nonetheless. Within your context, you implied not only that US schools are dangerous, but that UK schools are safe—or at the very least, that this doesn't happen.
Someone else replied in the negative in that regard, and then you decided that his point was invalid simply because it would have proven incorrect your implication. It did not, on its own, disprove your explicit statement, but that's already so far gone that we know it not to be true.
None of this is true. The person you are referring to wasn't me. I expect an apology on the front page of your website.
Oh look, what are the odds this idiot is also the same guy who used to post as "fredaroony"? Creating multiple accounts to keep coming back and post trash shows what an absolute loser you are.
The odds are Zero - I'm genuinely a first time poster. I guess you have a serious problem when anyone has the temerity not to agree with you. I love your take on debate and discussion it's truly priceless.
I still don't know what you're getting at. I didn't claim "that his point was invalid simply because it would have proven incorrect his implication" (I'm not even sure who "he" is in this context) - I just asked that we not talk about high school massacres, as they're irrelevant to the discussion and bringing them up is a bit distasteful.
I also think bringing the UK education system into the discussion was a bit off. You did that.
I have a question for you: Can you show me any single case in UK court history where a company was forced to post a public notice like this after losing a lawsuit in court?
The judge's reasoning was clearly stated in the order I linked to earlier. If you read it for yourself without tinted glasses on you may even agree that the reasoning was proper.
If there's been a similar case I wouldn't know about it, nor do I know why it would matter. The original case Judge rendered an order that Apple didn't agree with. Apple appealed. Three more judges upheld the original order to publish with minor modifications to the original order, taking the time to explain to Apple and it's counsel why they felt the order was both necessary and proper. Apple feels they technically complied with the letter of the order, but went further than advised to break the spirit of the order as far as the Appeals Court is concerned. Four judge's heard this motion after Apple's notice was posted, and agree again that Apple is still using innuendo to claim Samsung's tablets are infringing on Apple's design patent regardless of what the European-wide ruling factually is. I don't think being heard by five judges next time would change the order that the original judge felt was needed in the first place, do you?
There's nothing confusing about where they are now IMO. It could have gone either way, but it's not hard to understand why the court may have had an issue with how Apple complied.
No accounting for respect of the law in some peoples outlook I suppose.
Do you really believe this is an important legal issue? How did Apple show disrespect for the law? They complied with the order, the Judge thought it made his foolish ruling look foolish and got mad. Maybe they Judge should concentrate on not writing foolish rulings in the future.
The judge's reasoning was clearly stated in the order I linked to earlier. If you read it for yourself without tinted glasses on you may even agree that the reasoning was proper.
If there's been a similar case I wouldn't know about it, nor do I know why it would matter. The original case Judge rendered an order that Apple didn't agree with. Apple appealed. [SIZE=14px]Three[/SIZE] more judges upheld the original order to publish with minor modifications to the original order, taking the time to explain to Apple and it's counsel why they felt the order was both necessary and proper. Apple feels they technically complied with the letter of the order, but went further than advised to break the spirit of the order as far as the Appeals Court is concerned. [SIZE=14px]Four[/SIZE] judge's heard this motion after Apple's notice was posted, and agree again that Apple is still using innuendo to claim Samsung's tablets are infringing on Apple's design patent regardless of what the European-wide ruling factually is. I don't think being heard by five judges next time would change the order that the original judge felt was needed in the first place, do you?
There's nothing confusing about where they are now IMO.
Here is my issue. If Apple posted Simply "Samsung did not copy Apple" and then below it put a complete unedited copy of the court ruling, you would have the same innuendo. The innuendo comes from the ruling. Blame the Judge.
Do you really believe this is an important legal issue?
Every legal issue is important whether you agree with it or not. If the judge let's Apple get away with this it makes the law an even bigger ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
They complied with the order, the Judge thought it made his foolish ruling look foolish and got mad. Maybe they Judge should concentrate on not writing foolish rulings in the future.
Except they DIDN'T comply with the order. You might not agree with that, but its a fact.
Not getting testy at all, just checking that we have the same understanding. Not that it's cleared up that we are I can wholeheartedly say that I think you're wrong, and that what you claim is a flaw is not a flaw.
There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption. Reasonableness can be tested in court, but it is something that underpins a lot of judicial process. I think that the dad in the analogy, and the judge in actuality were both completely reasonable in their expectation; that the kid would not be a little sod, and Apple would not be a creatively contrarian worm. The law does not exist solely to spell out in precise step-by-step instruction exactly what should be done, there are also expectations and intentions and the spirit of the law; just like there is a spirit of responsible sandwich making.
I agree. It's clear from the paragraph 51 from the original ruling (which we both quoted earlier), that the entire point of requiring Apple to post this statement was to remove ambiguity. Apple got clever and did exactly what the judge was complaining about and was called on it.
Here's an analogy for ya. Suppose a tabacco company is instructed to include a "warning on it's packaging" (or a certain size) about the dangers of smoking "to correct the company's habit of saying one thing and implying another in terms of the safety of smoking" and the final packaging includes the warning as required but includes four times as much text talking about how other people have found that smoking might be good for you. Is that company complying with the order? No. The instructions have context.
Apple should delete the extra crap, apologize to the court for it's "unintentional" noncompliance with the spirit of the order and call it a day. If not, I'd say the appeals court could easily reverse their original "a link is ok" decision and force Apple to put the statement on the home page in the 11 point font as ordered. (By the way to the guy arguing that there is case law that dictates what size fonts companies should use in these cases, there may be (or not) but it's moot. The order specifically said the font size. And no, white text on white background would not be considered complying.)
Come on man, this has been answered to death by many people. The final paragraph undermines the rest of the statement by referencing other judgements in other courts. Those other courts are not relevant in the UK (and yes, that includes the German one which was a national court), but referencing the different decision undermines the very intention of the court order, to clear up confusion and innuendo about whether Samsung are infringing on Apple's design. Apple were ordered to clarify the situation, but they chose to obvuscate and create further inclarity by adding their own editorial, in conflict with the order.
Here is my issue. If Apple posted Simply "Samsung did not copy Apple" and then below it put a complete unedited copy of the court ruling, you would have the same innuendo. The innuendo comes from the ruling. Blame the Judge.
Samsung copies Apple because they are aiming at the poorer demographic of the market share. Everybody wants an iPhone, but not everybody can afford one. So Samsung makes something that's a cheaper alternative to try to get those people's money.
This is a political judgment through and through. British Civil Law, and European Law for that matter, clearly defines what's permissible and what's not permissible under a set of laws. But with ample freedom for Justices to color judgments with their own biased interpretations.
As much as South Korean Civil Law contorts under pressure from the Korean industrial cartel, British Civil Law reins in threats to its sense of omnipotence by imposing top-down, abusive interpretations to what it considers to be an invasion of the British character's privacy. British Law is flexing his interpretative power muscles in this Apple case towards the overbearing transcendence of a foreign intruder.
Interpretation of the Law has nothing to do with British justice, specially when it comes to dealing with a foreign threat. It has everything to do with British politics and the British insular sense of defensiveness. British Justice would partner with the devil itself, ...which in this case happens to be a Google/Samsung cross-breed, to summon ambitious invaders to their top-down, whimsical interpretation of British Law. A Judge's mindset bounds the rule of Law, ...just as a Monarch's character traits used to define British Monarchy. I'm afraid the administration of British Justice has taken over the secular role of a ruling British Monarch... Sometimes equitable, ...always breathlessly arbitrary...
Should Apple conform to the diktats of power-play politics camouflaged as a civil judgment? Apple has so much idealism built into its business model...and into its products...that one wonders how it can co-exist alongside so much cynicism embedded into the righteous core of regulators and legal institutions. There seems to be an unholy alliance of legacy entitlement and a running commoditizing process to stop the merging of 'liberal arts' and technology in its track.
No. It shouldn't. It has to take a stand. But can, ...will Tim Cook rise to the 'liberal arts' part of the equation, as I suspect Steve Jobs would? If not, may God save Apple, for the Queen would not...
Come on man, this has been answered to death by many people.
No, it hasn't. You seem to like pickles, so let's go back to that broken analogy.
Dad tells his kid he doesn't like pickles. Dad asks kid to go to the store, gives him the money for a specific set of groceries. Kid gets the groceries. Also uses his own money to buy pickles. Dad punishes kid.
Stop the projector (do not turn off the sound) and discuss with the class: was the dad ethically, morally, or legally correct in punishing his son?
Comments
Originally Posted by Crowley
I'd love to see you explain what the hell you mean by this? How does me objecting to casually tossed around nationalistic barbs about school massacres (on both sides of the Atlantic) have anything to do with what we're talking about?
I don't see anything nationalistic about that. He threw up some false comment about how Americans have to bring guns to school for protection, ignoring the point of the thread, and someone else replied with a school shooting in your own country.
Specifically, he claimed that all US schools are shot up regularly enough that students must protect themselves with weapons. Nonsense on the face of it and wholly off-topic, ignoring the point I was making, but stated nonetheless. Within his context, he implied not only that US schools are dangerous, but that UK schools are safe—or at the very least, that this doesn't happen.
Someone else replied in the negative in that regard, and then you decided that his point was invalid simply because it would have proven incorrect his implication. It did not, on its own, disprove his explicit statement, but that's already so far gone that we know it not to be true.
EDIT: Corrected for pronouns. But this one is still correct.
"A consumer might well think: 'I had better not buy a Samsung - maybe it's illegal and if I buy one it may not be supported'," Sir Robin said.
Well that is just silly.
Also they only really need to remove the reference to the German and US rulings, there is no need to rewrite the entire statement.
Human history is replete with examples of protest when the law is an ass. As it appears to be in the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff
No. You still are missing the point that dad didn't provide specific instructions and only ASSUMED that child would respect his wishes. This was your analogy, remember. Now, you are testy over someone pointing out it's flaws. Are you actually the judge? You are doing the exact same thing!
Not getting testy at all, just checking that we have the same understanding. Not that it's cleared up that we are I can wholeheartedly say that I think you're wrong, and that what you claim is a flaw is not a flaw.
There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption. Reasonableness can be tested in court, but it is something that underpins a lot of judicial process. I think that the dad in the analogy, and the judge in actuality were both completely reasonable in their expectation; that the kid would not be a little sod, and Apple would not be a creatively contrarian worm. The law does not exist solely to spell out in precise step-by-step instruction exactly what should be done, there are also expectations and intentions and the spirit of the law; just like there is a spirit of responsible sandwich making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I don't see anything nationalistic about that. You threw up some false comment about how Americans have to bring guns to school for protection, ignoring the point of the thread, and someone else replied with a school shooting in your own country.
Specifically, you claimed that all US schools are shot up regularly enough that students must protect themselves with weapons. Nonsense on the face of it and wholly off-topic, ignoring the point I was making, but stated nonetheless. Within your context, you implied not only that US schools are dangerous, but that UK schools are safe—or at the very least, that this doesn't happen.
Someone else replied in the negative in that regard, and then you decided that his point was invalid simply because it would have proven incorrect your implication. It did not, on its own, disprove your explicit statement, but that's already so far gone that we know it not to be true.
None of this is true. The person you are referring to wasn't me. I expect an apology on the front page of your website.
Originally Posted by Crowley
None of this is true. The person you are referring to wasn't me.
Whoop, you're right. Sorry about that. Changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Oh look, what are the odds this idiot is also the same guy who used to post as "fredaroony"? Creating multiple accounts to keep coming back and post trash shows what an absolute loser you are.
The odds are Zero - I'm genuinely a first time poster. I guess you have a serious problem when anyone has the temerity not to agree with you. I love your take on debate and discussion it's truly priceless.
I still don't know what you're getting at. I didn't claim "that his point was invalid simply because it would have proven incorrect his implication" (I'm not even sure who "he" is in this context) - I just asked that we not talk about high school massacres, as they're irrelevant to the discussion and bringing them up is a bit distasteful.
I also think bringing the UK education system into the discussion was a bit off. You did that.
Maybe I've misunderstood you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I have a question for you: Can you show me any single case in UK court history where a company was forced to post a public notice like this after losing a lawsuit in court?
The judge's reasoning was clearly stated in the order I linked to earlier. If you read it for yourself without tinted glasses on you may even agree that the reasoning was proper.
If there's been a similar case I wouldn't know about it, nor do I know why it would matter. The original case Judge rendered an order that Apple didn't agree with. Apple appealed. Three more judges upheld the original order to publish with minor modifications to the original order, taking the time to explain to Apple and it's counsel why they felt the order was both necessary and proper. Apple feels they technically complied with the letter of the order, but went further than advised to break the spirit of the order as far as the Appeals Court is concerned. Four judge's heard this motion after Apple's notice was posted, and agree again that Apple is still using innuendo to claim Samsung's tablets are infringing on Apple's design patent regardless of what the European-wide ruling factually is. I don't think being heard by five judges next time would change the order that the original judge felt was needed in the first place, do you?
There's nothing confusing about where they are now IMO. It could have gone either way, but it's not hard to understand why the court may have had an issue with how Apple complied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Human history is replete with examples of protest when the law is an ass. As it appears to be in the case.
Jeez, I'm all for protest by people not frigging multinational prtotectionist companies.
Do you really believe this is an important legal issue? How did Apple show disrespect for the law? They complied with the order, the Judge thought it made his foolish ruling look foolish and got mad. Maybe they Judge should concentrate on not writing foolish rulings in the future.
Originally Posted by Wovel
How did Apple show disrespect for the law?
No one seems to want to answer this question.
Here is my issue. If Apple posted Simply "Samsung did not copy Apple" and then below it put a complete unedited copy of the court ruling, you would have the same innuendo. The innuendo comes from the ruling. Blame the Judge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
Do you really believe this is an important legal issue?
Every legal issue is important whether you agree with it or not. If the judge let's Apple get away with this it makes the law an even bigger ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
They complied with the order, the Judge thought it made his foolish ruling look foolish and got mad. Maybe they Judge should concentrate on not writing foolish rulings in the future.
Except they DIDN'T comply with the order. You might not agree with that, but its a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Not getting testy at all, just checking that we have the same understanding. Not that it's cleared up that we are I can wholeheartedly say that I think you're wrong, and that what you claim is a flaw is not a flaw.
There is such a thing as a reasonable assumption. Reasonableness can be tested in court, but it is something that underpins a lot of judicial process. I think that the dad in the analogy, and the judge in actuality were both completely reasonable in their expectation; that the kid would not be a little sod, and Apple would not be a creatively contrarian worm. The law does not exist solely to spell out in precise step-by-step instruction exactly what should be done, there are also expectations and intentions and the spirit of the law; just like there is a spirit of responsible sandwich making.
I agree. It's clear from the paragraph 51 from the original ruling (which we both quoted earlier), that the entire point of requiring Apple to post this statement was to remove ambiguity. Apple got clever and did exactly what the judge was complaining about and was called on it.
Here's an analogy for ya. Suppose a tabacco company is instructed to include a "warning on it's packaging" (or a certain size) about the dangers of smoking "to correct the company's habit of saying one thing and implying another in terms of the safety of smoking" and the final packaging includes the warning as required but includes four times as much text talking about how other people have found that smoking might be good for you. Is that company complying with the order? No. The instructions have context.
Apple should delete the extra crap, apologize to the court for it's "unintentional" noncompliance with the spirit of the order and call it a day. If not, I'd say the appeals court could easily reverse their original "a link is ok" decision and force Apple to put the statement on the home page in the 11 point font as ordered. (By the way to the guy arguing that there is case law that dictates what size fonts companies should use in these cases, there may be (or not) but it's moot. The order specifically said the font size. And no, white text on white background would not be considered complying.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No one seems to want to answer this question.
Come on man, this has been answered to death by many people. The final paragraph undermines the rest of the statement by referencing other judgements in other courts. Those other courts are not relevant in the UK (and yes, that includes the German one which was a national court), but referencing the different decision undermines the very intention of the court order, to clear up confusion and innuendo about whether Samsung are infringing on Apple's design. Apple were ordered to clarify the situation, but they chose to obvuscate and create further inclarity by adding their own editorial, in conflict with the order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
And no, white text on white background would not be considered complying.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
Here is my issue. If Apple posted Simply "Samsung did not copy Apple" and then below it put a complete unedited copy of the court ruling, you would have the same innuendo. The innuendo comes from the ruling. Blame the Judge.
Samsung copies Apple because they are aiming at the poorer demographic of the market share. Everybody wants an iPhone, but not everybody can afford one. So Samsung makes something that's a cheaper alternative to try to get those people's money.
This is a political judgment through and through. British Civil Law, and European Law for that matter, clearly defines what's permissible and what's not permissible under a set of laws. But with ample freedom for Justices to color judgments with their own biased interpretations.
As much as South Korean Civil Law contorts under pressure from the Korean industrial cartel, British Civil Law reins in threats to its sense of omnipotence by imposing top-down, abusive interpretations to what it considers to be an invasion of the British character's privacy. British Law is flexing his interpretative power muscles in this Apple case towards the overbearing transcendence of a foreign intruder.
Interpretation of the Law has nothing to do with British justice, specially when it comes to dealing with a foreign threat. It has everything to do with British politics and the British insular sense of defensiveness. British Justice would partner with the devil itself, ...which in this case happens to be a Google/Samsung cross-breed, to summon ambitious invaders to their top-down, whimsical interpretation of British Law. A Judge's mindset bounds the rule of Law, ...just as a Monarch's character traits used to define British Monarchy. I'm afraid the administration of British Justice has taken over the secular role of a ruling British Monarch... Sometimes equitable, ...always breathlessly arbitrary...
Should Apple conform to the diktats of power-play politics camouflaged as a civil judgment? Apple has so much idealism built into its business model...and into its products...that one wonders how it can co-exist alongside so much cynicism embedded into the righteous core of regulators and legal institutions. There seems to be an unholy alliance of legacy entitlement and a running commoditizing process to stop the merging of 'liberal arts' and technology in its track.
No. It shouldn't. It has to take a stand. But can, ...will Tim Cook rise to the 'liberal arts' part of the equation, as I suspect Steve Jobs would? If not, may God save Apple, for the Queen would not...
Originally Posted by Crowley
Come on man, this has been answered to death by many people.
No, it hasn't. You seem to like pickles, so let's go back to that broken analogy.
Dad tells his kid he doesn't like pickles. Dad asks kid to go to the store, gives him the money for a specific set of groceries. Kid gets the groceries. Also uses his own money to buy pickles. Dad punishes kid.
Stop the projector (do not turn off the sound) and discuss with the class: was the dad ethically, morally, or legally correct in punishing his son?