You started it with your claim. You should not make claims you can't substantiate. That's all.
I wasn't the person who claimed the UK is Apple's second biggest market. I haven't claimed anything like that, except that it's a sizeable market and I think I can remember reading the "second biggest" claim a few years back. Evidence was asked for, so I added the best I could find. I don't claim it's true, just that it's reported.
I don't think I need to substantiate anything, thanks.
I'm pretty sure a contempt of court fine is actually based on Worldwide revenue and not UK revenue and is limited to 10% so the fine could be upto $15.6 billion.
They don't have to, but there will be consequences.
Clearly those with legal authority don't agree with you here. I tend to favour their opinion. This is happening and Apple are in trouble. Your continued denial is embarassing.
You're mixing up your targets. Apple is the entity that acted with child-like impudence. And you're the one who's been throwing your toys out of the pram at any suggestion that Apple acted improperly.
Seriously, you and your countrymen that think like you are simply a bunch of simple minded prats. Period.
They've been through the appeal court, and they accepted the final judgement (even if they weaselled an editorial addition in there they still accepted the judgement). The tooth and the nail have been fought.
Since you're in the UK, and are an expert on legal matters, then perhaps you can answer the question Gatorguy couldn't. Namely, provide us with examples of this happening to other companies before Apple.
If there are none, then people are right to call it a stupid ruling.
I'm not an expert in legal matters, and have no examples. I won't even deny that it's an unusual ruling, probably without precedent. But it is a ruling, and a ruling that has been through the appeal courts and been accepted. Apple would have saved themselves a lot of trouble and negative publicity if they'd just taken it like a grown up company.
@FreeRange Sorry, I don't take insults from arrogant, xenophobic, non-entities. Come back when you understand what the word nuance means.
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,
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)
Who the hell are you that you're entitled to knowing what was deemed untrue and incorrect? Apple was given a specific order, waxing poetic and adding to it was obviously not allowed.
I wasn't the person who claimed the UK is Apple's second biggest market. I haven't claimed anything like that, except that it's a sizeable market and I think I can remember reading the "second biggest" claim a few years back. Evidence was asked for, so I added the best I could find. I don't claim it's true, just that it's reported.
I don't think I need to substantiate anything, thanks.
Sorry! It should have been directed at the original poster then....
It's not really clear in that article what "untrue" and "incorrect" are in relation to, I can't see that they're part of any of the longer quotes from the lawyers or judges.
@anantksundaram no problem, there's been a lot of comments in this thread, it's hard to keep track of who said what. I think most of the reasonable people in here would broadly agree that the UK is a big enough market (even if not the second biggest) that Apple are extremely unlikely to wholly withdraw over such a petty legal dispute.
No, it hasn't. The original order has gone through a court of appeals and the court said that Apple had to post the message. (Ridiculous, but the UK is apparently OK with juvenile, abusive behavior from its judges).
The appeals court has not yet heard the issue of whether Apple's published statement was acceptable. Apple obviously believes it was - and on the surface, it appears to do everything the judge required. Apple is free to appeal this new ruling - and the appeals court might well side with them.
AFAIK incorrect JR. This IS the Appeals Court with another ruling that Apple hasn't complied with the last order from that same Appeals Court, and now requiring them to modify and re-post within 48 hours. That court is not going to side with Apple on this one.
Since you're in the UK, and are an expert on legal matters, then perhaps you can answer the question Gatorguy couldn't. Namely, provide us with examples of this happening to other companies before Apple.
If there are none, then people are right to call it a stupid ruling.
I swear, there is something in the air that makes the English (and people who move to England) feel superior and smarter than everyoine else in the world. Anyone (non british) who reads about this judge telling Apple they did it wrong is going to see the judge as a idiotic bully. Ok, anyone with a semblance of common sense. I would bet even the lawyers at Samsung are scratching their heads wondering what is up this judge's bum.I'm no
I'm not british nor do I live in the UK. If I were, then reading the comments by most of the posters here would certainly give me cause to believe I was smarter.
So I was right and this is something new that's happening in the UK. And the wording of the rule is pretty vague:
"Member States shall ensure that, in legal proceedings instituted for infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of the information concerning the decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part. Member States may provide for other additional publicity measures which are appropriate to the particular circumstances, including prominent advertising."
Nothing about time periods, nothing about the font or point size, nothing about where on a web page, nothing about how many papers it should be in. Yet the judge saw fit to specify all these things including what page range they had to be on.
I imagine a lot of companies are going to be challenging this. It makes total sense from the POV of someone who is defamed publicly (like my prevous example of a tabloid or news station making false statements about someone well known, like a celebrity or politician).
But it makes no sense in the case of a company suing another over an issue that could have just as easily gone either way. This isn't a murder trial where there would need to be hard evidence (DNA, witnesses, murder weapon). It's a design lawsuit where things are judged based on perceptions. Which is why I still think companies are loving that Apple is bringing this to light as it will benefit them all.
So I was right and this is something new that's happening in the UK. And the wording of the rule is pretty vague:
"Member States shall ensure that, in legal proceedings instituted for infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of the information concerning the decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part. Member States may provide for other additional publicity measures which are appropriate to the particular circumstances, including prominent advertising."
Nothing about time periods, nothing about the font or point size, nothing about where on a web page, nothing about how many papers it should be in. Yet the judge saw fit to specify all these things including what page range they had to be on.
I imagine a lot of companies are going to be challenging this. It makes total sense from the POV of someone who is defamed publicly (like my prevous example of a tabloid or news station making false statements about someone well known, like a celebrity or politician).
But it makes no sense in the case of a company suing another over an issue that could have just as easily gone either way. This isn't a murder trial where there would need to be hard evidence (DNA, witnesses, murder weapon). It's a design lawsuit where things are judged based on perceptions. Which is why I still think companies are loving that Apple is bringing this to light as it will benefit them all.
Eric, I don't believe the publish requirement was simply because Apple was on the losing end. Reading from the court's comments it was due to Apple's continuing efforts to give the impression that Samsung was guilty of infringing on Apple's "iPad design" patent despite the final European-wide judgement that they do not. I completely understand Apple's wish to keep it alive, but after losing a final judgement and two appeals it's probably best to comply and move on, don't you think?
Eric, I don't believe the publish requirement was simply because Apple was on the losing end. Reading from the court's comments it was due to Apple's continuing efforts to give the impression that Samsung was guilty of infringing on Apple's "iPad design" patent despite the final European-wide judgement that they do not. I completely understand Apple's wish to keep it alive, but after losing a final judgement and two appeals it's probably best to comply and move on, don't you think?
Then Samsung should accept the $1billion fine, pay Apple and move on.
Eric, I don't believe the publish requirement was simply because Apple was on the losing end. Reading from the court's comments it was due to Apple's continuing efforts to give the impression that Samsung was guilty of infringing on Apple's "iPad design" patent despite the final European-wide judgement that they do not. I completely understand Apple's wish to keep it alive, but after losing a final judgement and two appeals it's probably best to comply and move on, don't you think?
You completely skipped over his basic point, didn't you?
Typical of you: divert the conversation by providing some extraneous, tangential evidence on something vaguely related, and when caught out, pretend that the diversion you raised was the point under discussion.
You completely skipped over his basic point, didn't you?
Typical of you: divert the conversation by providing some extraneous, tangential evidence on something vaguely related, and when caught out, pretend that the diversion you raised was the point under discussion.
Oh boy. Surprise us.
I'm sorry.... was something I wrote inaccurate or not pertinent to the discussion? If so, please point it out. If it's just that you don't like what I wrote (likely IMO), fair enough. I doubt anyone likes everything any of the regulars posts.
I was the only one that took the time to find an explanation, even linking to a legal opinion. I didn't see you making any effort to answer his question, and still don't. Far from skipping over his "basic points" I actually put forth some effort on his behalf rather than avoid being bothered. You're welcome.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You started it with your claim. You should not make claims you can't substantiate. That's all.
I wasn't the person who claimed the UK is Apple's second biggest market. I haven't claimed anything like that, except that it's a sizeable market and I think I can remember reading the "second biggest" claim a few years back. Evidence was asked for, so I added the best I could find. I don't claim it's true, just that it's reported.
I don't think I need to substantiate anything, thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Should it be "The tooth and nail have been fought with"?
British-English mate, it's a wonderfully flexible language
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
I didn't realize that people in the UK were that stupid, but now we know. Apple really should just tell these pretentious prats to fk off!
Nice, thanks for your input.
I'm pretty sure a contempt of court fine is actually based on Worldwide revenue and not UK revenue and is limited to 10% so the fine could be upto $15.6 billion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
I didn't realize that people in the UK were that stupid, but now we know. Apple really should just tell these pretentious prats to fk off!
The xenophobia in this thread is strong.
Seriously, you and your countrymen that think like you are simply a bunch of simple minded prats. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
They've been through the appeal court, and they accepted the final judgement (even if they weaselled an editorial addition in there they still accepted the judgement). The tooth and the nail have been fought.
Since you're in the UK, and are an expert on legal matters, then perhaps you can answer the question Gatorguy couldn't. Namely, provide us with examples of this happening to other companies before Apple.
If there are none, then people are right to call it a stupid ruling.
I'm not an expert in legal matters, and have no examples. I won't even deny that it's an unusual ruling, probably without precedent. But it is a ruling, and a ruling that has been through the appeal courts and been accepted. Apple would have saved themselves a lot of trouble and negative publicity if they'd just taken it like a grown up company.
@FreeRange Sorry, I don't take insults from arrogant, xenophobic, non-entities. Come back when you understand what the word nuance means.
Who the hell are you that you're entitled to knowing what was deemed untrue and incorrect? Apple was given a specific order, waxing poetic and adding to it was obviously not allowed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
I wasn't the person who claimed the UK is Apple's second biggest market. I haven't claimed anything like that, except that it's a sizeable market and I think I can remember reading the "second biggest" claim a few years back. Evidence was asked for, so I added the best I could find. I don't claim it's true, just that it's reported.
I don't think I need to substantiate anything, thanks.
Sorry! It should have been directed at the original poster then....
It's not really clear in that article what "untrue" and "incorrect" are in relation to, I can't see that they're part of any of the longer quotes from the lawyers or judges.
@anantksundaram no problem, there's been a lot of comments in this thread, it's hard to keep track of who said what. I think most of the reasonable people in here would broadly agree that the UK is a big enough market (even if not the second biggest) that Apple are extremely unlikely to wholly withdraw over such a petty legal dispute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No, it hasn't. The original order has gone through a court of appeals and the court said that Apple had to post the message. (Ridiculous, but the UK is apparently OK with juvenile, abusive behavior from its judges).
The appeals court has not yet heard the issue of whether Apple's published statement was acceptable. Apple obviously believes it was - and on the surface, it appears to do everything the judge required. Apple is free to appeal this new ruling - and the appeals court might well side with them.
AFAIK incorrect JR. This IS the Appeals Court with another ruling that Apple hasn't complied with the last order from that same Appeals Court, and now requiring them to modify and re-post within 48 hours. That court is not going to side with Apple on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Since you're in the UK, and are an expert on legal matters, then perhaps you can answer the question Gatorguy couldn't. Namely, provide us with examples of this happening to other companies before Apple.
If there are none, then people are right to call it a stupid ruling.
Eric, this may explain it for you.
http://www.olswang.com/articles/2012/10/samsung-v-apple-publication-orders/
Quote:
Originally Posted by protaginets
I swear, there is something in the air that makes the English (and people who move to England) feel superior and smarter than everyoine else in the world. Anyone (non british) who reads about this judge telling Apple they did it wrong is going to see the judge as a idiotic bully. Ok, anyone with a semblance of common sense. I would bet even the lawyers at Samsung are scratching their heads wondering what is up this judge's bum.I'm no
I'm not british nor do I live in the UK. If I were, then reading the comments by most of the posters here would certainly give me cause to believe I was smarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Eric, this may explain it for you.
http://www.olswang.com/articles/2012/10/samsung-v-apple-publication-orders/
So I was right and this is something new that's happening in the UK. And the wording of the rule is pretty vague:
"Member States shall ensure that, in legal proceedings instituted for infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of the information concerning the decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part. Member States may provide for other additional publicity measures which are appropriate to the particular circumstances, including prominent advertising."
Nothing about time periods, nothing about the font or point size, nothing about where on a web page, nothing about how many papers it should be in. Yet the judge saw fit to specify all these things including what page range they had to be on.
I imagine a lot of companies are going to be challenging this. It makes total sense from the POV of someone who is defamed publicly (like my prevous example of a tabloid or news station making false statements about someone well known, like a celebrity or politician).
But it makes no sense in the case of a company suing another over an issue that could have just as easily gone either way. This isn't a murder trial where there would need to be hard evidence (DNA, witnesses, murder weapon). It's a design lawsuit where things are judged based on perceptions. Which is why I still think companies are loving that Apple is bringing this to light as it will benefit them all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
So I was right and this is something new that's happening in the UK. And the wording of the rule is pretty vague:
"Member States shall ensure that, in legal proceedings instituted for infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of the information concerning the decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part. Member States may provide for other additional publicity measures which are appropriate to the particular circumstances, including prominent advertising."
Nothing about time periods, nothing about the font or point size, nothing about where on a web page, nothing about how many papers it should be in. Yet the judge saw fit to specify all these things including what page range they had to be on.
I imagine a lot of companies are going to be challenging this. It makes total sense from the POV of someone who is defamed publicly (like my prevous example of a tabloid or news station making false statements about someone well known, like a celebrity or politician).
But it makes no sense in the case of a company suing another over an issue that could have just as easily gone either way. This isn't a murder trial where there would need to be hard evidence (DNA, witnesses, murder weapon). It's a design lawsuit where things are judged based on perceptions. Which is why I still think companies are loving that Apple is bringing this to light as it will benefit them all.
Eric, I don't believe the publish requirement was simply because Apple was on the losing end. Reading from the court's comments it was due to Apple's continuing efforts to give the impression that Samsung was guilty of infringing on Apple's "iPad design" patent despite the final European-wide judgement that they do not. I completely understand Apple's wish to keep it alive, but after losing a final judgement and two appeals it's probably best to comply and move on, don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Eric, I don't believe the publish requirement was simply because Apple was on the losing end. Reading from the court's comments it was due to Apple's continuing efforts to give the impression that Samsung was guilty of infringing on Apple's "iPad design" patent despite the final European-wide judgement that they do not. I completely understand Apple's wish to keep it alive, but after losing a final judgement and two appeals it's probably best to comply and move on, don't you think?
Then Samsung should accept the $1billion fine, pay Apple and move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Eric, I don't believe the publish requirement was simply because Apple was on the losing end. Reading from the court's comments it was due to Apple's continuing efforts to give the impression that Samsung was guilty of infringing on Apple's "iPad design" patent despite the final European-wide judgement that they do not. I completely understand Apple's wish to keep it alive, but after losing a final judgement and two appeals it's probably best to comply and move on, don't you think?
You completely skipped over his basic point, didn't you?
Typical of you: divert the conversation by providing some extraneous, tangential evidence on something vaguely related, and when caught out, pretend that the diversion you raised was the point under discussion.
Oh boy. Surprise us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You completely skipped over his basic point, didn't you?
Typical of you: divert the conversation by providing some extraneous, tangential evidence on something vaguely related, and when caught out, pretend that the diversion you raised was the point under discussion.
Oh boy. Surprise us.
I'm sorry.... was something I wrote inaccurate or not pertinent to the discussion? If so, please point it out. If it's just that you don't like what I wrote (likely IMO), fair enough. I doubt anyone likes everything any of the regulars posts.
I was the only one that took the time to find an explanation, even linking to a legal opinion. I didn't see you making any effort to answer his question, and still don't. Far from skipping over his "basic points" I actually put forth some effort on his behalf rather than avoid being bothered. You're welcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
Then Samsung should accept the $1billion fine, pay Apple and move on.
If and when the appeals go against them they'll have to. That's the legal system.