|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 03:33 AM EDT |
One small irony from all this: hearing about the ban is what made me run out
and buy one of those in the first place.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 04:05 AM EDT |
Don't forget. She didn't (from choice) issue the injunction in the first place.
When Apple asked for it, she refused. It was only granted when the Appeals Court
forced her hand.
So yes, I agree with you that a lot of what she's done was in Apple's favour.
But it didn't start that way. And *hopefully* it is merely the usual
"Judges favour the weaker side so that when they lose, they lose
decisively". Mind you, if that's what she intended, the jury verdict was a
bit of a loose cannon...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Foreshadow? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 04:27 AM EDT
- Foreshadow? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 06:06 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
I don't know how she could have waited without completely
flouting the law.The basis for the injunction ceased to
exist, end of story. It is a complete non-sense for Apple to
say that they might get another injunction in the future and
therefore we should keep the current one in place - that is
simply has no foundation in law (obviously Apple would be
stupid not to ask, given this Judge's track record).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
