|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 12:32 AM EDT |
If you're going to claim they didn't obey the order, please break down the order
for analysis and show us which part of the (final) order they didn't comply
with.
You'll have trouble, because a requirement-by-requirement reading of the order
shows that the page explicitly fulfills *all* of the requirements.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 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
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT |
That just shows how immoral and corrupt the legal system has become.
Actually I think it shows how immoral and corrupt
lawyers have become... or always been.
The "legal system"; i.e.,
the Judge, issued a simple order. Apologise! And Apple turned it into the
most mealymouthed apology possible.
So I wouldn't blame the legal
system for that. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|