|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
From my understanding of the English language (which isn't lawyer like as IANAL)
they did actually lie there, specifically because the 'so' links the two
statements together.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 02:39 AM EDT |
No, they are plainly breaking their obligation here. I requote:
So
while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other
courts
have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet,
Samsung
willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
They are
not saying "other courts have found" or "ruled" but rather "other courts have
recognized". And the sentence ends in a clear restatement of what
Apple wants to be seen as fact. This is a clear-cut case of contempt of court.
They would have needed language like "While we acknowledge the UK court's
verdict, our customers deserve to know that courts in other jurisdictions have
ruled differently regarding the question of whether in the course of
..."
That would be still sailing the thin line of contempt of court, but it
does not pretty much state "hello, the UK court wants us to tell you why it has
been wrong". [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
