|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
I see that Mr Jobs has been reanimated.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
Yes, in this corrupt and twisted world where lawyers turn the English language
into sausage it may be the case that, under the law, Apple's statment is
"truth." That just shows how immoral and corrupt the legal system has
become. In any real sense, any honest person would recognize that Apple's
statement is dishonest and that Apple did not obey the court's order.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 12:32 AM EDT
- No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 06:19 AM EDT
- Actually... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 02:51 PM EDT
- Actually... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT
- No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT
- Nonfunctional requirements - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 07:20 AM EDT
- No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT
|
Authored by: IANALitj on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 01:55 AM EDT |
Whether or not Apple followed the court order is a question for the court that
made it (or some other court that considers the matter), if Samsung chooses to
raise the question.
The relevant provisions of the order are:
"87: Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no
discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by
events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose
the following:
"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that
Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab
10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No.
0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on
the following link [link given].
"That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by
the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available
on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered
design in force anywhere in Europe."
"88. 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. I would hope that any such argument (and any other consequential)
arguments can be resolved by written submissions."
There is therefore in 88 a provision for some latitude as to the phrasing of the
notice laid out in 87, and I have no knowledge whether that provision applies.
The notice as I read it on Apple's web site contains as its first paragraph text
similar to (but not identical to) the first paragraph specified in 87. The web
site notice has as its fifth paragraph text as in the second paragraph specified
in 87.
Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 6 of Apple's notice are Apple's innovation, not provided
for in the court order.
It seems obvious to me that if Apple had supplied several dozen paragraphs of
its own non-groveling text, it would not have been complying with the court
order, notwithstanding that it did also supply the two specified paragraphs.
Whether its interpolation of four paragraphs is offensive is a closer question.
I would hate to have my financial well-being or my personal liberty hinge on a
British judge's opinion as to whether Apple's notice complies with the order.
I note that as I read the Apple web site, the two required paragraphs occupy
four lines apiece, while the four interpolated paragraphs occupy 2, 5, 5 and 6
lines. The ratio is greater than two to one, in favor of Apple as against the
court order.
I shall leave it to others to judge whether Apple has complied with the typeface
requirement in the order ("no smaller than Arial 14pt").[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
In talking about this notice the court says (amongst other things)
46. In terms of policy, I accept that there is a useful purpose in a clear
public statement that a product alleged by a rights holder to infringe those
rights does not infringe. The more frequently and the more loudly a rights
holder has asserted infringement, the more useful it is to have a clear public
statement to the contrary. However, that purpose is also the fundamental purpose
and the reason for the court's declaratory jurisdiction. Samsung have the
benefit of that public declaration.
In what way is this notice a clear declaration? By not making such a clear
declaration it appears on the face of it to be a flagrant flouting of a court
order and I expect the consequences to be severe, if they aren't I can see very
little reason for ever listening to a judge at all.
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
The reasoning behind the order is that the general public would interpret
"copying" as infringement, and so claiming that Samsung copied Apple's
design implies infringement.
By compelling Apple to publicly state that there is no infringement, the courts
appeared to be intending Apple to undo the damage its claims of copying had
potentially caused.
Apple's statement continued to allege copying, even while acknowledging that
infringement had not occurred. This strikes me as contradicting the intent of
the court order.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|