3 ms·

You read too much AppleInsider. The truth is nothing like that: Sir Robin Jacob said Apple had published "false and misleading" material, and suggested the

You read too much AppleInsider. The truth is nothing like that: Sir Robin Jacob said Apple had published "false and misleading" material, and suggested the firm had shown a "lack of integrity" by saying staff would need two weeks to make "minor changes" to the company website. This month the court of appeal ruled against Apple after Samsung complained about a notice Apple posted online acknowledging defeat in a design dispute at the high court. Samsung said Apple had added an account of court proceedings in Germany and the US which was "inaccurate and misleading". http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/nov/09/judge-apple-lack-integrity-samsung http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/nov/09/judge-appl...

sbuk 13y ago
How snide of you. Do you feel clever now? Jacob was the only judge to find this way and, as pointed out, is now in the employ of Samsung. I'd argue that this particular version of the "truth", clearly the one you are choosing over the several that disagree, is highly questionable. Linking a newspaper doesn't make this ruling anymore valid either.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  There's no versions of the truth. Clearly you didn't even bother to read the article: Three judges – Jacob, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Kitchin – agreed that the statement did not comply with a court order and said Apple should post another statement. On Friday they gave their written reasons. Stop being such a ridiculous fanboy.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - sbuk 13y ago
    You are quite right. I didn't. It doesn't change the fact that only one jurisdiction found in Samsung's favour. One. The lead judge now works for Samsung. That doesn't make you suspicious of his judgment? Longmore and Kitchin were ruling on whether or not Apple were complying with their colleagues order, nothing else. Here you are clutching at a single straw, calling me a ridiculous fanboy and suggesting that I am the one with a bias. I tell you what, when you want to discuss this like an adult we'll continue, until then grow the fuck up.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

sbuk 13y ago

How snide of you. Do you feel clever now? Jacob was the only judge to find this way and, as pointed out, is now in the employ of Samsung. I'd argue that this particular version of the "truth", clearly the one you are choosing over the several that disagree, is highly questionable. Linking a newspaper doesn't make this ruling anymore valid either.

hahainternet 13y ago
There's no versions of the truth. Clearly you didn't even bother to read the article: Three judges – Jacob, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Kitchin – agreed that the statement did not comply with a court order and said Apple should post another statement. On Friday they gave their written reasons. Stop being such a ridiculous fanboy.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- sbuk 13y ago
  You are quite right. I didn't. It doesn't change the fact that only one jurisdiction found in Samsung's favour. One. The lead judge now works for Samsung. That doesn't make you suspicious of his judgment? Longmore and Kitchin were ruling on whether or not Apple were complying with their colleagues order, nothing else. Here you are clutching at a single straw, calling me a ridiculous fanboy and suggesting that I am the one with a bias. I tell you what, when you want to discuss this like an adult we'll continue, until then grow the fuck up.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]