

UK judges to Apple: "Not good enough!"


Source: Bloomberg

Comments     Threshold


RE: Hmm...
By chris2618 on 11/1/2012 1:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
It all fine till the "however" paragraph which essentially states by proxy that Samsung infringed apples design which the whole thing was about. In addition it blatantly only mentions cases were the judges sided with apple.

RE: Hmm...
By messele on 11/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm...
By augiem on 11/1/2012 3:22:39 PM , Rating: 3
Since when, in any legal case, did the defendants present any facts that go against their case? Like I say, there's absolutely nothing in there that is not true. The fact that there is no balance is no surprise, that's how legal cases work.

This is NOT a legal case being presented in a courtroom. That is over and Apple lost. This is the punishment as ordered by the court. Apple does not have the right to spin it in their favor or leave out details to save face.

RE: Hmm...
By messele on 11/1/2012 3:45:03 PM , Rating: 1
It's still a legal case and the principles persist. They (like anybody) are going to do the absolute bare minimum to comply and, in the absence of being told otherwise, will put in anything they please to get their own point across.

This IS the punishment ordered by the court, that is my point too. The orders were ambiguous and frankly the Judge was incredibly sloppy in the presenting of his orders.

RE: Hmm...
By Helbore on 11/1/2012 6:00:35 PM , Rating: 3

Actually, that's not true. Some people regret their crimes and will go out of their way to comply with the spirit of the law. The courts tend to look favourably on such people.

Similarly, the courts take a dim view of those who try their damnedest to skirt around their punishments.

There's a simple rule in law - do not piss off the judge.

RE: Hmm...
By chris2618 on 11/1/2012 3:47:10 PM , Rating: 1
Its has no bearing on the statement if its is true or not there are stating in the bottom paragraph that Samsung copied the design. The court found otherwise. The time for debate in the legal system is over.

"detail requests as they go along to cover their ineptitude"

The reason for the change is apples inability at following a simple instruction. The judge has changed nothing, apple is the one that has not complied with an order from the court.

RE: Hmm...
By messele on 11/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Hmm...
By simsony on 11/1/2012 8:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
Apple was clearly told that they are to make clear to the public that Samsung did not infringe on their design. This is partly because Apple chose to court the media, and publicize the case.

Normally judgements are not punitive, the benefit of the doubt is given especially to large corporations, who have experienced lawyers and normally respect and comply with judgements. It is different during the case, when all tricks are played. Microsoft for example complied with all judgements as expected.

In this case, everybody knew what was expected of Apple. So no one saw the need to double check. The very fact that Apple is referring to the German court, on the UK website, as part of the UK courts order, is something every lawyer knows is contempt of court. So let's not pretend that Apple has just threaded the fine line of the law, they have well and truly crossed it, and broken the law.

If a rapist was asked to apologise, but said it is allowed in some other country, would you find that acceptable?

This is not the first time Apple thinks it is above the law, and it won't be the last.

My worry is what next? What exactly as a corporation does Apple think they get to do? Will they bankroll politicians to legislate Apple products every where? Does the desire of a profit justify anything?

Their profitability and brand imagery is creating a kind of halo, which people like to be associated with, to find their own personal worth and identity.

Tony is a good example of that, an attack on Apple is an attack on him. Apple seems to define him, his identity - the time he spends on it is quite surprising.

Profitability does not automatically translate to greatness, they need to show far more qualities, an iota of morality would be a good start. Like respecting the law of the land.

