|
Authored by: stegu on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
I mean vague as in "underspecified", unclear
and open to misinterpretation. For example,
they were told what to put on the page, but
not prevented from putting anything else there.
The "14 pt size" has no real meaning for
on-screen viewing. The size of the characters
should have been expressed in relation to other
text on Apple's web site.
The instruction to move the information from
the front page to a separate page "with a link"
was not clear enough - where to put the link,
what it should read and how big it should be
was not specified in enough detail.
It was supposed to be clear instructions for
publishing, but the order leaves out a lot of
details and contains significant loopholes.
Apple saw an opportunity to play dirty and obeyed
the letter of the order, but spat on its spirit.
An order that lends itself to such deliberate
misinterpretation is demonstrably vague.
There's nothing unexpected in Apple playing
games to wriggle themselves free of the mess
they got themselvses into. My hope is that this
is not going to be tolerated by the court,
but I am not holding my breath.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|