|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
My surprise is real. It's very unusual
language in a court order.
Stop and think. If this is "at best" -- the
interpretation Apple offered and the judge
accepted -- what is the worst? It would likely
be being deliberately misleading, in common
parlance lying, would it not? What could be worse
than that? And there are ethical rules for
lawyers. They are not supposed to lie.
And you need to read our comments policy. Note
that we don't accept ad hominem comments, meaning
if you keep it up, I'll remove them. So pull
yourself back into the more polite category
so I don't have to do that to you. Thanks.
As for me implying Groklaw readers are too
stupid to comprehend what Quinn said, a lot
of people did not. The media (and yes, they
read Groklaw) did not. Most of the articles
written about that event portrayed him as
being wildly out of line.
So what I wrote was mostly for them. Part of
what Groklaw does is education, and educating
everybody on how the law works is part of what
I set up Groklaw for.
I didn't set it up to let people like you
come here and sidetrack the conversation to
analyze every word I write to find fault with
it, which is what you are doing. I don't know
why you are doing it, but I'd advise you to
stop. Otherwise, I'll block you.
This is your last warning. Note in our comments
policy that shills and trolls get moderated.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- The message - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
