|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT |
I imagine Apple's lawyers considered it but as I said higher
up I think there is a serious risk of "Contempt of Court" here
which can carry severe penalties. It will be interesting to
see how the Court of Appeal responds particularly if the paper
ads follow the same format.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
It appears that on the UK site at least that the image of the
ipad mini expand so that whatever size window you have the
link to the judgement is always just below the bottom of the
screen. I believe this at least may not comply with the judgement?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
| It's available on the UK site
http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-ju
dgement/
The link is in the page footer as "Samsung/Apple UK Judgement"
between the "Use of Cookies" link and the "Choose your country or region"
widget. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT |
When I read the decision it states:
(a) post in a font size no small
than Arial 14
pt the notice
specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home
pages of
its EU websites ("the
Defendant's Websites"), as specified in
Schedule 1 to this
order, together with a
hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ
Birss QC dated 09 July
2012, said notice and
hyperlink to remain displayed on
the Defendant's Websites
for a period of one
year from the date of this Order
or until further order of
the Court
The court also tells Apple
exactly what it is to say, in
short, succinct, factual
language which I
assumed was to be posted on the actual
Apple homepage. Instead
Apple chose
not to put it on their homepage, but also to
embellish it with their
own spin.
Seems very wrong to me, even taking aside the
spin they added.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:33 PM EDT |
The Order stated
"(a) post in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the
notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home
pages of its EU websites ("the Defendant's Websites"), as
specified in Schedule 1 to this order, together with a
hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 09 July
2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on the
Defendant's Websites for a period of one year from the date
of this Order or until further order of the Court"
This was changed to just the UK website and for just 6
months. However the order states that the notice is posted
on the home page - Not a link to the notice, but the actual
notice.
This was not done, and if it had been there would have been
less verbiage.
Apple have not completed the Court's order and may face the
wrath of the English courts once again.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 08:21 AM EDT |
Bear in mind, as I've implied elsewhere, the Judge has the option of *ordering*
the Company Secretary to explain himself, and if the Judge doesn't like the
explanation, the Secretary could be facing jail time.
That's not to say it *will* happen, but it's an option available to the Judge.
Oh - and the Company Secretary is typically number three on the Board,
subordinate only to the Chairman and the Finance Director.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 05:59 AM EDT |
I don't see any notice on the Apple's page for Greece
(http://www.apple.com/gr/)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 08:38 PM EDT |
If the notice doesn't comply with the court's order then they will need to
produce the proper notice later ... and in the mean time the court order might
be varied to account for the additional injury created by this gratuitous
notice.
So look on this as an attempt to get up the collective noses of the court ... to
be followed by the proper notice later.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
