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
The Judges were explicit... Seems the arrogant apple ignored... | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Maybe the judge should have been more specific
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 | # ]

Freedom of speech
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 | # ]

  • Freedom of speech - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT
The Judges were explicit... Seems the arrogant apple ignored...
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 | # ]

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 )