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.
1) Why don't you tell us: what do you think his basic question was?
2) In response to his question, you posted drivel that merely proved the premise of the challenge implied by the question (a premise with which I agree with 100% -- that you have zilch to offer by way of evidence).
Apple DID NOT comply with the court order. There are very specific rules for placement and font size in cases like this. The judge has confirmed that Apple broke these rules.
If you believe that the judge is making this up as he goes along then you have no idea about how the English legal system works.
Tell us of these "rules" and point us to the laws that force compliance.
Apple complied with the ruling of the appeals court, they should leave the notice exactly as it is, maybe adding more.
"Michael Beloff, a lawyer representing Apple, defending the notice, told the court that the judges themselves had said that it "is not designed to punish, it is not designed to make us grovel" and that its only purpose was "to dispel commercial uncertainty"." Source
Apple should tell those crusty old c*nts to go f*ck themselves with a gavel.
I find it interesting that the Apple defenderati that said the UK judge should have dictated the wording of the statement for Apple to put on the website are now criticising the UK legal system for treating its subjects like children.
I fear that you are affected by the same chemicals your famous namesake Alistair used to indulge in, hence, off to the ignore list with you.
Tell us of these "rules" and point us to the laws that force compliance.
Apple complied with the ruling of the appeals court, they should leave the notice exactly as it is, maybe adding more.
"Michael Beloff, a lawyer representing Apple, defending the notice, told the court that the judges themselves had said that it "is not designed to punish, it is not designed to make us grovel" and that its only purpose was "to dispel commercial uncertainty"." Source
Apple should tell those crusty old c*nts to go f*ck themselves with a gavel.
You're at least the third person to as ask this guy. We're waiting.
Interesting. That actually demonstrates my point, As I have repeatedly asked: exactly what part of Apple statement was untrue?
The court did not say Apple could not add additional facts. They didn't even say Apple couldn't editorialize the statement, which the didn't do. They simply added additional facts, most of which were directly from the court record of judge Biriss' original ruling.
So, they posted what they were instructed to posted, how and where they were supposed to post it. So they were slapped down for including facts. A court should never be afraid of facts, especially when the factual statements are from the court itself. So, given Apple's statements were facts, they cannot be untrue or incorrect and the judges said. If their reasons are flawed, then their ruling is wrong.
Exactly.
One of the judges - who noted he owned an iPad himself - explained why Apple had lost the appeal in his ruling.
"Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about," wrote Sir Robin Jacob.
"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law."
"So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products."
The Judge included rules in his order for those issues, which Apple followed.
IF he wanted Apple to follow some generally accepted 'style book' for such things he should have said 'per law thus and such'. Just like he should have been more careful about the order in general.
BS.
Substance vs form.
Apple may have followed the form but they certainly have not followed the substance of the judge's order.
The judge's orders were to state that Samsung's product does not "copy" Apple's product; not to go ahead and throw in extraneous information to try and mitigate their admission. Not only that, they compared the UK's ruling with rulings from other countries, which has no relationship with the one in the UK!. Apple basically said FU to the authority of the UK judgement
More stupid, childish, arrogant and ignorant comments: It is really sad to see Apple executives falling that low, pandering to the fanbois with childish contempt of the court... I am GLAD it had backfired.
1) Why don't you tell us: what do you think his basic question was?
...was the court requirement to publish a common one or is this something relatively new. Can you find where I answered his question with a link to an excellent legal explanation? Why don't you tell us what you think his basic question was?
Eric's a big boy. I'm sure he can let me know if my answers weren't sufficient or flawed.
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?
...was the court requirement to publish a common one or is this something relatively new. Can you find where I answered his question with a link to an excellent legal explanation? Why don't you tell us what [SIZE=14px]you[/SIZE] think his basic question was?
Eric's a big boy. I'm sure he can let me know if my answers weren't sufficient or flawed.
Yep. Thought so: your denseness is only matched by the seemingly clueless obtuseness.
His question (I am quoting): "Provide us with examples of this happening to other companies before Apple."
Go on, please provide us with examples.... We'll wait.
Saying things like "show me where" and "what parts we're factually incorrect?" are childish in the extreme. The latest judgement, which this topic is discussing, states that Apple did not comply with the original ruling of the UK court. The statement posted on the website could hardly have been more wilfully subversive of the ORDER Apple had been given, if they put a big 'NOT' right after outlining the actual ruling.
It would be contemptuous (legally and otherwise) for Apple to attempt to argue against this latest judgement, especially when it is clear they were baiting not just the particular judge who made the ruling and those others who have been involved but also an entire judiciary. If Apple is willing to engage in this type of behaviour (and asking for 14 days is taking the Michael) then they cannot be surprised when they are pulled up about it.
They showed disrespect to a court of law. Now they are being slapped down for it, end of.
Groklaw are a biased group of losers, who lost all relevance when the SCO case was finished.
Your link shows selected quotes from news sources, if Groklaw want to be taken seriously as a source then perhaps they should base their dissemination on an actual ruling not some opinion piece based on other selected opinion pieces.
For all those on here that believe they know the English & worldwide legal system, please check sites such as groklaw for as much information as you can absorb on the apple samsung ongoing nonsense & other legal stuff. Information you'll find of interest & which is from a legal point of view:
Why Apple didn't comply with the English court order ref Samsung not infringing
Why Apple will very likely not see a penny of the $1bn damages awarded by the US court
Why the Apple win in the US will be overturned
Oh, and you could probably learn a thing or two about patents, prior art & why patent trolls such as Apple will ultimately lose in their quest to litigate competition out of the market.
And to try to stave off any fandroid type comments I own an iPhone 4s, Galaxy S2 & a Samsung TV which does put me more in the Samsung camp but not in the Android camp.
Say what?
Are you talking about that rubbish you posted before?
The biased opinion piece based on selected quotes from other opinion pieces.
Get real, Grocklaw are as irrelevant today as SCO.
No company should be required to make provably false statements anywhere. Samsung did copy Apple and continues to do so. Apple should refuse to comply, and insist that this is a breach of natural justice. It should surround this order from the judges in a mass of information that proves the judgement wrong and allow everyone to form their own opinion.
This kind of thing makes me ashamed to be English. A great country reduced to idiocy in only 60 years.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
1) Why don't you tell us: what do you think his basic question was?
2) In response to his question, you posted drivel that merely proved the premise of the challenge implied by the question (a premise with which I agree with 100% -- that you have zilch to offer by way of evidence).
You're not really following any of this, are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Apple DID NOT comply with the court order. There are very specific rules for placement and font size in cases like this. The judge has confirmed that Apple broke these rules.
If you believe that the judge is making this up as he goes along then you have no idea about how the English legal system works.
Tell us of these "rules" and point us to the laws that force compliance.
Apple complied with the ruling of the appeals court, they should leave the notice exactly as it is, maybe adding more.
"Michael Beloff, a lawyer representing Apple, defending the notice, told the court that the judges themselves had said that it "is not designed to punish, it is not designed to make us grovel" and that its only purpose was "to dispel commercial uncertainty"." Source
Apple should tell those crusty old c*nts to go f*ck themselves with a gavel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
I find it interesting that the Apple defenderati that said the UK judge should have dictated the wording of the statement for Apple to put on the website are now criticising the UK legal system for treating its subjects like children.
I fear that you are affected by the same chemicals your famous namesake Alistair used to indulge in, hence, off to the ignore list with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
Where did you get your law degree? Ebay?
Kellogs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Tell us of these "rules" and point us to the laws that force compliance.
Apple complied with the ruling of the appeals court, they should leave the notice exactly as it is, maybe adding more.
"Michael Beloff, a lawyer representing Apple, defending the notice, told the court that the judges themselves had said that it "is not designed to punish, it is not designed to make us grovel" and that its only purpose was "to dispel commercial uncertainty"." Source
Apple should tell those crusty old c*nts to go f*ck themselves with a gavel.
You're at least the third person to as ask this guy. We're waiting.
He's obviously a clueless blowhard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Interesting. That actually demonstrates my point, As I have repeatedly asked: exactly what part of Apple statement was untrue?
The court did not say Apple could not add additional facts. They didn't even say Apple couldn't editorialize the statement, which the didn't do. They simply added additional facts, most of which were directly from the court record of judge Biriss' original ruling.
So, they posted what they were instructed to posted, how and where they were supposed to post it. So they were slapped down for including facts. A court should never be afraid of facts, especially when the factual statements are from the court itself. So, given Apple's statements were facts, they cannot be untrue or incorrect and the judges said. If their reasons are flawed, then their ruling is wrong.
Exactly.
One of the judges - who noted he owned an iPad himself - explained why Apple had lost the appeal in his ruling.
"Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about," wrote Sir Robin Jacob.
"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law."
"So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products."
Source
Hahahahahahahahahah
Apple is just eating their own words.
That is what you get for making snarky obviously sarcastic statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
The Judge included rules in his order for those issues, which Apple followed.
IF he wanted Apple to follow some generally accepted 'style book' for such things he should have said 'per law thus and such'. Just like he should have been more careful about the order in general.
BS.
Substance vs form.
Apple may have followed the form but they certainly have not followed the substance of the judge's order.
The judge's orders were to state that Samsung's product does not "copy" Apple's product; not to go ahead and throw in extraneous information to try and mitigate their admission. Not only that, they compared the UK's ruling with rulings from other countries, which has no relationship with the one in the UK!. Apple basically said FU to the authority of the UK judgement
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
1) Why don't you tell us: what do you think his basic question was?
...was the court requirement to publish a common one or is this something relatively new. Can you find where I answered his question with a link to an excellent legal explanation? Why don't you tell us what you think his basic question was?
Eric's a big boy. I'm sure he can let me know if my answers weren't sufficient or flawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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?
Sorry but that is the wrong analogy.
Yep. Thought so: your denseness is only matched by the seemingly clueless obtuseness.
His question (I am quoting): "Provide us with examples of this happening to other companies before Apple."
Go on, please provide us with examples.... We'll wait.
First, this is the most ridiculous ruling I've ever heard of.
Second, I would love for Apple to include images demonstrating how Samsung "didn't" copy Apple's designs. Let the images speak for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead
First, this is the most ridiculous ruling I've ever heard of.
Second, I would love for Apple to include images demonstrating how Samsung "didn't" copy Apple's designs. Let the images speak for themselves.
Perhaps you should hear more rulings before calling it "most ridiculous" you've "ever heard of".
You say one thing, the other party says another thing. Where do you go to resolve this dispute? Court.
Court ruled one thing. That is the end. Enough said.
If there are other methods of resolving disputes, besides using the legal system, I'm all ears.
Originally Posted by hill60
Kellogs?
Yeah, it's 12,000 box tops for the bachelor's. Someone must really like his Frosties.
That's Frosted Flakes to us Americans. The name "Frosted Flakes" isn't owned by Kellogg's over there.
Saying things like "show me where" and "what parts we're factually incorrect?" are childish in the extreme. The latest judgement, which this topic is discussing, states that Apple did not comply with the original ruling of the UK court. The statement posted on the website could hardly have been more wilfully subversive of the ORDER Apple had been given, if they put a big 'NOT' right after outlining the actual ruling.
It would be contemptuous (legally and otherwise) for Apple to attempt to argue against this latest judgement, especially when it is clear they were baiting not just the particular judge who made the ruling and those others who have been involved but also an entire judiciary. If Apple is willing to engage in this type of behaviour (and asking for 14 days is taking the Michael) then they cannot be surprised when they are pulled up about it.
Originally Posted by superhoopa
The latest judgement, which this topic is discussing, states that Apple did not comply with the original ruling of the UK court.
In what capacity was it noncompliant?
The statement posted on the website could hardly have been more willfully subversive of the ORDER Apple had been given…
They did exactly what the ruling demanded, to the letter.
It would be contemptuous (legally and otherwise) for Apple to attempt to argue against this latest judgement…
This latest judgement is, in a sane society, probably legally invalid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121101091853360
They showed disrespect to a court of law. Now they are being slapped down for it, end of.
Groklaw are a biased group of losers, who lost all relevance when the SCO case was finished.
Your link shows selected quotes from news sources, if Groklaw want to be taken seriously as a source then perhaps they should base their dissemination on an actual ruling not some opinion piece based on other selected opinion pieces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
For all those on here that believe they know the English & worldwide legal system, please check sites such as groklaw for as much information as you can absorb on the apple samsung ongoing nonsense & other legal stuff. Information you'll find of interest & which is from a legal point of view:
Why Apple didn't comply with the English court order ref Samsung not infringing
Why Apple will very likely not see a penny of the $1bn damages awarded by the US court
Why the Apple win in the US will be overturned
Oh, and you could probably learn a thing or two about patents, prior art & why patent trolls such as Apple will ultimately lose in their quest to litigate competition out of the market.
And to try to stave off any fandroid type comments I own an iPhone 4s, Galaxy S2 & a Samsung TV which does put me more in the Samsung camp but not in the Android camp.
Say what?
Are you talking about that rubbish you posted before?
The biased opinion piece based on selected quotes from other opinion pieces.
Get real, Grocklaw are as irrelevant today as SCO.
No company should be required to make provably false statements anywhere. Samsung did copy Apple and continues to do so. Apple should refuse to comply, and insist that this is a breach of natural justice. It should surround this order from the judges in a mass of information that proves the judgement wrong and allow everyone to form their own opinion.
This kind of thing makes me ashamed to be English. A great country reduced to idiocy in only 60 years.