|
|
|
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 03:58 PM EST |
I did not refer to this case, it is possible that Apple are telling the truth
here, possible they are behaving honourably, but how can anyone know?
In London Apple directly lied to the panel of judges. Really stupid lies that
were so easily proved to be lies that you'd think they were made by a five year
old.
Anyone who will lie when they can be found out cannot be trusted to tell the
truth when they won't. So Samsung cannot resolve this issue by phone call, they
have to see the documents. Apple have proved that they and their cannot be
trusted to tell the truth.
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Proven Liars - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 04:19 PM EST
- Proven Liars - Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 04:27 PM EST
- Proven Liars - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 05:05 PM EST
- Proven Liars - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 06:53 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 04:18 PM EST |
I have to agree with cricketjeff here. Apple, after their well-publicized
hijinks in the UK, is basically asking Samsung to buy a pig in a poke here:
agree that the redacted documents are OK without having seen the documents. In
one sense it may be moot, in that after seeing the documents Samsung can file a
new motion identical to the current one. But that means starting over with a new
motion, which delays things. In that sense it's not moot, being able to
file a new motion is not the same thing as having the current motion ruled on
and since Samsung isn't willing to buy a pig in a poke the issue raised in the
motion is still live.
I have to be suspicious given Apple's actions here.
Samsung is willing to consider the redacted document as highly confidential,
essentially still sealed, just like the unredacted one is. If Apple were playing
it straight, they could just give Samsung the redacted document and the issue
really would be moot. That they won't until they've gotten Samsung's
answer to seeing the document suggests to me that Apple strongly believes
Samsung won't accept the redactions when they see them. This is the same
kind of game we saw Apple playing in the UK court: play for time and get as much
delay as you can before you finally have to cave in (eg. not putting ads in the
newspapers until the parallel ads could appear in magazines, which delayed
any publication by Apple until the next magazine publication cycle when
it could have (and should have, according to the court's order) been published
earlier in the newspapers). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Not possible - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 04:24 PM EST
|
|
|
|
