Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
In the first paragraph, the link to the appeal has a groklaw prefix before the
bailii URL.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
Article mentions iPhone, however, this case/appeal was only about the iPad [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
Sorry if I put this in the wrong place. But the original publicity order was
amended by the appeal judges, in part due to the original "not as
cool" publicity.
1) The appeal judges were minded to not enforce the publicity order on Apple but
felt they needed to because of the publicity arising from Apple obtaining the
exparte injuction against samsung in the German court (see appeal report para
86-87)
2) The appeal court dictated the *exact* wording of the notice "Subject to
anything that may be submitted by either side" (see appeal para 89) -
Although Apple have included the same words from the appeal court notice it is
not the exact notice as they were ordered to publish.
3) I'll be amazed if the court or Samsung actually agreed to the wording as
published by Apple - the appeal court ordered (p88) "In the result I would
dismiss both appeals but vary the publicity order as indicated or in such other
way as may be agreed or settled by further argument." Meaning court (pos
both parties) needed to agree in the content of the notice.
4) The spirit behind the publicity order was to dispel consumer uncertainty
because of Apple and the German court injuction. (see Appeal para 84)
"Another lot of media reports, reporting more or less accurately that
Samsung have not only finally won but been vindicated on appeal may not be
enough to disperse all the fog. It is now necessary to make assurance doubly so.
Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that
it acknowledges that the court has decided that these Samsung products do not
infringe its registered design. The acknowledgement must come from the horse's
mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely. "
Hope this is some use
Mark
PS: Apple agreed to discharge the German injunction at the appeal; if Apple
hadn't agreed to discharge the German injuction the publicity/notice period
would have been longer (see appeal para 86)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT |
looks like they've added the link to the case [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IANALitj on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 01:24 AM EDT |
Isn't it customary for PJ to note in the article title that there has been an
update?
(This is not strictly necessary for the correction, but I feel impelled to say
that the update is an excellent one.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RichardB on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
they'd they'd => they'd
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 03:34 AM EDT |
Something seems to be missing after this:
American history." - <b>[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 10:41 PM EDT |
I am just getting pyjama stripes for the new article!!! Newspicks and the LH
column seem to be there but out of place.
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|