decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
"too vague" | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
And inexperience leading to false assumptions?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 04:56 AM EDT
Used to dealing with the US and no real awareness of the EU court system.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Vague?
Authored by: cricketjeff on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 06:55 AM EDT
In what way? The judge gave them the wording and the size of text, fairly
directly. By not simply complying they are clearly in contempt, if that contempt
is gross enough for the court to stamp on them is for the court itself to
decide.

---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

An extreme measure
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 08:17 AM EDT
The original order was for the short/succinct statement
(supplied by the court) to go on the Apple home page, but
Apple argued on appeal that it would "clutter" (their words)
it. The appeals court decided that it would be Ok to just
have a link on home page. However, Apple decided to use the
extra space on a new page to add their own spin and
commentary. It seems to me that they had a deliberate ploy
to get it off their home page so they could add their own
spin. Risky.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

An extreme measure
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 12:54 PM EDT
Too vague?

The the order was clear. The reason behind it was well understood. The parties
had just spent quite a bit of effort on their cases, it's not as if they were
given the order with no context.

It's impossible for the judge to specific every detail. They need to rely on
the good faith efforts of the parties, or at least the parties attorneys, to not
deliberately twist an order.

Posting a modified notice that was at best confusing, and could be read as
stating the opposite of the order was not misunderstanding a "vague"
order. Using "pixel" instead of "point" sizes could have
been passed off as a technical mistake. But when combined with a scaling image
that always pushed the link off the displayed screen and the modified text,
there is a pattern.

"Technically this wasn't precluded by the exact wording of the order"
and "those are trivially small violations of the wording" are hard to
reconcile.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"too vague"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 11:51 AM EDT

Some people will deliberately look for and find vagueness in anything even though they know exactly what the situation is about.

Sometimes all doesn't mean all!
I don't think the order was vague at all.
  1. Apple knew of their public campaign.
  2. Said public campaign was deliberately selected in order to harm Samsung. For example - Apple deliberately going to the distributors and telling them (allegedly wrongfully) that the order preventing Samsung from bringing new devices in also prevented the distributors from clearing their stock.
  3. Said public campaign was specifically built on Apple's Court Claims.
  4. Said Court Claims were specifically dealt with by the various Courts.
  5. Said UK Court handling such an instance recognized the public harm caused by Apple.
  6. Said Judge clearly outlined the problem and Apple's deliberate harm.
  7. Said Judge clearly outlined the fact that Samsung is Legally cleared of wrongful behavior.
  8. Said Judge clearly outlined the harm to Samsung needed to be corrected.
  9. Said Judge clearly outlined Apple had to publicly clear Samsung's name of "wrongful doing".
And you're saying all the above is somehow vague?

I put forth: it's only vague if you're a child looking to continue to pick on your younger brother even when your mother has clearly told you to stop!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )