5 ms·

A lot of the posts that are saying something like "The judge didn't say that they couldn't do it like this!" are deliberately missing the point. In the UK, you

by nagrom 14y ago

A lot of the posts that are saying something like "The judge didn't say that they couldn't do it like this!" are deliberately missing the point. In the UK, you are expected to comply with the spirit of such a court order, not just the letter of it. Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens. It's entirely possible to be punished for contempt of court to a much greater extent than the lesser offence. Deliberately choosing to behave in a childish manner and annoy a judge is a dangerous game to play and can be self-defeating. Apple's lawyers should have known this and should have advised them against it. It would have cost them nothing to comply with the ruling properly in the first place; they are now cutting their nose off to spite their face.

belorn 14y ago
Annoying a judge is a really bad idea. The court system is normally quite free from corruption, but all that goes out off the window when it become personal and political. See the pirate bay court case, or just any of the police brutality cases. If Apple is going all out with lawyers and legal prowness, instead of competiting with products, they need to get better at it.
- thomseddon 14y ago
  Is this specifically in reference to the UK legal system or just a blanket statement about practice around the world? If it is the former, I really must disagree with the notion that the legal system in the UK is in any way corrupt. Quite far from it, I think it is one of the things that we can be most proud of. If it is the latter, may I suggest you either be more specific or more correct.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    How often does something like the recent extradition of the operator of a site the UK deemed not worth prosecuting happen?
    - bigfudge2 14y ago
      There are other examples, but this is a function of our executive's decision to bend over to US demands and rewrite UK law, rather than corruption of the legal system itself.
    - thomseddon 14y ago
      Presume you're referencing Richard O'Dwyer (tvshack.net), who a magistrate recently found was suitable for extradition to the US. This is quite rare, there have been 99 extraditions since 2006, of which 35 were british nationals, so although extradition is reasonably rare it is not entirely uncommon. Also, you say the UK found the alleged crime was "not worth prosecuting", which is loosely technically true, it doesn't really give the full picture: His actions were found to be legal under UK law and so hence there was no case for prosecution. His operations are, however, suspected of being illegal under US law and so hence the case for extradition was submitted. To bring this back to the parent discussion: Few would argue that Mr O'Dwyer has been unfairly treated with respect to the current law. Some do, however, argue that it is the extradition statute itself that is unfair, with Mr O'Dwyers case being an example. As a matter of interest, Theresa May has recently announced some changes to the extradition process following the results of the Baker Review. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/gary-mckinnon-extradition http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/gary-mckinnon...)
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    How often does something like the recent extradition of the operator of a site the UK deemed not worth prosecuting happen?
  - ubernostrum 14y ago
    In many civilized and relatively non-corrupt jurisdictions, judges nonetheless tend to get... shall we say, petulant when they feel they've been wronged. (and I say "relatively" because of things like libel tourism and superinjunctions, both of which enable corruption to various degrees)
- appleflaxen 14y ago
  Can you give an example of the police brutality cases you had in mind? I'd be interested to ready more about the social dynamic with the judge, if you can point me in the right direction.
  - belorn 14y ago
    A blogpost at rickfalkvinge.se recently talked about a few of those cases (site down for the moment). In particular, I was referring to the Ian Tomlinson case, but there have been similar events in Sweden and elsewhere. I have yet to hear a police brutality case where an coverup was fully prosecuted to the point where all police officer involved (and who did nothing) was sentenced. It just do not happen. By the time it gets out, it has become personal and political.
ZoFreX 14y ago
> Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens. That actually comes under the letter of the law: http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/leg... Not to detract from your overall point though, which is 100% correct.
- thomseddon 14y ago
  I was going to post this! TL;DR the link: Coins are only legal tender up to a certain amount. For example 21p in 1p's is not classed as legal tender. (Is it only me who can only say "legal tender" in a scottish accent > "I think you'll find that's...")
  - AmarettoAndCode 14y ago
    >(Is it only me who can only say "legal tender" in a scottish accent > "I think you'll find that's...") Lets thank the comical Michael McIntyre for that!
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    I recently paid for £21 worth of groceries in 20p pieces (change jar needed emptying). Lock me up and throw away the key. (Fortunately it was a self-checkout so no witnesses).
    - derleth 14y ago
      "Legal tender" only means they're compelled by law to accept the payment to discharge a debt. Anyone can decide to accept anything as payment. Also, paying for your groceries in that way (self-checkout) isn't discharging a debt as no debt was incurred: You could have decided not to pay and put the groceries back, after all.
    - RobAley 14y ago
      Legal Tender only means what you have to accept in settlement of a debt. You can choose to accept small denomination coins in any volume, or anything else for that matter. But if you have agreed a transaction with someone, or otherwise have a debt to that person, a court will consider the payment made if you pay (or try to pay) with legal tender.
debacle 14y ago
In most jurisdictions, you are expected to comply with the spirit of a court order. Lawyers have some wiggle room when it comes to wordings, but it's a fine line between seeming clever and pissing the judge off.
- lonnyk 14y ago
  >In most jurisdictions, you are expected to comply with the spirit of a court order. In what country are you referring to?
  - pcwalton 14y ago
    Any jurisdiction with contempt of court, basically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court
Mordor 14y ago
I guess the judge can always ask Apple to replace their front page with a grovelling statement that they were in contempt of court.
DannyBee 14y ago
The judge, in fact, included proposed text in the order, and said "use this subject to submissions by either side". Rather than submit anything and argue about it, they just decided to do whatever they wanted.

by nagrom 14y ago

belorn 14y ago

Annoying a judge is a really bad idea. The court system is normally quite free from corruption, but all that goes out off the window when it become personal and political. See the pirate bay court case, or just any of the police brutality cases. If Apple is going all out with lawyers and legal prowness, instead of competiting with products, they need to get better at it.

thomseddon 14y ago
Is this specifically in reference to the UK legal system or just a blanket statement about practice around the world? If it is the former, I really must disagree with the notion that the legal system in the UK is in any way corrupt. Quite far from it, I think it is one of the things that we can be most proud of. If it is the latter, may I suggest you either be more specific or more correct.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  How often does something like the recent extradition of the operator of a site the UK deemed not worth prosecuting happen?
  - bigfudge2 14y ago
    There are other examples, but this is a function of our executive's decision to bend over to US demands and rewrite UK law, rather than corruption of the legal system itself.
  - thomseddon 14y ago
    Presume you're referencing Richard O'Dwyer (tvshack.net), who a magistrate recently found was suitable for extradition to the US. This is quite rare, there have been 99 extraditions since 2006, of which 35 were british nationals, so although extradition is reasonably rare it is not entirely uncommon. Also, you say the UK found the alleged crime was "not worth prosecuting", which is loosely technically true, it doesn't really give the full picture: His actions were found to be legal under UK law and so hence there was no case for prosecution. His operations are, however, suspected of being illegal under US law and so hence the case for extradition was submitted. To bring this back to the parent discussion: Few would argue that Mr O'Dwyer has been unfairly treated with respect to the current law. Some do, however, argue that it is the extradition statute itself that is unfair, with Mr O'Dwyers case being an example. As a matter of interest, Theresa May has recently announced some changes to the extradition process following the results of the Baker Review. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/gary-mckinnon-extradition http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/gary-mckinnon...)
- nitrogen 14y ago
  How often does something like the recent extradition of the operator of a site the UK deemed not worth prosecuting happen?
- ubernostrum 14y ago
  In many civilized and relatively non-corrupt jurisdictions, judges nonetheless tend to get... shall we say, petulant when they feel they've been wronged. (and I say "relatively" because of things like libel tourism and superinjunctions, both of which enable corruption to various degrees)
appleflaxen 14y ago
Can you give an example of the police brutality cases you had in mind? I'd be interested to ready more about the social dynamic with the judge, if you can point me in the right direction.
- belorn 14y ago
  A blogpost at rickfalkvinge.se recently talked about a few of those cases (site down for the moment). In particular, I was referring to the Ian Tomlinson case, but there have been similar events in Sweden and elsewhere. I have yet to hear a police brutality case where an coverup was fully prosecuted to the point where all police officer involved (and who did nothing) was sentenced. It just do not happen. By the time it gets out, it has become personal and political.

ZoFreX 14y ago

> Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens. That actually comes under the letter of the law: http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/leg... Not to detract from your overall point though, which is 100% correct.

thomseddon 14y ago
I was going to post this! TL;DR the link: Coins are only legal tender up to a certain amount. For example 21p in 1p's is not classed as legal tender. (Is it only me who can only say "legal tender" in a scottish accent > "I think you'll find that's...")
- AmarettoAndCode 14y ago
  >(Is it only me who can only say "legal tender" in a scottish accent > "I think you'll find that's...") Lets thank the comical Michael McIntyre for that!
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  I recently paid for £21 worth of groceries in 20p pieces (change jar needed emptying). Lock me up and throw away the key. (Fortunately it was a self-checkout so no witnesses).
  - derleth 14y ago
    "Legal tender" only means they're compelled by law to accept the payment to discharge a debt. Anyone can decide to accept anything as payment. Also, paying for your groceries in that way (self-checkout) isn't discharging a debt as no debt was incurred: You could have decided not to pay and put the groceries back, after all.
  - RobAley 14y ago
    Legal Tender only means what you have to accept in settlement of a debt. You can choose to accept small denomination coins in any volume, or anything else for that matter. But if you have agreed a transaction with someone, or otherwise have a debt to that person, a court will consider the payment made if you pay (or try to pay) with legal tender.

debacle 14y ago

In most jurisdictions, you are expected to comply with the spirit of a court order. Lawyers have some wiggle room when it comes to wordings, but it's a fine line between seeming clever and pissing the judge off.

lonnyk 14y ago
>In most jurisdictions, you are expected to comply with the spirit of a court order. In what country are you referring to?
- pcwalton 14y ago
  Any jurisdiction with contempt of court, basically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

Mordor 14y ago

I guess the judge can always ask Apple to replace their front page with a grovelling statement that they were in contempt of court.

DannyBee 14y ago

The judge, in fact, included proposed text in the order, and said "use this subject to submissions by either side". Rather than submit anything and argue about it, they just decided to do whatever they wanted.