|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
OK. I didn't realise that. I'd be pretty ticked with a formal
error ruling from the branch office in my job.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
What's there to fix? As a seasoned court watcher, PJ is surprised by the
forthrightness of the appeals court.
And you're upset that PJ has expressed surprise, when she is really, deeply,
surprised by what's happened?
Something's wrong with your social skills - and I thought it was us regulars
here who had a high risk of that!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 02:28 PM EDT |
I see you have no legal training. Here's the part
you missed:
The
district court concluded that Apple had the better argument....(citing
ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc....
So the article will not be
"corrected" to suit your strained, super-literal interpretation, because the
article is correct as is. You
don't see it, maybe, but that doesn't make it
wrong. If you keep posting on this over and over, I'll start to simply remove
your comments. You are being rude. And you are wrong.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|