5 ms·

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

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
        jrockway 14y ago
        From the link: One of the most noted uses of this plea, or "defense," was by the accused in the 1945–46 Nuremberg Trials, such that it is also called the "Nuremberg defense". The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the main victorious Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany.
        jasonlotito 14y ago
        You don't get it. The phrase "Nuremberg defense" is not a reference to the trials, it's a reference to the type of defense. So, if you here that in conversation, they aren't equating the situation to the holocaust, but rather the type of defense used (I was just following orders). The only person equating anything to the holocaust was you.
      - 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?

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
        jrockway 14y ago
        From the link: One of the most noted uses of this plea, or "defense," was by the accused in the 1945–46 Nuremberg Trials, such that it is also called the "Nuremberg defense". The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the main victorious Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany.
        jasonlotito 14y ago
        You don't get it. The phrase "Nuremberg defense" is not a reference to the trials, it's a reference to the type of defense. So, if you here that in conversation, they aren't equating the situation to the holocaust, but rather the type of defense used (I was just following orders). The only person equating anything to the holocaust was you.
    - 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?