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
I guess Apple hasn't realized Germany is part of the European union | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:17 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes docs here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:20 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mom's response to this
Authored by: tknarr on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:22 PM EDT

I can hear the response my Mom would've given if I'd done this as a kid: "I told you to apologize. Saying I told you to apologize is not the same thing as apologizing. Since you want to be that way, go out and get me a lilac switch.". Offering to go back and apologize at that point wouldn't save you, you'd made your choice about how you were going to handle it and now you would suffer the consequences of that choice. We kids quickly learned that of all the options, playing word games with Mom was never a good one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

German court verdict most likely invalid.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT
As the judge in the UK court case said the case in Germany,
quoted by apple, should not have taken place. This is because
the case in the UK had already started and any result there
would be applicable across europe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 @ 12:42 PM EDT
I thought the US jury found the design of the iPad was not copied. Isn't
Apple's statement wrong:

"A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and
utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc.
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."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple device burning party
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT
PJ I suggest we go further and just grab our apple devices
and create a bonfire and throw all Apple products on the
bonfire..

Signed Fred Grott

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Apple complying with the court's order?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:47 PM EDT

Is Apple complying with the court's order?

And if they aren't will the court force them to comply?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Court's Response?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:51 PM EDT
Is this pushing things far enough to provoke a response from the court?

I am not a lawyer but I think courts have a very wide discretion on contempt of
court in the UK and very wide powers including imprisonment and unlimited fines.


It seems extremely foolish to put this sort of notice up both in reputational
terms and in legal terms. If Apple's lawyers have judged it correctly their may
be no immediate come back but if there is any similar future case then this will
certainly be drawn to the judges attention when deciding remedies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not necessarily legal advice...
Authored by: Shadow Wrought on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT
PJ-

I spent several years as a litigation paralegal in the Bay Area working on
intellectual property matters for high tech businesses. While I can certainly
understand laying the balme for this as listening to the lawyers, my
experience would indicate the opposite.

Lawyers are obligated to give their clients the best legal advice they can,
but they cannot always prevent their clients from doing something stupid. I
know because I watched, and I also witnessed the lengthes to which the
attorneys attempted to protect the clients from their own poor decisions.

If you look at Apple you will see, I believe, a culture of arrogance, control,
and secrecy. When has Apple ever admitted they were wrong?

This kis not to say that there are not law firms out there giving poor advice,
but I think an honest look at Apple's culture and decisions over the last
decade would seem to indicate that this is all on them.



---
"It's a summons." "What's a summons?" "It means summon's in trouble." -- Rocky
and Bullwinkle

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 @ 01:00 PM EDT
It's actions like these which make me look at the Apple brand with disgust.

I was actually considering buying an Apple tablet, but this is not the kind of
company I want to support.

Probably Asus or Samsung will get my business. Anxiously waiting for October 29
(for the possible Nexus 10, 3G Nexus 7 revelations and price cuts for existing
Android tablets)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Definition of stupidity:
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT
Excercising contempt against a ruling where you've already appealed - and lost.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Correct me if I am wrong..
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT
But the fact that Apple have posted this means, I assume, that
they are not going to appeal to a higher court. As such does
this make the UK case the first legal battle between Apple and
Samsung where we have reached the end of the judicial process?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe the judge should have been more specific
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT
I mean, he should have put forth a one or two paragraph detail of what he'd like
Apple to publish.

After this, he should have gone further to say that nothing should be added to
this detail, save for the litigants, the date litigation started, the date of
judgment and appeal and nothing more...not even on any subsequent pages or media
outlets, in order to preserve the "spirit of the judgment."
How about that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 @ 01:06 PM EDT
Is this not a clear case of what we here call contempt of
court ?

Here in the U.K. we are famous for our Libel laws (in the
same way the US is famous for it's patent law :-)) if I was
Samsung I would be looking at these laws to see if they can
be used to negate any advantage Apple my gain through what
seems to be failing US Patent law.

And in Korea I would look at getting the government to make
a complaint to the W.T.O.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It is the system and how far they can push it.
Authored by: ChrixOne on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:17 PM EDT
" it's not all right with me for a corporation to publicly show disrespect
to a court of law, "

It is with me. That's because it is the legal system itself that encourages this
kind of empty, predatory litigation. The legislatures and executive
bureaucracies are for sale, and both Europe and the U.S. get the kind of law
they deserve. If one is part of what amounts to a criminal shake-down scheme one
must expect to catch a little mud every now and then from your disappointed
clients.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Meet the New Apple same as the Old Microsoft
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT
Well almost. Microsoft has an entrenched monopoly. Apple has a monopoly in
tablets at the moment, and still a lead in smartphones IIRC, but they are hardly
entrenched. Not like MS was entrenched in business. Which makes this all the
more stupid. It's like scoring a touchdown in the last five minutes of the game
when you are losing 42-0 and gloating about it.

It is the same behavior that Microsoft used to engage in that got TPJackson to
rule they should be broken up. I doubt Apple wiil be broken up, but I's sure the
judge will find some way to inflict just as much pain.

Mouse the Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | # ]

On the other hand.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:59 PM EDT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/samsung_q3_2012/

Samsung seem to be doing alright.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If the court doesn't act on this it means nobody ever has to follow a court order
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT
Surely they have to recognise that Apple have not complied
with the letter (and certainly not the spirit) of the order
the court has made.


There is nothing about the statement that would correct the
misapprehension that Samsung have copied, indeed quite the
reverse.

If it's contempt of court for a company, who ends up in
prison?

- Stevos

[ Reply to This | # ]

Headline shows bias...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT
The headline:
<blockquote>Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool
Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj</blockquote>
clearly shows PJ's bias in this instance.

The ruling did not, in any way shape or form, ask for an apology to Samsung. It
asked for an *acknowledgement* of the ruling.

In fact, the first paragraph, and the paragraph following the quotes from the
original ruling, are *exactly* what the judge specifically required Apple to
publish.

If you're going to call someone out, you should be certain that they've actually
done what you're accusing them of.

This is especially true of your claim that they didn't include the required
link, which you should have known was false, because it's there (plain as day)
in the block quote where you show the full text of what Apple published.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT
    • Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT
      • Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT
        • Outside their jurisdiction - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT
          • Ha Ha - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT
            • Ha Ha - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:20 PM EDT
              • Ha Ha - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT
      • Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT
      • Localization - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 03:49 AM EDT
        • Localization - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
          • Localization - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
  • Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT
    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 @ 02:16 PM EDT
    The headline:
    Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
    clearly shows PJ's bias in this instance. The ruling did not, in any way shape or form, ask for an apology to Samsung. It asked for an *acknowledgement* of the ruling. In fact, the first paragraph, and the paragraph following the quotes from the original ruling, are *exactly* what the judge specifically required Apple to publish. If you're going to call someone out, you should be certain that they've actually done what you're accusing them of. This is especially true of your claim that they didn't include the required link, which you should have known was false, because it's there (plain as day) in the block quote where you show the full text of what Apple published.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Re: Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
    Authored by: rps on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:22 PM EDT
    It's interesting from a historical perspective as well as educational to watch
    as Groklaw chronicles the downward spiral and eventual self-inflicted demise of
    Apple Inc. No doubt there will be wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth as it
    were as this process unfolds. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    If Apple changed their name to Arrogant
    Authored by: kawabago on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
    Apple could change it's name to Arrogant and be even easier
    to recognize! Everyone will want to own an
    imbetterthanyouphone. The new phone will have a camera that
    always looks down at everyone.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    World Court anyone?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT
    When different district courts come to different decisions, the next step is to
    petition the Supreme Court.

    Given this you would think next stop for this is it should go to the World Court
    (I know that this isn't what the world court normally does, but if Apple can try
    to create new precedents, then why not Samsung)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    In Other News ...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT
    The World Press Seems to Agree With PJ

    Apple Posts 'Apology' to Samsung on U.K. Website... Well, sort of. pcmag.com

    Apple Issues Samsung Snarky Apology Letter On Its U.K. Website huffpost.com

    Leave it to Apple to transform a court-ordered apology into a rival-skewering piece of advertising. allthingsd

    Apple acknowledges Samsung UK patent loss in unapologetic advert telegraph.co.uk

    The Register's headline violates GL's posting rules, but the article text is quite moderate. theregister.co.uk

    Apple Posts Cheeky Non-Apology to Samsung in the UK Forbes

    APPLE: 'Dear Samsung, sorry you're not as cool heraldsun.com.au

    Apple's 'apology' to Samsung is a hoot tgdaily.com

    Just go to google-news and search apple samsung for more "Apple ... insults Samsung in apology", "Apple Posts Backhanded Apology", "spiteful non-apology", "Hilariously Backhanded Concession", "arm-twisted mea culpa", and on and on ...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I think it's good enough to know that Apple had to do it and hated doing it ...
    Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT
    Comment on the register:


    "Rattled

    Well at least you can tell from reading it that the order really rattled them
    and they have put it up through gritted teeth.

    It's nice to think that they are actually having a bit of a tantrum about it.

    In reality it doesn't matter how many people actually see it, I think it's good
    enough to know that Apple had to do it and hated doing it (and also many layers
    of management were involved in hating it)"


    ----

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/apple_apologises_sort_of/

    NSFW headline warning :-)

    ---
    APPLE: [censored] YOU, BRITS, everyone else says Samsung copied us

    But we will apologise because the judge said we had to

    ---
    RMS: The 4 Freedoms
    0 run the program for any purpose
    1 study the source code and change it
    2 make copies and distribute them
    3 publish modified versions

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Cant wait to see the Newspaper apologies :-)
    Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
    ;-)

    ---
    RMS: The 4 Freedoms
    0 run the program for any purpose
    1 study the source code and change it
    2 make copies and distribute them
    3 publish modified versions

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Does Apple have a mascot?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT

    To take my Cindy Lou Who quote a step further:

    Imagine:

      Take the scene where the Grinch gets all excited and Cindy Lou suggests he needs a time out
      Replace the Grinch with the Apple Mascot
      Have the Mascot say something like "We've been told to say Samsung did not infringe but we still say Samsung did!" - quite energetically of course with the pause for breath to match the Grinch.
      Don't change a thing about Ciny Lou's response about the time out.
      Post it on Youtube!
    Value: Priceless!

    IANAL, but I'd think such would fall into the fair use provisioning of Copyright Law.

    RAS

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I think the judge will ask them back in for a chat and a cup of tea... then
    Authored by: GriffMG on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:29 PM EDT
    ask them a few questions and tell them to print 'exactly this...' or I will hold
    you in comtempt - for which the fine is unlimited.

    'did I make myself clear?'

    ---
    Keep B-) ing

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Who cares about the judge
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:59 PM EDT
    Perhaps I've missed something, but everyone is talking about how the
    court might react. What about ordinary people? I'm sure the Apple fanboys
    are delighted, but everyone else will see this as Apple acting like a 4 year
    old and be disgusted. I predict this will cost Apple more than any judgement
    the court might impose.

    (Written on my iPhone while I wait for the Samsung Chromebook I just
    ordered to arrive.)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    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 @ 06:32 PM EDT
    “It's all over the Internet, and you wouldn't be human if you didn't find
    Apple's
    disdainful "compliance" with the UK order graceless and
    unattractive.”

    Wouldn’t be human because I disagree with you? Because I found the court’s
    order graceless and unattractive? Because I think that Apple’s solution to this

    disdainful “court order” is actually pretty funny, and I’m not so invested in
    either
    a foreign court or local corporation that I would feel guilt just pulling my
    laptop
    out of my bag in public?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    European Community-wide judgement
    Authored by: TJ on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 07:39 PM EDT
    The UK judge is requiring them to post a statement that would have effects outside the UK.

    And it does. The Judge was sitting in his role as a European Community Design Judge and at issue was Apple's assertion that their European Community Design right had been infringed.

    This judgement is also superior to the the recent local German court's finding.

    A registered Community design is a monopoly right for the appearance of the whole or part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and materials of the product or its ornamentation. Applications are filed at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM). Approved Community designs cover all 25 member states of the European Union.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    finding the notice on the Apple web site
    Authored by: IANALitj on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 01:41 AM EDT
    I have (with PJ's help) found the notice on the Apple web site.

    I do not now see the notice in the Apple site map. It is neither listed in the
    extensive list of the contents of the site, nor -- as with the Site Map itself
    and a few other items on the next to last line, and the "Terms of Use"
    and a few additional items on the very last line -- as links at the bottom of
    the Site Map page.

    The purpose of the site map is just this sort of search. Putting something on
    the web site but omitting it from the site map arguably amounts to hiding it.

    If this state of affairs continues (and in a sense, Apple is on notice of this
    lapse from the time this post becomes public) I would think that this might be
    just one more element for Samsung to bring to the attention of the judge
    considering a contempt charge in due course. (It will be interesting to see who
    would be charged. If there is a contempt proceeding, it will be interesting in
    many other respects as well.)

    I hope that Samsung (and its counsel) read Groklaw. It would not surprise me if
    neither Apple nor its counsel do.

    The disclaimer in my username applies to the British courts as well as to my
    present location.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Libel?
    Authored by: jmc on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 05:55 AM EDT
    Although I think the English libel laws should be reformed and there is a bill
    going through Parliament to do that, the current law still applies until it has
    been passed.

    Under the current law (and there's nothing in the new bill to change that) the
    onus of proof is clearly on the Defendant.

    So if Samsung sued Apple would have to prove that Samsung "wilfully
    copied" their tablet, Samsung wouldn't have to prove they didn't (although
    Judge Birss' opinion would help).

    And - although this is going to be changed in the Defamation Bill - it would be
    before a jury. Alas in the UK it is contempt to interview jury members so we
    wouldn't have that excitement.

    I think Apple will live to regret their action in a very big way.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Libel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT
    • Libel? - Authored by: soronlin on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 05:52 AM EDT
    German unfair competition law
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT
    Which part of "German unfair competition law" did Samsung break to
    cause the injunction?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Apple followed the court order
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 03:32 PM EDT
    Apple followed the court order.

    And it told the truth.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj Updated 2Xs
    Authored by: jcbarlow on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 02:19 AM EDT
    Apple's arrogance will be rewarded appropriately. See this analysis on semiaccurate.com

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I guess Apple hasn't realized Germany is part of the European union
    Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:55 AM EDT
    "That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by
    the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012."

    "However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court
    found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad
    design."

    Perhaps more problems with Apple Maps? ;-)

    ---
    The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
    advised.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    German french and other regional sites
    Authored by: HenchmenResource on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 01:20 PM EDT
    Perhaps I missed something but reading the order listed in the second paragraph (for reference here it is again) the court ordered that the notice needed to be placed on multiple regional versions of Apple's website including the German and French sites. I selected a handful of the other sites and the notice only seems to appear on the UK site. Did I miss something and that part of the order was changed to only apply to the UK site? I guess it could be taking Apple some time to get it translated, especially if they are reluctant to use Google Translate (couldn't resist), but it appears to me that they are defying the order by not placing a link to the notice on the other sites in the order.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj Updated 2Xs
    Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT
    Perhaps, instead of getting into the whole free speech and
    "advertising for your competitor" issues, the judge should
    have just decided: Apple, you wronged Samsung with this
    lawsuit and your public statements. My job is to make whole
    the wronged party. Therefore, you are ordered to compensate
    Samsung for the damage to their reputation and brand. US$2.0
    Billion aught to do it. Payable net 10 days or interest
    accrues 1%/month, compounded. Have a nice day.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A simple solution
    Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT
    In addition to slapping Apple with contempt, the judge should write the precise
    wording he wants Apple to publish. That exact wording should be in black on a
    white background, in a large non-decorative font, and be the only thing to
    appear on Apple's home page apart from a "proceed to the rest of the
    site" link at the bottom in a small font - a similar size and position to
    the link they currently use for the apology.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Apple's "We're Wholly Original in our Designs"
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 07:48 PM EDT
    Apple has proven their striking originality by introducing
    a 7" tablet. Nobody else thought of such a form factor in
    the entire history of civilization. If anybody else does
    introduce such a product, Apple will sue the copycat in
    Cupertino, and surely deserves to win. After all, Apple
    is just protecting its intellectual property.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    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 )