|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 06:19 AM EDT |
To take the argument to the extreme:
If Apple had posted the passages that the judge ordered,
surrounded by the words "Samsung copied Apple" fifty
thousand times, would that have been complying with the
judge's order? If they'd said it ten times? twice? once?
I would think not.
You can't say "We're sorry. Samsung didn't copy the iPad.
But they did copy the iPad."
Apple's message is inexcusable. It ends with the sentence
'Samsung wilfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.' I
don't think there is a way that it can not be construed as
contempt.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 02:51 PM EDT |
Rather than just demand the poster prove him-/herself right it would be more
correct for you to first analyse and document why, in your opinion and given the
known facts, the poster is wrong and THEN, in respectful terms, ask if this
does not support your position...
The way you are doing it is merely being argumentative rather than attempt a
constructive dialogue.
Oh, and by the way... Who is "us"??[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Actually... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
if Apple wrote this text in color matching the background, wouldn't have that
also satisfy the order?
come on dude. use your "common" sense.
and respect the spirit of the order please.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 07:20 AM EDT |
A requirement-by-requirement analysis is designed to trivialise any
non-functional requirements that may be present.
In this case, the nonfunctional requirement is the important one.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
