Thank you for that - I hadn't read the appeal judgement; you got me to go there.

81. How then does all of that affect the decision as to whether or not there should be a publicity order? The grant of such an order is not to punish the party concerned for its behaviour. Nor is it to make it grovel - simply to lose face. The test is whether there is a need to dispel commercial uncertainty.

OP says that Apple wasn't ordered to apologize. Sir Robin Jacob says that they are to "lose face". Apple's response - middle finger. So the OP's bleat that Apple's posting is "*exactly* what the judge specifically required Apple to publish" should really be extended to include "...if you ignore all the stuff about what the Court said it was supposed to accomplish".

[ 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 @ 03:18 PM EDT
  • Apple did not "dispel commercial uncertainty" - Authored by: jbb on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 09:46 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• Apple Press Unsure - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT