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
Agreed | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Agreed
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 05:42 AM EDT
Got it in one there.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:30 PM EDT
I do think that truth matters. In fact, that's why I called you on your
headline, and false claim of a missing link.

You haven't fixed either of those things, so you're steadily losing the high
ground here.

Apple was *not* told to apologize. They were told to publicly *acknowledge* the
court's ruling. They have done so, using the exact wording handed to them by the
court. They have done so in the directed font at the directed font-size. The
order told them to post a link to the ruling. They did. They *also* included
*direct, in context, quotes* from the ruling, and notes about the status of
other suits around the world to ensure that people reading the page *don't*
think the ruling applies *outside* of the EU.

What, exactly, do you claim that they aren't telling the truth about?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT

I’m the anonymous that wrote the comment you originally replied to.

If the truth matters, then everything Apple included in their notice was actually true. They gave the notice, they gave direct quotes from the court itself, and they also included information about court rulings in various other jurisdictions. If you care about the truth, then certainly you would mind if various parts of it were omitted, wouldn’t you?

It isn’t the court order I take issue with, once again, I am not so invested in foreign courts nor a local corporation to care about that. I take issue with the author’s statement about lacking humanity for disagreeing with her.

Now I take issue with your statements about what our civilization was actually built on. Our civilization was built on lies, deceit, assassinations, murder, wars, plagues, advancements in technology (not just digital tech), advancements in science, literature, languages, Xanatos gambits to break apart lands and build empires, culture, disagreements, oppression, freedom, and various other things that make us human. That includes comedy. Truth is but one side of one part of humanity, the other side is lies, a third side might be propaganda, and so on, that’s the truth, and I understand that for many people, this truth hurts.

I found the court order itself comedic, and I found Apple’s respond even funnier, this is a fight involving several institutions, at least two corporations (the parties named) and the UK Court, not including the worldwide court and commission battles. I also found the UK Court actually striking the order down to be pretty interesting, reading that today reminded me to check to see if anyone had replied here. UK law might be very different from US law (not wholly given most States include English common law as part of their legal systems), but after the laughter dies down and I think about it, I find the entire idea that a court would order any party to take out what amounts to an ad for their competitors to be a pretty bad idea.

I thoroughly enjoyed Groklaw’s coverage of various other cases, not a fan of having my humanity questioned for disagreeing with someone though. It’s the same type of baseless emotional response seemingly inbred into most people that has polarized my country and will tear it apart, and when I saw it, I felt it necessary to address it. I won’t apologize if anyone has taken offense to this or my previous statement.

[ 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 )