4 ms·
No court judgment ever said it had to be an apology. It was supposed to "to dispel commercial uncertainty". Looks as if Apple have exploited a loophole by addi
by dan1234 14y ago
No court judgment ever said it had to be an apology. It was supposed to "to dispel commercial uncertainty".
Looks as if Apple have exploited a loophole by adding to the judgment instead of simply posting it.
- eli 14y agoWell the judge who issued the order seems to feel pretty strongly that they did not comply.
- dan1234 14y agoThe judge could be taking quite a bit of heat from Samsung… Surely Apple's lawyer division (and it must be a division by now) went through that judgment with a fine tooth comb before posting the statement. I wonder if the judge could have added a clause requiring Apple to submit the statement to him for review first.
- sageikosa 14y agoEmbrace, extend, extinguish?
- smackfu 14y agoRight, the main goal was to make it clear to consumers that even though Apple won a EU-wide case against Samsung in Germany (which got a lot of publicity), that didn't apply in UK after they lost this court case.
- vacri 14y agoThat published statement 'dispels commercial uncertainty'? Not to a lawyer, but to the consumer who is its target order? How does it do anything except increase commercial uncertainty?