31 ms·
The article said that the judge ordered Apple to say that "Samsung did not copy their design." Apple, essentially, said that the court ruled that Samsung did n
by michaelfeathers 14y ago
The article said that the judge ordered Apple to say that "Samsung did not copy their design." Apple, essentially, said that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy its design.
That is factually correct. I don't see how anyone can be compelled to make the former statement rather than the latter one.
- ksec 14y agoExactly.
- deong 14y agoIsn't that the whole purpose of a court system? If you insist on calling OJ Simpson a murderer who got away with it, he can sue you for libel. He is, as a point of fact, not legally a murderer, and you would be lying to defame him. Legal truth isn't some abstract concept. It is defined by the court's opinion. The factual statement in UK law is now "Samsung did not copy their design." End of story. You don't get to flout a court ruling by continuing to behave the same way, only with a disclaimer that says, "Well, the judge said we're wrong, but screw him."
- codeulike 14y agoThey added 4 paragraphs to the 2 paragraphs that they were asked to publish. See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html point 87