Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
Maybe he has a dislike for Apples approach and is giving then
enough rope as the saying goes. Would be fun to see them have
to publish a proper apology for both the initial case verdict
and there initial apology.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
The judge mentioned that he was concerned about interfering with Apple's freedom
of speech; but that this was a recognized remedy with deterrent effect. Harm to
Apple was balanced by harm already done to Samsung.
So the harm Apple did to Samsung by calling Samsung a copycat would be best
undone by Apple admitting Samsung didn't copy.
Apple's statement doesn't undo the harm, it compounds it.
This - finally - is a case where a website is displaying harmful information,
and is doing so in contravention of a court order. The simple fix is to have the
UK government shut down this website, and any other operated by Apple which may
be visible from the UK.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT |
The Appeal Court told Apple what to publish exactly at para 87 of the appeal.
The notice apple published is not what the notice the appeal court ordered it to
publish.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
(The original publicity order was ammened during the appeal)
Judge also said that "....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..." (p88)
Meaning changes to the notice must be agreed / settled by argument.
Apple's is being seriously arrogant with this notice - it totally goes against
what the court ordered the publicity for. Which was to dispel the public
confusion caused by the publicity arising from Apple obtaining the exparte
injuction against samsung in the German court and after a binding UK community
court ruling clearing samsung.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|