That Apple then lied about, and tried to say they were the same cases, to try to lessen the courts decision by making people think the UK court got it wrong.
Actually if you can reasonably show you are unaware of who was driving, you CAN return the NIP (notice of intention to prosecute) with said information.
Commonly accepted defences include: 1) Not receiving the NIP in a timely manner - usually receipt outside of 14 days will be accepted here 2) Large number of potential drivers in a "pool" situation. A police force used that excuse when a panda was flashed - they hadnt maintained driver records so could not, with any certainty, point to who was driving at that time.
It is interestingly one of the few ECHR upheld limitations on the right to not self incriminate - you can be forced, under penalty of suffering the same penalty as the offence alledged, to name yourself as the driver
IANAL, just had a couple brushes in the past with the system;)
Which is only relevant when comparing the total cost. If you end up paying less overall on a monthly plan than buying outright, which is the situation I was in when i took out a phone for 18 month contract, why would you pay more upfront AND in total?
Slashdot Mirror
That German subsidiary company that handles their advertising must not exist then. Or youre fucking clueless.
"Just following orders" is no defence, morally or legally
Apple are claiming that no monetary amount is recompense for the patents, and so ask for a permanent injunction
They then licence the patents to HTC, indicating that a monetary amount CAN recompense.
Can you not see the disconnect there? Samsung can
On matters unrelated to the UK courts ruling.
That Apple then lied about, and tried to say they were the same cases, to try to lessen the courts decision by making people think the UK court got it wrong.
Thus showing contempt
Seriously, not difficult!
The judges didnt feel that they needed to tell Apple to NOT make up facts and add them to the stipulated text.
Most people would consider that part of the idea hat you do not show contempt for the courts ruling.
The cases did NOT contradict the UK court case, if you had actually read the judgement
In fact the comments were factually incorrect, and technically therefore a lie.
Apple showed contempt for the court, and are still showing contempt.
Translation is not the same as transcription.
Try again.
You're applying logic to the american public at large. That is an exercise doomed to failure
I just did...maybe the US will catch up to more civilised parts of the world at some point
That account names a person, but it does not name who was actually using the system at the time - it cannot do so
NAT means that the system has no idea what box has actually connected, and even less about the actual person sitting behind it.
Actually if you can reasonably show you are unaware of who was driving, you CAN return the NIP (notice of intention to prosecute) with said information.
Commonly accepted defences include:
1) Not receiving the NIP in a timely manner - usually receipt outside of 14 days will be accepted here
2) Large number of potential drivers in a "pool" situation. A police force used that excuse when a panda was flashed - they hadnt maintained driver records so could not, with any certainty, point to who was driving at that time.
It is interestingly one of the few ECHR upheld limitations on the right to not self incriminate - you can be forced, under penalty of suffering the same penalty as the offence alledged, to name yourself as the driver
IANAL, just had a couple brushes in the past with the system ;)
If a lawyer knows his client his guilty, he cannot present a not guilty plea.
IANAL, but my close friend IS, as a brief.
10% of gross revenue fines make most companies notice.
Their website for the UK shows only a single years warranty on a new iphone 5
This is a lie, and constitutes fraud as it is attempting to induce you into buying an "extended" warranty
It works to disenfranchise nonrepublican voters
Only a moron thinks this law is not intended to work in this way. A large number of democrat voters do not have ID, and have never needed it.
Except the patents have a cash value you can apply to them.
They ARE charging the same - $1m, just accepting goods in kind (patent cross license) for all but 3 cents
Apple doesnt want to cross license, but doesnt want to pay the actual cost of $1m, as others only get to "pay" 3 cents
Essentially it ignores the value of patents....
Baby on board is nothing to do with usual driving. In an accident it is a prompt to look for small, easily missed children in the back.
Which is only relevant when comparing the total cost. If you end up paying less overall on a monthly plan than buying outright, which is the situation I was in when i took out a phone for 18 month contract, why would you pay more upfront AND in total?
Look up the Africa studies. That was pretty much their exact methodology
It shouldnt be given the name "research".
What laws? If you say "Treason" everyone will just laugh at you.
The UK has to recognise any diplomats. You dont just get to make someone a diplomat without the host country agreeing to it.
...and watch the judge fine them for contempt of court.
Singular lawyer, and the others could.
Apple fanbois always forget that inconvenient fact.
False dichotomy is false