|Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 11:03 AM EST|
Apple didn't say they'd refuse to pay a rate higher than $1. They said they
wouldn't contest a rate set at $1 or less.
There's a big difference between "I won't pay unless it's $1 or less!"
and "I'll pay the rate set by the court at the end of procedures, but if
the rate is set to $1 or less, I'll stop contesting it *now*."
Reading comprehension people. It's like PJ's claim that Apple complaining that
Samsung's attempt to *add* more testimony 17 hours before the hearing (see 2
articles ago) was *actually* Apple complaining that Samsung was trying to fix an
The quote from Apple's filing:
<blockquote>The Court should deny Samsung’s motion for leave not only
because the requested relief is untimely and irrelevant, but because it is
nothing more than “a vehicle for circumventing the Court’s page limits” and an
attempt to cure Samsung’s failure of proof in its prior
PJ's claim directly below that:
<blockquote>Apple claims Samsung is trying to correct a mistake, and there
is a long song and dance about how horrible Samsung is acting, trying to fix the
Groklaw needs to get out of the editorializing business, and back into the
analysis and explanation business where it got its start.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
- my take on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 12:44 PM EST