The judge is right. Apple's Statement is so convoluted and long. They turned what could have been stated VERY CLEARLY in two sentences into a whole essay that few people would bother to read in its entirety. With Apple's mastery of simplicity in design, they would obviously know the difference between a Clear and Concise message versus a confusing and Convoluted one. They clearly made the statement that way intentionally to make the whole point of the statement much less clear to the average person..
Give up Gatorguy, we just have to accept that some apple fans simply won't see other side of arguments & think that one of the fairest & most respected legal systems in the world is wrong. The apple marketing machine has to be given credit for the ability to completely taint people's views. Who needs legal judgements when at the end of the day apple are always right; they have to be don't they as they invented everything anyone ever wished for (or is yet to wish for) in a smart phone.
Another useless strawman. I guess if you have nothing of value to say, then attacking the person instead of the argument makes sense.
I never claimed the could enforce it. The UK courts saw to that. Don't try a strawman on me please.
Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?
The german court tried to find that samsung infringed but they had no jurisdiction to do so. So to put a statement on the apple site but not explain that regardless of what the german court believed, it was irrelevant anyway again shows how apple were playing with the so called facts.
The judge is right. Apple's Statement is so convoluted and long. They turned what could have been stated VERY CLEARLY in two sentences into a whole editorial that few people would bother to read.
Where did they editorialize? They added 4 paragraphs. Three directly referenced the UK decision and the judge's own words. The forth mentioned two other court decisions. Those are facts not opinion, thus not editorialized.
Another useless strawman. I guess if you have nothing of value to say, then attacking the person instead of the argument makes sense.
Yes Tulkas, but you're saying that the legal result is wrong & apple were blatantly saying the same. Get over it, apple lost the appeal fair & square & have now semi-complied with the newspaper ads at least. Interestingly there's some sites speculating that even that could cause a problem with no easy identification that the ad was from apple!
As for attacking the person, take that up with the global moderator that inspires all on here to do just that. Aah, I feel the need to type global moderator again as it makes me feel powerful too;)
best add too, that according to the global moderator it doesn't matter what I nor anyone else from england says as we're all liars...
Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?
No sir. I tried as best I could to explain why and can't think of anything more to help you understand something you're obviously struggling with. I'll let you and the handful of others still carrying on to get back to it. Don't let me further interrupt. . .
The german court tried to find that samsung infringed but they had no jurisdiction to do so. So to put a statement on the apple site but not explain that regardless of what the german court believed, it was irrelevant anyway again shows how apple were playing with the so called facts.
Bullshit. The Düsseldorf is the German court authorized to make EU-wide community design decisions, exactly as the High Court is the UK's designated court for the same matters. Don't make up facts just because you don't have the facts. That's pathetic. It is also irrelevant to the statement of fact.
How were they playing with the facts? The fact is, a german court found Samsung infringed. Apple stated that a german court found that they infringed. That isn't playing with facts. That is stating facts. Even if the German injunction only applied to Germany or only applied to Düsseldorf itself, it is still a fact that they found Samsung infringed.
But it isn't relevant and affects the context of the court ordered statement. It's wilfully clouding the intent. That's the problem, and that's why they're in trouble.
No sir. I tried as best I could to explain why and can't think of anything more to help you understand something you're obviously struggling with. I'll let you and the handful of others still carrying on to get back to it. Don't let me further interrupt. . .
I didn't ask you why. I asked you did a German court find that they infringed. I suppose if you couldn't understand the question, you wouldn't be able to find the answer.
Since you tried so hard and couldn't find the answer, I will help you: yes, in fact a German court found that Samsung did infringe on Apple's design. That is a matter of fact. You may not like that fact. But it is a fact. You don't get to make up your own facts (seems to be something a few of you need to do to make your point, which is sad). Apple included this fact in their notice.
But it isn't relevant and affects the context of the court ordered statement. It's wilfully clouding the intent. That's the problem, and that's why they're in trouble.
You'd say the same thing if Apple kept a single instance of the word "best" anywhere else on their website.
Apple obeyed the court. Period. That's all the court is allowed to do. Nothing was said about rewriting any other part of the website, and nothing was said about what Apple could NOT say in addition.
But it isn't relevant and affects the context of the court ordered statement. It's wilfully clouding the intent. That's the problem, and that's why they're in trouble.
Maybe that is true. That is not what the court said. If you are correct, then the court should have said that. Did they? No. They instead claimed Apple posted false information, which is not true. Maybe the judges are just softheaded and didn't realize that making up their own reasons is bad form, even for a UK judge.
I didn't ask you why. I asked you did a German court find that they infringed. I suppose if you couldn't understand the question, you wouldn't be able to find the answer.
Since you tried so hard and couldn't find the answer, I will help you: yes, in fact a German court found that Samsung did infringe on Apple's design. That is a matter of fact. You may not like that fact. But it is a fact. You don't get to make up your own facts (seems to be something a few of you need to do to make your point, which is sad). Apple included this fact in their notice.
Very last try: The German court cannot find infringement where a final EU-wide ruling finds there was none. Anything ruling the German Appeals Court might have attempted was after the UK had published a final judgement. So NO there is no finding of infringement by a German court. Apple's legal counsel understands and is not arguing that there's a finding of infringement by the Germans and thus legitimate to state. If you had legal training I've no doubt you could grasp the distinction as well. Heck, I understand it and didn't need legal training to do so.
Bullshit. The Düsseldorf is the German court authorized to make EU-wide community design decisions, exactly as the High Court is the UK's designated court for the same matters. Don't make up facts just because you don't have the facts. That's pathetic. It is also irrelevant to the statement of fact.
How were they playing with the facts? The fact is, a german court found Samsung infringed. Apple stated that a german court found that they infringed. That isn't playing with facts. That is stating facts. Even if the German injunction only applied to Germany or only applied to Düsseldorf itself, it is still a fact that they found Samsung infringed.
man, you don't stop do you? You need to go back to the reason for this thread. What you keep going on about is noise - the english court required apple to do something simple - they were to redress the balance after implying that the english decision was wrong. You are siding with apple making the comments about irrelevant german case & american case which as we all know stands a good chance of being overturned - this clearly shows apple playing with the facts. I'm getting really bored with this conversation. You keep asking for responses to your questions but evade ones such as one I asked you earlier - how on earth anyone with the ability to read wouldn't have seen the apple original statement as a finger to the judge & samsung? You want all to agree that apple were right in their action because technically it met the requirement with the judge not giving the lawyers the exact wording that was required. Their lawyers must be more informed now & likely suggested that after trying & failing to turn the saga into an apple ad they take down the ad.
Bad grammar & punctuation in here as can't bothered anymore
You'd say the same thing if Apple kept a single instance of the word "best" anywhere else on their website.
Apple obeyed the court. Period. That's all the court is allowed to do. Nothing was said about rewriting any other part of the website, and nothing was said about what Apple could NOT say in addition.
Trading standards would possibly have something to say about apple & any other company using the word best to describe their products
Oh,english humour (note, not humor) in use there before anyone goes off & comes back with websites advertising their products as the best.
man, you don't stop do you? You need to go back to the reason for this thread. What you keep going on about is noise - the english court required apple to do something simple - they were to redress the balance after implying that the english decision was wrong. You are siding with apple making the comments about irrelevant german case & american case which as we all know stands a good chance of being overturned - this clearly shows apple playing with the facts. I'm getting really bored with this conversation. You keep asking for responses to your questions but evade ones such as one I asked you earlier - how on earth anyone with the ability to read wouldn't have seen the apple original statement as a finger to the judge & samsung? You want all to agree that apple were right in their action because technically it met the requirement with the judge not giving the lawyers the exact wording that was required. Their lawyers must be more informed now & likely suggested that after trying & failing to turn the saga into an apple ad they take down the ad.
Bad grammar & punctuation in here as can't bothered anymore
I ask simple questions which you guys don't seem to be able to answer, at least not with resorting to making up facts.
I'll answer your question: did Apple intend their notice to be a middle finger to the UK courts? maybe. And if the UK courts were convinced that it was, then say that and do something about it. It is unbecoming for them to instead make up reasons, like Apple making false statements, and then using that to claim breach. If they have to resort to make believe, then that shows they probably couldn't find an actual reason to find them in breach.
Apple lawyers are complying now because it has been demonstrated that the UK courts are out of step and out of line. They realize they are going to continue to be the nail with the UK courts hammer, so bend over and take it once and for all. They are punishing Apple for a disagreement they have with the German courts. Apple had every right to continue their legal activities in Germany. But since the German courts were showing up the UK courts to be a bunch a buffoons, they punish Apple for that. Further, the punishment that Apple make the notice was observed by the UK appeal court to be wrong, but retained only because of statements made by the buffoon judge in the original proceedings getting so much press. The German and US cases were not irrelevant, they were very much related to to the case at hand. They added context to the UK decision. They might have pissed off they UK judges, but they still need to base their decisions on fact, not make believe.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Then if there's a valid EU-wide judgement from the German courts Apple should enforce it. . . Oh, wait....
I never claimed the could enforce it. The UK courts saw to that. Don't try a strawman on me please.
Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?
The judge is right. Apple's Statement is so convoluted and long. They turned what could have been stated VERY CLEARLY in two sentences into a whole essay that few people would bother to read in its entirety. With Apple's mastery of simplicity in design, they would obviously know the difference between a Clear and Concise message versus a confusing and Convoluted one. They clearly made the statement that way intentionally to make the whole point of the statement much less clear to the average person..
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
Give up Gatorguy, we just have to accept that some apple fans simply won't see other side of arguments & think that one of the fairest & most respected legal systems in the world is wrong. The apple marketing machine has to be given credit for the ability to completely taint people's views. Who needs legal judgements when at the end of the day apple are always right; they have to be don't they as they invented everything anyone ever wished for (or is yet to wish for) in a smart phone.
Another useless strawman. I guess if you have nothing of value to say, then attacking the person instead of the argument makes sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
I never claimed the could enforce it. The UK courts saw to that. Don't try a strawman on me please.
Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?
The german court tried to find that samsung infringed but they had no jurisdiction to do so. So to put a statement on the apple site but not explain that regardless of what the german court believed, it was irrelevant anyway again shows how apple were playing with the so called facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowspark
The judge is right. Apple's Statement is so convoluted and long. They turned what could have been stated VERY CLEARLY in two sentences into a whole editorial that few people would bother to read.
Where did they editorialize? They added 4 paragraphs. Three directly referenced the UK decision and the judge's own words. The forth mentioned two other court decisions. Those are facts not opinion, thus not editorialized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?
Doesn't matter if they did, wholly irrelevant to the ruling, to the court-ordered statement, and to the subsequent reprimand.
Factual accuracy is not the point of the reprimand, it's the deliberate muddying of the water, against the purpose of the court order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Another useless strawman. I guess if you have nothing of value to say, then attacking the person instead of the argument makes sense.
Yes Tulkas, but you're saying that the legal result is wrong & apple were blatantly saying the same. Get over it, apple lost the appeal fair & square & have now semi-complied with the newspaper ads at least. Interestingly there's some sites speculating that even that could cause a problem with no easy identification that the ad was from apple!
As for attacking the person, take that up with the global moderator that inspires all on here to do just that. Aah, I feel the need to type global moderator again as it makes me feel powerful too;)
best add too, that according to the global moderator it doesn't matter what I nor anyone else from england says as we're all liars...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?
No sir. I tried as best I could to explain why and can't think of anything more to help you understand something you're obviously struggling with. I'll let you and the handful of others still carrying on to get back to it. Don't let me further interrupt. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
The german court tried to find that samsung infringed but they had no jurisdiction to do so. So to put a statement on the apple site but not explain that regardless of what the german court believed, it was irrelevant anyway again shows how apple were playing with the so called facts.
Bullshit. The Düsseldorf is the German court authorized to make EU-wide community design decisions, exactly as the High Court is the UK's designated court for the same matters. Don't make up facts just because you don't have the facts. That's pathetic. It is also irrelevant to the statement of fact.
How were they playing with the facts? The fact is, a german court found Samsung infringed. Apple stated that a german court found that they infringed. That isn't playing with facts. That is stating facts. Even if the German injunction only applied to Germany or only applied to Düsseldorf itself, it is still a fact that they found Samsung infringed.
But it isn't relevant and affects the context of the court ordered statement. It's wilfully clouding the intent. That's the problem, and that's why they're in trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
No sir. I tried as best I could to explain why and can't think of anything more to help you understand something you're obviously struggling with. I'll let you and the handful of others still carrying on to get back to it. Don't let me further interrupt. . .
I didn't ask you why. I asked you did a German court find that they infringed. I suppose if you couldn't understand the question, you wouldn't be able to find the answer.
Since you tried so hard and couldn't find the answer, I will help you: yes, in fact a German court found that Samsung did infringe on Apple's design. That is a matter of fact. You may not like that fact. But it is a fact. You don't get to make up your own facts (seems to be something a few of you need to do to make your point, which is sad). Apple included this fact in their notice.
Originally Posted by Crowley
But it isn't relevant and affects the context of the court ordered statement. It's wilfully clouding the intent. That's the problem, and that's why they're in trouble.
You'd say the same thing if Apple kept a single instance of the word "best" anywhere else on their website.
Apple obeyed the court. Period. That's all the court is allowed to do. Nothing was said about rewriting any other part of the website, and nothing was said about what Apple could NOT say in addition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
But it isn't relevant and affects the context of the court ordered statement. It's wilfully clouding the intent. That's the problem, and that's why they're in trouble.
Maybe that is true. That is not what the court said. If you are correct, then the court should have said that. Did they? No. They instead claimed Apple posted false information, which is not true. Maybe the judges are just softheaded and didn't realize that making up their own reasons is bad form, even for a UK judge.
Where did the court claim Apple provided false information?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
I didn't ask you why. I asked you did a German court find that they infringed. I suppose if you couldn't understand the question, you wouldn't be able to find the answer.
Since you tried so hard and couldn't find the answer, I will help you: yes, in fact a German court found that Samsung did infringe on Apple's design. That is a matter of fact. You may not like that fact. But it is a fact. You don't get to make up your own facts (seems to be something a few of you need to do to make your point, which is sad). Apple included this fact in their notice.
Very last try: The German court cannot find infringement where a final EU-wide ruling finds there was none. Anything ruling the German Appeals Court might have attempted was after the UK had published a final judgement. So NO there is no finding of infringement by a German court. Apple's legal counsel understands and is not arguing that there's a finding of infringement by the Germans and thus legitimate to state. If you had legal training I've no doubt you could grasp the distinction as well. Heck, I understand it and didn't need legal training to do so.
...as you guys were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Bullshit. The Düsseldorf is the German court authorized to make EU-wide community design decisions, exactly as the High Court is the UK's designated court for the same matters. Don't make up facts just because you don't have the facts. That's pathetic. It is also irrelevant to the statement of fact.
How were they playing with the facts? The fact is, a german court found Samsung infringed. Apple stated that a german court found that they infringed. That isn't playing with facts. That is stating facts. Even if the German injunction only applied to Germany or only applied to Düsseldorf itself, it is still a fact that they found Samsung infringed.
man, you don't stop do you? You need to go back to the reason for this thread. What you keep going on about is noise - the english court required apple to do something simple - they were to redress the balance after implying that the english decision was wrong. You are siding with apple making the comments about irrelevant german case & american case which as we all know stands a good chance of being overturned - this clearly shows apple playing with the facts. I'm getting really bored with this conversation. You keep asking for responses to your questions but evade ones such as one I asked you earlier - how on earth anyone with the ability to read wouldn't have seen the apple original statement as a finger to the judge & samsung? You want all to agree that apple were right in their action because technically it met the requirement with the judge not giving the lawyers the exact wording that was required. Their lawyers must be more informed now & likely suggested that after trying & failing to turn the saga into an apple ad they take down the ad.
Bad grammar & punctuation in here as can't bothered anymore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You'd say the same thing if Apple kept a single instance of the word "best" anywhere else on their website.
Apple obeyed the court. Period. That's all the court is allowed to do. Nothing was said about rewriting any other part of the website, and nothing was said about what Apple could NOT say in addition.
Trading standards would possibly have something to say about apple & any other company using the word best to describe their products
Oh,english humour (note, not humor) in use there before anyone goes off & comes back with websites advertising their products as the best.
Originally Posted by whatever71
Trading standards would possibly have something to say about apple & any other company using the word best to describe their products
They've been doing it for years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
man, you don't stop do you? You need to go back to the reason for this thread. What you keep going on about is noise - the english court required apple to do something simple - they were to redress the balance after implying that the english decision was wrong. You are siding with apple making the comments about irrelevant german case & american case which as we all know stands a good chance of being overturned - this clearly shows apple playing with the facts. I'm getting really bored with this conversation. You keep asking for responses to your questions but evade ones such as one I asked you earlier - how on earth anyone with the ability to read wouldn't have seen the apple original statement as a finger to the judge & samsung? You want all to agree that apple were right in their action because technically it met the requirement with the judge not giving the lawyers the exact wording that was required. Their lawyers must be more informed now & likely suggested that after trying & failing to turn the saga into an apple ad they take down the ad.
Bad grammar & punctuation in here as can't bothered anymore
I ask simple questions which you guys don't seem to be able to answer, at least not with resorting to making up facts.
I'll answer your question: did Apple intend their notice to be a middle finger to the UK courts? maybe. And if the UK courts were convinced that it was, then say that and do something about it. It is unbecoming for them to instead make up reasons, like Apple making false statements, and then using that to claim breach. If they have to resort to make believe, then that shows they probably couldn't find an actual reason to find them in breach.
Apple lawyers are complying now because it has been demonstrated that the UK courts are out of step and out of line. They realize they are going to continue to be the nail with the UK courts hammer, so bend over and take it once and for all. They are punishing Apple for a disagreement they have with the German courts. Apple had every right to continue their legal activities in Germany. But since the German courts were showing up the UK courts to be a bunch a buffoons, they punish Apple for that. Further, the punishment that Apple make the notice was observed by the UK appeal court to be wrong, but retained only because of statements made by the buffoon judge in the original proceedings getting so much press. The German and US cases were not irrelevant, they were very much related to to the case at hand. They added context to the UK decision. They might have pissed off they UK judges, but they still need to base their decisions on fact, not make believe.
deleted