If the UK market becomes too toxic then leaving it may not be a bad thing. Apple is a for profit business and if the market condition isn’t profitable whats the point of been on it? Besides is not like the UK market is as big as the EU market.
The EU market is also getting toxic.
Stopping corporations from ruling the world, destroying our environment, and dictating terms to entire nations is “toxic”, by you...?
No body but the EU is doing the dictating.
Yes, that's what he meant by dictating terms. It's precisely why the EU was set up, to integrate Europe under increasingly common policies and principles of citizenship. And it better enables them to do the other things he mentions, stopping corporations from ruling the world and destroying the environment.
If the UK market becomes too toxic then leaving it may not be a bad thing. Apple is a for profit business and if the market condition isn’t profitable whats the point of been on it? Besides is not like the UK market is as big as the EU market.
The EU market is also getting toxic.
Stopping corporations from ruling the world, destroying our environment, and dictating terms to entire nations is “toxic”, by you...?
No body but the EU is doing the dictating.
Yes, that's what he meant by dictating terms. It's precisely why the EU was set up, to integrate Europe under increasingly common policies and principles of citizenship. And it better enables them to do the other things he mentions, stopping corporations from ruling the world and destroying the environment.
Pretty good, right?
Not when it supports one corporation over another using baseless motives.
You realise this thread is about a patent dispute in a UK court, right? What support are you referring to?
If the UK market becomes too toxic then leaving it may not be a bad thing. Apple is a for profit business and if the market condition isn’t profitable whats the point of been on it? Besides is not like the UK market is as big as the EU market.
The EU market is also getting toxic.
Stopping corporations from ruling the world, destroying our environment, and dictating terms to entire nations is “toxic”, by you...?
No body but the EU is doing the dictating.
Yes, that's what he meant by dictating terms. It's precisely why the EU was set up, to integrate Europe under increasingly common policies and principles of citizenship. And it better enables them to do the other things he mentions, stopping corporations from ruling the world and destroying the environment.
If the UK market becomes too toxic then leaving it may not be a bad thing. Apple is a for profit business and if the market condition isn’t profitable whats the point of been on it? Besides is not like the UK market is as big as the EU market.
The EU market is also getting toxic.
Stopping corporations from ruling the world, destroying our environment, and dictating terms to entire nations is “toxic”, by you...?
No body but the EU is doing the dictating.
Yes, that's what he meant by dictating terms. It's precisely why the EU was set up, to integrate Europe under increasingly common policies and principles of citizenship. And it better enables them to do the other things he mentions, stopping corporations from ruling the world and destroying the environment.
Pretty good, right?
Not when it supports one corporation over another using baseless motives.
You realise this thread is about a patent dispute in a UK court, right? What support are you referring to?
If the UK market becomes too toxic then leaving it may not be a bad thing. Apple is a for profit business and if the market condition isn’t profitable whats the point of been on it? Besides is not like the UK market is as big as the EU market.
The EU market is also getting toxic.
Stopping corporations from ruling the world, destroying our environment, and dictating terms to entire nations is “toxic”, by you...?
No body but the EU is doing the dictating.
Yes, that's what he meant by dictating terms. It's precisely why the EU was set up, to integrate Europe under increasingly common policies and principles of citizenship. And it better enables them to do the other things he mentions, stopping corporations from ruling the world and destroying the environment.
If the UK market becomes too toxic then leaving it may not be a bad thing. Apple is a for profit business and if the market condition isn’t profitable whats the point of been on it? Besides is not like the UK market is as big as the EU market.
The EU market is also getting toxic.
Stopping corporations from ruling the world, destroying our environment, and dictating terms to entire nations is “toxic”, by you...?
No body but the EU is doing the dictating.
Yes, that's what he meant by dictating terms. It's precisely why the EU was set up, to integrate Europe under increasingly common policies and principles of citizenship. And it better enables them to do the other things he mentions, stopping corporations from ruling the world and destroying the environment.
Pretty good, right?
Not when it supports one corporation over another using baseless motives.
You realise this thread is about a patent dispute in a UK court, right? What support are you referring to?
Englsih Common Law is the basis for all (fair and safe) western societies including US Courts, Canada, Australia, NZ.
Bit of a kick in the teeth there for non-English speaking western countries that primarily use codified civil law; are they unfair and/or unsafe?
No they aren't necesarily. But the west is generally deemed a safe and prosperous place. Not perfect but in general terms the west system works the best. If you would like to pick apart my arguement happy to be proved otherwise. Obviously you only have to look so far as Netflix to see the miscarriages of justice in the west.
I think what people seem to miss is if apple has to pay this 7bn dollars, the UK doesn't get the money, this US company does. Otherwise why sue?
Apple would not be the first to leave the UK. Many international financial institutions have already beat them to it and headed across the channel.
The UK intended itself to become more business friendly by leaving the EU. But it appears they are becoming less so.
Oh Dear George!!,
Let me remind you that. Its a US CORP suing another US CORP in UK courts as they did in Texas! So no need for all the UK bashing Please ask apple why they chose to infringe in the first place? How many times have apple sued samsung and the reverse? This stuff is happening all the time in the tech world. Intel have had to pay just about everyone for their shady behaviour. Nothing to do with the 'Limeys.' who by the way pay more than anyone else for apple products.
I do think the UK should only be pursuint of damages incurred in UK markets for patent infringement. But yes they clearly have not said they did not do it!
Anyway I am very sure you are too busy to reply to this working two jobs living the American dream so you can afford your medical bills! Only a matter of time before a big one drops on the matt!
Just also thought I'd mention as a dual US/UK citizen born if FL that you speak 'ENGLISH' and the Limeys beat the Vietnamesse in 1945-46 before handing it back to the French where as the US lost, so please climb down off the horsey Google is your friend my friend.
To any nice US people reading this (I do love the US) and I am glad USA is running the world and not China!
Have a blessed Day x
First, it was a UK court.
Second, the question was about whether Apple should leave the UK rather than suffer the onorous penalties being imposed by that court..
Pointing out that Apple would not be the first to leave is not UK bashing (although they deserve it for being so foolish) but the reality brought on by their foolish Brexit.
Firstly George,
A US company (apple) stole a patent from another US company and sold it's stolen IP to UK markets, so they took them to court. If I did the same to you, you could seek compensation from me in UK courts. This is fair. What perhaps is questionable is whether UK supreme court has the jurisdiction to enforce this patent infringement for worldwide markets. But International law is a bit of a grey area, because we don't have an International court.
Englsih Common Law is the basis for all (fair and safe) western societies including US Courts, Canada, Australia, NZ. This is not, USA vs UK. The UK Supreme court is seperate from UK Gov and UK people. All the people from the UK did was pay 30% more for apple products than people in the US and now are threatened by apple because they don't want to pay the money they more than likely owe this US company with the patent.
Apple threatened to leave before in Norway and backed down. I love how Americans like yourself are so pro Independence but when we decide to leave the corrupt EU commision we are labelled 'foolish'. Time will ofcourse tell, but so far Brexit is going just fine, we are aove 2.5% inflation atm above the expectactions of the bank of england.
By the way the EU is currently taking appealing a court decision against apple for 15bn over unpaid taxes. We will have to see the outcome of Apple but I doubt they will leave if they can make 5bn back in 4 years and have been avoiding tax thru ireland for aslong as they have been here.
It's not the fault of Brexit, UK gov or the people it's apple stealing end of story.
As I said (and I'm glad you admitted the first -- a UK court:
First, it was a UK court.
Second, the question was about
whether Apple should leave the UK rather than suffer the onorous
penalties being imposed by that court..
Pointing
out that Apple would not be the first to leave is not UK bashing
(although they deserve it for being so foolish) but the reality brought
on by their foolish Brexit.
Englsih Common Law is the basis for all (fair and safe) western societies including US Courts, Canada, Australia, NZ.
Bit of a kick in the teeth there for non-English speaking western countries that primarily use codified civil law; are they unfair and/or unsafe?
No they aren't necesarily. But the west is generally deemed a safe and prosperous place. Not perfect but in general terms the west system works the best. If you would like to pick apart my arguement happy to be proved otherwise. Obviously you only have to look so far as Netflix to see the miscarriages of justice in the west.
Not really sure what point you're trying to make. "The West" does not have a single justice system. It has a variety of implementations with varying degrees of common law and civil law.
Here's a map which tries to express it, though even this is an oversimplification:
I'm not particularly interested into getting into a big debate about the merits of each, but I think it's fair to say that your original statement of "Englsih Common Law is the basis for all (fair and safe) western societies" is only taking into account English-speaking countries (which is not the same thing as "all western societies" or "all fair and safe western societies") and is therefore overly broad and incorrect.
To pluck one example out of the air, France is a fair and safe western country, but its legal system is not based on English Common Law, and if you were to suggest in in France some people would be very rude to you (as opposed to just moderately rude).
Englsih Common Law is the basis for all (fair and safe) western societies including US Courts, Canada, Australia, NZ.
Bit of a kick in the teeth there for non-English speaking western countries that primarily use codified civil law; are they unfair and/or unsafe?
No they aren't necesarily. But the west is generally deemed a safe and prosperous place. Not perfect but in general terms the west system works the best. If you would like to pick apart my arguement happy to be proved otherwise. Obviously you only have to look so far as Netflix to see the miscarriages of justice in the west.
Not really sure what point you're trying to make. "The West" does not have a single justice system. It has a variety of implementations with varying degrees of common law and civil law.
Here's a map which tries to express it, though even this is an oversimplification:
I'm not particularly interested into getting into a big debate about the merits of each, but I think it's fair to say that your original statement of "Englsih Common Law is the basis for all (fair and safe) western societies" is only taking into account English-speaking countries (which is not the same thing as "all western societies" or "all fair and safe western societies") and is therefore overly broad and incorrect.
To pluck one example out of the air, France is a fair and safe western country, but its legal system is not based on English Common Law, and if you were to suggest in in France some people would be very rude to you (as opposed to just moderately rud
His point was correct. But, as usual you have to twist it so you can start an argument.
Englsih Common Law is the basis for all (fair and safe) western societies including US Courts, Canada, Australia, NZ.
Bit of a kick in the teeth there for non-English speaking western countries that primarily use codified civil law; are they unfair and/or unsafe?
No they aren't necesarily. But the west is generally deemed a safe and prosperous place. Not perfect but in general terms the west system works the best. If you would like to pick apart my arguement happy to be proved otherwise. Obviously you only have to look so far as Netflix to see the miscarriages of justice in the west.
Not really sure what point you're trying to make. "The West" does not have a single justice system. It has a variety of implementations with varying degrees of common law and civil law.
Here's a map which tries to express it, though even this is an oversimplification:
I'm not particularly interested into getting into a big debate about the merits of each, but I think it's fair to say that your original statement of "Englsih Common Law is the basis for all (fair and safe) western societies" is only taking into account English-speaking countries (which is not the same thing as "all western societies" or "all fair and safe western societies") and is therefore overly broad and incorrect.
To pluck one example out of the air, France is a fair and safe western country, but its legal system is not based on English Common Law, and if you were to suggest in in France some people would be very rude to you (as opposed to just moderately rud
His point was correct. But, as usual you have to twist it so you can start an argument.
I was making a bit of a joke to start, but then he followed up with something very confusing (I'm still not sure what Netflix has to do with anything). His point certainly doesn't seem to be correct, as I have fully spelled out above. If you'd care to refute it, you're welcome to. Or I guess you could just snipe from the sidelines, in which case I'll ignore you.
Comments
Moreover, what does it have to do with this thread, which is about a patent dispute in a UK court?
Please don't drag EU grievances into every thread.
I think what people seem to miss is if apple has to pay this 7bn dollars, the UK doesn't get the money, this US company does. Otherwise why sue?
Here's a map which tries to express it, though even this is an oversimplification:
I'm not particularly interested into getting into a big debate about the merits of each, but I think it's fair to say that your original statement of "Englsih Common Law is the basis for all (fair and safe) western societies" is only taking into account English-speaking countries (which is not the same thing as "all western societies" or "all fair and safe western societies") and is therefore overly broad and incorrect.
To pluck one example out of the air, France is a fair and safe western country, but its legal system is not based on English Common Law, and if you were to suggest in in France some people would be very rude to you (as opposed to just moderately rude).