Look, I was amused by Apple's response, and I think that in an American court it might be regarded as complying with the letter of the law. But judges have wide latitude to decide when they're being met with disrespect.
This is a British court, not an American court. Their judges have even wider latitude to decide when they're being disrespected. This goes well beyond compliance to the letter of the law.
Apple likes to thumb its nose at competitors and detractors. Normally this amuses me. But doing that to a judge is, perhaps, unwise.
Yeah, but Tallest Skill apparently thinks that law is a perfect binary discipline. There is either right or wrong. Following the letter of the law is not the end all, be all. There's also intent and disrespect, concepts that (s)he doesn't seem to accept.
The judge's orders were to state that Samsung's product does not "copy" Apple's product;
Nope, the judges made quite clear that non-infringement of a design patent has nothing whatsoever to do with "copying", they even ordered Apple to post a link to the judgement containing the exact ruling where they made these statements, which Apple duly complied with.
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.
They have appealed. . . twice now. In both cases the Appeals Court upheld the order to publish, with minor changes to the original order handed down several weeks ago.
This latest ruling is the result of Samsung seeking clarification.
Apple has every right to seek clarification regarding Samsung's latest action and reserve the right to question the courts motives based on this request from Samsung.
They have every right to present a written submission as was laid out in the original appeal ruling.
Surely you know there's more than one level of appeal in the American judicial system? There may not be in the UK, but that only speaks additionally to the flaws of their system.
There are, all the way up to the Privy Council.
Perhaps Sir Jonathan Ive should seek an audience with the Queen in order to put an end to this nonsense.
This latest ruling is the result of Samsung seeking clarification.
Apple has every right to seek clarification regarding Samsung's latest action and reserve the right to question the courts motives based on this request from Samsung.
They have every right to present a written submission as was laid out in the original appeal ruling.
Apple's legal counsel was present today when the clarification was issued. Unless Apple's attorneys were asleep they're fully aware of the arguments and discussion, as well as having the opportunity to explain their own position prior to the court's order. Clarification was what the hearing today was for, and it was clarified for both Samsung and Apple at the same time.
Yep. And now he's going to look really dumb. Not only for ordering a punishment that is appropriate for libel/slander cases which this was not but also for a poorly performed order and now crying foul because 'that's not what I meant'.
He already looks dumb for letting his hunger for publicity get in the way of his job. He wanted to be the judge who put "big bad Apple" in it's place and ended up looking like an ass because of it. Apple complied with the ruling as it had to, but now the judge is trying to save face by saying "that's not what I meant" blah blah blah. If he would not have made such a spectacle of himself with his silly ruling in the first place it would have saved him from this embarrassment. I could care less what happens from here. Apple has already won the publicity battle, and used the judge's own comments to do so! Priceless.
Yeah, but Tallest Skill apparently thinks that law is a perfect binary discipline. There is either right or wrong. Following the letter of the law is not the end all, be all. There's also intent and disrespect, concepts that (s)he doesn't seem to accept.
On the contrary, I desire Apple to ignore the letters of this law, even the entire character set in which this law is written, completely disrespect this ruling, this terrible ruling, borne of ludicrous law, one which, while legal, runs contrary to the truth.
I care ONLY for Truth. If law gets in the way of that, it can take a hike. Or whatever the equivalent British idiom is.
This latest ruling is the result of Samsung seeking clarification.
Apple has every right to seek clarification regarding Samsung's latest action and reserve the right to question the courts motives based on this request from Samsung.
They have every right to present a written submission as was laid out in the original appeal ruling.
Just as Apple has every right to appeal this latest ruling.
I believe their only remaining option for appeal is to the European Court of Justice, the equivalent of the US Supreme Court.
The ECJ is the highest court for questions of EU law. This case is under British law, not EU law. The ECJ is irrelevant in this case, unless Apple wants to argue that Britain's decision violates EU law.
The relevant highest court for this case is...the Supreme Court. It has existed only since 2009. Before that it would've made sense to talk about the Privy Council.
I realize we're (almost) all Apple cheerleaders here, but if I were Apple I'd simply issue the bare-bones statement the judge originally had in mind, without trying to turn him into an involuntary ad subject. That's what ticked him off.
The ECJ is the highest court for questions of EU law. This case is under British law, not EU law. The ECJ is irrelevant in this case, unless Apple wants to argue that Britain's decision violates EU law.
The relevant highest court for this case is...the Supreme Court. It has existed only since 2009. Before that it would've made sense to talk about the Privy Council.
I realize we're (almost) all Apple cheerleaders here, but if I were Apple I'd simply issue the bare-bones statement the judge originally had in mind, without trying to turn him into an involuntary ad subject. That's what ticked him off.
So Apple are within their rights to continue their actions in Germany?
I suggest you refer to the reference to "community court" made within the ruling and these appeals.
The idiotic UK judges can't have their cake and eat it too.
One more thing, the ruling also forced Apple to provide links to the rulings, which include the "coolness" remarks among other things.
The United Kingdom is old money... and this is an old money judge. Old money however, in interesting times - these times, gets you only so far. It doesn't give you wisdom for the age we're now entering. Clearly, Samesung copied the iPad and the iPhone to within an inch of the obvious even to the likes of this ... judge. Of this there is no question. Deniers will deny but denials don't obviate the truth.
There are very clearly companies in the UK that are new age businesses (http://www.reactionengines.co.uk - one of my favourites) and in such enterprises there is a great deal of hope. Making ... judgements against the world's preeminent company though serves only to dampen enthusiasm.
Comments
**** the UK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor
Look, I was amused by Apple's response, and I think that in an American court it might be regarded as complying with the letter of the law. But judges have wide latitude to decide when they're being met with disrespect.
This is a British court, not an American court. Their judges have even wider latitude to decide when they're being disrespected. This goes well beyond compliance to the letter of the law.
Apple likes to thumb its nose at competitors and detractors. Normally this amuses me. But doing that to a judge is, perhaps, unwise.
Yeah, but Tallest Skill apparently thinks that law is a perfect binary discipline. There is either right or wrong. Following the letter of the law is not the end all, be all. There's also intent and disrespect, concepts that (s)he doesn't seem to accept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
The judge's orders were to state that Samsung's product does not "copy" Apple's product;
Nope, the judges made quite clear that non-infringement of a design patent has nothing whatsoever to do with "copying", they even ordered Apple to post a link to the judgement containing the exact ruling where they made these statements, which Apple duly complied with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard
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.
Coinciding with the time you joined the EU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
They have appealed. . . twice now. In both cases the Appeals Court upheld the order to publish, with minor changes to the original order handed down several weeks ago.
This latest ruling is the result of Samsung seeking clarification.
Apple has every right to seek clarification regarding Samsung's latest action and reserve the right to question the courts motives based on this request from Samsung.
They have every right to present a written submission as was laid out in the original appeal ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Surely you know there's more than one level of appeal in the American judicial system? There may not be in the UK, but that only speaks additionally to the flaws of their system.
There are, all the way up to the Privy Council.
Perhaps Sir Jonathan Ive should seek an audience with the Queen in order to put an end to this nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
This latest ruling is the result of Samsung seeking clarification.
Apple has every right to seek clarification regarding Samsung's latest action and reserve the right to question the courts motives based on this request from Samsung.
They have every right to present a written submission as was laid out in the original appeal ruling.
Apple's legal counsel was present today when the clarification was issued. Unless Apple's attorneys were asleep they're fully aware of the arguments and discussion, as well as having the opportunity to explain their own position prior to the court's order. Clarification was what the hearing today was for, and it was clarified for both Samsung and Apple at the same time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20165664
An excerpt:
"Michael Beloff QC, representing Apple, told judges that the company had thought that it had complied with the court order.
"It's not designed to punish," he (Apple's counsel) said.
"It's not designed to make us grovel. The only purpose must be to dispel commercial uncertainty."
He asked that the company be given 14 days to post the replacement - but the request was firmly denied.
Lord Justice Longmore told Mr Beloff: "We are just amazed that you cannot put the right notice up at the same time as you take the other one down"
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre
Nice Burn!
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Yep. And now he's going to look really dumb. Not only for ordering a punishment that is appropriate for libel/slander cases which this was not but also for a poorly performed order and now crying foul because 'that's not what I meant'.
He already looks dumb for letting his hunger for publicity get in the way of his job. He wanted to be the judge who put "big bad Apple" in it's place and ended up looking like an ass because of it. Apple complied with the ruling as it had to, but now the judge is trying to save face by saying "that's not what I meant" blah blah blah. If he would not have made such a spectacle of himself with his silly ruling in the first place it would have saved him from this embarrassment. I could care less what happens from here. Apple has already won the publicity battle, and used the judge's own comments to do so! Priceless.
Originally Posted by galore2112
Yeah, but Tallest Skill apparently thinks that law is a perfect binary discipline. There is either right or wrong. Following the letter of the law is not the end all, be all. There's also intent and disrespect, concepts that (s)he doesn't seem to accept.
On the contrary, I desire Apple to ignore the letters of this law, even the entire character set in which this law is written, completely disrespect this ruling, this terrible ruling, borne of ludicrous law, one which, while legal, runs contrary to the truth.
I care ONLY for Truth. If law gets in the way of that, it can take a hike. Or whatever the equivalent British idiom is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh
It's lovely to see that there are still governments that aren't quite as easily purchased as that corporate subsidiary Americans call "Congress."
All governments are bought and paid for. To suggest otherwise is foolish and naive.
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
In other words, you agree that I lost.
Just as Apple has every right to appeal this latest ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Just as Apple has every right to appeal this latest ruling.
I believe their only remaining option for appeal is to the European Court of Justice, the equivalent of the US Supreme Court.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I believe their only remaining option for appeal is to the European Court of Justice, the equivalent of the US Supreme Court.
He's changing the ruling on a whim, and after Apple complied with the old one. The counter ticks back down to zero, yeah?
Also in before "the court is stuffed with Germans; they're in Apple's pocket!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
He's changing the ruling on a whim, and after Apple complied with the old one. The counter ticks back down to zero, yeah?
Also in before "the court is stuffed with Germans; they're in Apple's pocket!"
Each country only gets one judge in that court, which makes for 27 I think. Could be wrong on the exact number.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Each country only gets one judge in that court, which makes for 27 I think. Could be wrong on the exact number.
Oh, that won't stop them.
"The court is stuffed with Germanic languages! They're in Apple's pocket!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I believe their only remaining option for appeal is to the European Court of Justice, the equivalent of the US Supreme Court.
The ECJ is the highest court for questions of EU law. This case is under British law, not EU law. The ECJ is irrelevant in this case, unless Apple wants to argue that Britain's decision violates EU law.
The relevant highest court for this case is...the Supreme Court. It has existed only since 2009. Before that it would've made sense to talk about the Privy Council.
I realize we're (almost) all Apple cheerleaders here, but if I were Apple I'd simply issue the bare-bones statement the judge originally had in mind, without trying to turn him into an involuntary ad subject. That's what ticked him off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor
The ECJ is the highest court for questions of EU law. This case is under British law, not EU law. The ECJ is irrelevant in this case, unless Apple wants to argue that Britain's decision violates EU law.
The relevant highest court for this case is...the Supreme Court. It has existed only since 2009. Before that it would've made sense to talk about the Privy Council.
I realize we're (almost) all Apple cheerleaders here, but if I were Apple I'd simply issue the bare-bones statement the judge originally had in mind, without trying to turn him into an involuntary ad subject. That's what ticked him off.
So Apple are within their rights to continue their actions in Germany?
I suggest you refer to the reference to "community court" made within the ruling and these appeals.
The idiotic UK judges can't have their cake and eat it too.
One more thing, the ruling also forced Apple to provide links to the rulings, which include the "coolness" remarks among other things.
The United Kingdom is old money... and this is an old money judge. Old money however, in interesting times - these times, gets you only so far. It doesn't give you wisdom for the age we're now entering. Clearly, Samesung copied the iPad and the iPhone to within an inch of the obvious even to the likes of this ... judge. Of this there is no question. Deniers will deny but denials don't obviate the truth.
There are very clearly companies in the UK that are new age businesses (http://www.reactionengines.co.uk - one of my favourites) and in such enterprises there is a great deal of hope. Making ... judgements against the world's preeminent company though serves only to dampen enthusiasm.