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
Apple may not believe | 360 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The UK Court Sanctions Apple, Hopes "Lack of Integrity" In Notice Incident Is Not "Typical" ~ pj
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 02:19 PM EST
Hopes "Lack of Integrity" In Notice Incident Is Not "Typical"

This is Judge speak for "It better not be typical, because I'm watching you now."

---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he considers himself your master.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The UK Court Sanctions Apple, Hopes "Lack of Integrity" In Notice Incident Is Not "Typical" ~ pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 02:49 PM EST
IANAL but my guess for the next step would be Contempt of Court

That may well mean someone going to jail.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple may not believe
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 05:32 PM EST
It would be very unwise of them to come before this court again on the matter.
If they and the court uses a heavy stick it would be even more unwise to try
appeal to the UK Supreme Court. If that court took the case (it would be a
warning to Apple) they could very well decide, because of the seriousness of the
non-compliance, to impose a worse penalty.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Governed by Civil Contempt of Court rules
Authored by: TJ on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 09:17 AM EST

In civil actions - which this is - the purpose of contempt proceedings is to bring the defendant back into compliance with the court's order(s), and/or to make the plaintiff 'whole' again.

So what has happened here so far is:

  1. High Court Order
    1. Appeal against High Court Order
      1. Revised Order by Appeals Court
        1. Contempt of Court proceeding
          1. Further Revised Order imposing more specific requirements
          2. Order imposing indemnity costs

If Apple were to be thought to be in contempt once again Samsung would need to make a further application to the court which would hear the evidence and make a decision based on the facts presented.

Any sanctions for further contempt would be designed to ensure Apple complied completely with the court's existing and any revised orders.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The UK Court Sanctions Apple, Hopes "Lack of Integrity" In Notice Incident Is Not "Typical" ~ pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 03:53 PM EST
still no update to the web page, and you still
have to scroll down to see the link.

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

[ 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 )