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
Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
Authored by: BJ on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 07:44 PM EDT
Aren't you the guy that felt sorry for Samsung's
being victorious?

Now your defiance is a funny loser's -- Apple's is
just a sore's one.

Glad to assist.

bjd



[ 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 Friday, October 26 2012 @ 07:48 PM EDT

And where, exactly, do you think the parts from your nice shiny iPad are coming from? Do you think that's air you're breathing?

Among all component suppliers, Samsung Electronics continues its reign as the big winner in the individual iPad analyzed by the IHS iSuppli Teardown Analysis Service. Samsung supplied both the display and the applications processor. The new iPad’s Retina display represents the most expensive single component in the tablet, at $87, while the applications processor costs an estimated $23. Combined, this gives Samsung a 30.2 percent share of the 32GB LTE version of the new iPad’s bill of materials, the largest for any supplier.

Source

--
Richard

[ 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: Tyro on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 08:23 PM EDT
Are trolls human?

[ 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: PJ on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 11:33 PM EDT
I think it boils down to whether or not you
think truth matters and whether or not you
think civilization depends on legal systems
that reflect ethics worth holding and
respect shown to them, most especially by
those who influence others.

Would you teach your kids that this is
a brilliant way to behave? If so, then you
and I are indeed different.

[ 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: albert on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT
I'm glad you're having a good laugh over this. I always enjoy it when arrogant
corporations make fools of themselves in public, and fanbois make excuses for
them.

Oh, and if you ever find yourself the subject of a court order, be sure to take
your disdainful attitude with you, let the judge know exactly what you opinion
is, and, for good measure, publicly denounce him. Best of luck to you!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Speculation thread on judge's next order
Authored by: pem on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:29 PM EDT
Apple’s solution to this disdainful “court order” is actually pretty funny
Yes it is funny, but not in the sense that you apparently mean. As others have pointed out, it is obvious by the petulant, whiny response that it really galled Apple at the highest level to have to do this.

It will be even funnier once the court gives this the smackdown that it deserves. I can envision it now (in best upper-class Barrister British accent):

The court has previously judged that Apple has created some "cool" products. Whilst this judgement stands, it pains the court to observe that the actual corporation that created these products is petty and vindictive, and completely uncool. Since Apple has not seen fit to correct the misconceptions it has created; in fact has seen fit to reinforce those same misconceptions, in direct violation of both UK advertising standards and previous orders of this court, the court finds that Apple must underwrite a 20 million Pound Sterling advertising campaign for Samsung to correct the material misrepresentations that Apple has made. Samsung may properly and truthfully place "this advert paid for by Apple Corporation" on each such advert, and may, at its discretion, use Apple's trademarked logos to reinforce in the public's mind the source of funding for the adverts.

Unlike Apple, Samsung has not shown itself to be uncool, so this caution may not be necessary, but the court will take this opportunity to remind Samsung that the UK Advertising Standards are still in effect, and Samsung should remain cool and not stoop to Apple's despicable level of behavior when placing these adverts.

[ 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 )