6 ms·

Judge will work it out. You do not fuck with a legal judgement in the UK - they will start pulling the big guns next. Place your bets: frozen assets or criminal

by meaty 14y ago

Judge will work it out. You do not fuck with a legal judgement in the UK - they will start pulling the big guns next. Place your bets: frozen assets or criminal charge?

Osmium 14y ago
Where in the legal judgement did it say it had to be "above the fold"? They could have specified this if they'd wanted it.
- lutze 14y ago
  It's a spirit of the law issue, again. Judges aren't friggin robots. You don't get to fuck around and have them go "BEEP BOOP WELL TECHNICALLY NOT A VIOLATION BEEP BOOP". The whole point of a judge is to, well, use his/her judgement. If this judge thinks Apple is fucking with him AGAIN, I can't imagine he'll be at all lenient. Apple is holding his authority in contempt.
- anonymouz 14y ago
  I believe the GPs point is that judges do not take kindly to cat-and-mouse games, where you technically follow the court order by the letter but twist and turn it in such a way that it's spirit is violated. The order is not intended as a challenge on how to best wriggle out of it, and just because the court did not explicitly specify every last detail of how the message must be displayed does not mean that it will tolerate any tricks.
  - Osmium 14y ago
    By that token, though, the court did specify what they wanted: a link, 11pt text. So they'd not afraid of specificity. If they're wanted something more attention-grabbing, they could've said it must include, e.g. "a graphic at least x pixels by y pixels." I think another way of looking at it is this: if they don't request a particular location for the link, do they think Apple's going to put it anywhere other than the bottom of the page? And if so, the consequence (where this javascript exists or not) is that on a great number of devices you won't see it unless you scroll down.
    - PeterisP 14y ago
      They don't have to also specify that the text should be in a color different than the background and is not covered by a black rectangle. There are rules for contempt of court. They include jail time. They should be applied for such repeat contempt.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - jrockway 14y ago
        What would that achieve? The people making the decisions are in the US, outside of the UK's jurisdiction. So the court would have to go after some minion in the UK office, punishing someone for the sake of punishing someone rather than for the sake of justice.
        w1ntermute 14y ago
        Oh please, are you really going to use the Nuremberg defense?
        jrockway 14y ago
        Yes, because an court order to make a statement is a lot like the Holocaust...
        FSEA 14y ago
        You are the only person who went there. Just saying.
        jasonlotito 14y ago
        That's not what the term "Nuremberg defense" implies in the least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
        14y ago
  - ams6110 14y ago
    technically follow the court order by the letter but twist and turn it in such a way that it's spirit is violated Isn't doing this the main reason we have lawyers in the first place?
- colmvp 14y ago
  Indeed. Do we need studies that show people do scroll below the fold? I noticed that on the Apple homepage the modules cut off at the bottom (on my resolution) it's clear there is more to the page. Seriously, it's 2012. Do we still have to fight about 'the fold?'
- DannyBee 14y ago
  This is a very slippery slope to go down. It's arguments like these that cause you to end up with laws that have lists of thousands of things in them. Would you rather have fair use be a list of 10 things, and only those 10 things, or something that you should follow the spirit of?
- Zenst 14y ago
  In the UK the judges will not be ammused. But this aspect of legal terminology does cover such matters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
pasbesoin 14y ago
I don't know how things work in the UK, but I wonder whether the equivalent of contempt charges will be forthcoming. Toss a few of them in prison for a bit, and see whether that improves cooperation.
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  While I was being ascerbic, I was not being facetious. We have a similar problem in the U.S.; in corporations, effectively no one ends up being personally responsible. However, if an individual personally fails to implement a judicial ruling, that anonymization and "monefication" of penalty may dissolve. I'm of very mixed opinion and feeling about several laws that may be involved -- both aspects of IP law and aspects of UK libel law. But I also rather dislike unbridled corporate arrogance.

by meaty 14y ago

Judge will work it out. You do not fuck with a legal judgement in the UK - they will start pulling the big guns next. Place your bets: frozen assets or criminal charge?

Osmium 14y ago

Where in the legal judgement did it say it had to be "above the fold"? They could have specified this if they'd wanted it.

lutze 14y ago
It's a spirit of the law issue, again. Judges aren't friggin robots. You don't get to fuck around and have them go "BEEP BOOP WELL TECHNICALLY NOT A VIOLATION BEEP BOOP". The whole point of a judge is to, well, use his/her judgement. If this judge thinks Apple is fucking with him AGAIN, I can't imagine he'll be at all lenient. Apple is holding his authority in contempt.
anonymouz 14y ago
I believe the GPs point is that judges do not take kindly to cat-and-mouse games, where you technically follow the court order by the letter but twist and turn it in such a way that it's spirit is violated. The order is not intended as a challenge on how to best wriggle out of it, and just because the court did not explicitly specify every last detail of how the message must be displayed does not mean that it will tolerate any tricks.
- Osmium 14y ago
  By that token, though, the court did specify what they wanted: a link, 11pt text. So they'd not afraid of specificity. If they're wanted something more attention-grabbing, they could've said it must include, e.g. "a graphic at least x pixels by y pixels." I think another way of looking at it is this: if they don't request a particular location for the link, do they think Apple's going to put it anywhere other than the bottom of the page? And if so, the consequence (where this javascript exists or not) is that on a great number of devices you won't see it unless you scroll down.
  - PeterisP 14y ago
    They don't have to also specify that the text should be in a color different than the background and is not covered by a black rectangle. There are rules for contempt of court. They include jail time. They should be applied for such repeat contempt.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - jrockway 14y ago
      What would that achieve? The people making the decisions are in the US, outside of the UK's jurisdiction. So the court would have to go after some minion in the UK office, punishing someone for the sake of punishing someone rather than for the sake of justice.
      - w1ntermute 14y ago
        Oh please, are you really going to use the Nuremberg defense?
        jrockway 14y ago
        Yes, because an court order to make a statement is a lot like the Holocaust...
        FSEA 14y ago
        You are the only person who went there. Just saying.
        jasonlotito 14y ago
        That's not what the term "Nuremberg defense" implies in the least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
        14y ago
- ams6110 14y ago
  technically follow the court order by the letter but twist and turn it in such a way that it's spirit is violated Isn't doing this the main reason we have lawyers in the first place?
colmvp 14y ago
Indeed. Do we need studies that show people do scroll below the fold? I noticed that on the Apple homepage the modules cut off at the bottom (on my resolution) it's clear there is more to the page. Seriously, it's 2012. Do we still have to fight about 'the fold?'
DannyBee 14y ago
This is a very slippery slope to go down. It's arguments like these that cause you to end up with laws that have lists of thousands of things in them. Would you rather have fair use be a list of 10 things, and only those 10 things, or something that you should follow the spirit of?
Zenst 14y ago
In the UK the judges will not be ammused. But this aspect of legal terminology does cover such matters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

pasbesoin 14y ago

I don't know how things work in the UK, but I wonder whether the equivalent of contempt charges will be forthcoming. Toss a few of them in prison for a bit, and see whether that improves cooperation.

pasbesoin 14y ago
While I was being ascerbic, I was not being facetious. We have a similar problem in the U.S.; in corporations, effectively no one ends up being personally responsible. However, if an individual personally fails to implement a judicial ruling, that anonymization and "monefication" of penalty may dissolve. I'm of very mixed opinion and feeling about several laws that may be involved -- both aspects of IP law and aspects of UK libel law. But I also rather dislike unbridled corporate arrogance.