Can you cite where it was supposed to be an apology, and not an acknowledgement of the ruling?
No, Apple cannot countermand a legal order by a UK High Court.
Again, cite where it was supposed to be an apology, and not just an acknowledgement that it was ruled that Samsung did not infringe on Apple's designs.
Did you even read the first sentence of the statement? It says: "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001."
The second sentence completes what was requested by the judge. It says: "A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html."
If that's not clear enough, then that's your fault, not Apple's.
To be fair, I copied my own post, so copyright infringement is allowable and transferable. Unfortunately, I paid millions in lawyer fees to determine this.
No, the spirit of the ruling was to make sure that it was clear that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's designs. Since that's what the court case was about, how could it be anything else?
It was not to have Apple say 'sorry'. It was not to 'fix' Samsung's PR.
1. They're not out of context. They're entire paragraphs to give context, quoted from the legal proceedings. 2. Apple cannot countermand any legal order. Only judges can. Since it doesn't seem like you know, it means reverse. 3. The judge told Apple state Samsung did not infringe Apple's design, which they did. In fact, it's the first sentence.
Slashdot Mirror
And by tablet you mean laptop. In both cost and size.
Mesh networks won't work worth a damn in the US.
Maybe in the metros and suburbs, but that's only about half of the population.
Pretty sure your service providers will always be able to cut you off.
But not nano?
8, 5, 2.
I'm not giving you units, though.
We're not talking worldwide, we're talking US centric.
So saying H-1B doesn't change supply is nonsense.
So are you trying to say that by bringing in 60-80k tech workers every year, that salaries will remain 'normal'?
You don't think the H-1B program purposely puts downward pressure on salaries by adding significantly to the supply side of job candidates?
H-1Bs are used when there is pressure on employers to pay higher wages because a certain skill is in high demand
In other words, capitalists don't like it when the negative part of capitalism applies to them.
Can you cite where it was supposed to be an apology, and not an acknowledgement of the ruling?
No, Apple cannot countermand a legal order by a UK High Court.
Again, cite where it was supposed to be an apology, and not just an acknowledgement that it was ruled that Samsung did not infringe on Apple's designs.
Can you quote where the judge says to apologize?
Did you even read the first sentence of the statement? It says:
"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001."
The second sentence completes what was requested by the judge. It says:
"A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html."
If that's not clear enough, then that's your fault, not Apple's.
To be fair, I copied my own post, so copyright infringement is allowable and transferable. Unfortunately, I paid millions in lawyer fees to determine this.
No, the spirit of the ruling was to make sure that it was clear that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's designs. Since that's what the court case was about, how could it be anything else?
It was not to have Apple say 'sorry'.
It was not to 'fix' Samsung's PR.
The British Naval Admiralty said either use is fine. In 1908.
Suck eggs.
The only thing I see that Apple didn't do was actually put it on their UK home page. They only put a link to the statement there.
Wow.
1. They're not out of context. They're entire paragraphs to give context, quoted from the legal proceedings.
2. Apple cannot countermand any legal order. Only judges can. Since it doesn't seem like you know, it means reverse.
3. The judge told Apple state Samsung did not infringe Apple's design, which they did. In fact, it's the first sentence.
So, again, how is that contempt?
The British Navy disagrees with you.
Your move.
Yes, Union Jack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack
"Union Flag" redirects here
Pedantic fail.
And the same judge that said that Samsung's designs were not cool while Apple's designs had 'extreme simplicity'.
Not on the front page.
Not saying 'i'm sorry'
But, yes, in 14 point font.
Not a rant against the judge. Using his own words to (re?)denigrate Samsung's designs.
Then you're not looking very hard. It's just to the left of the Union Jack.
So, you hate the player AND the game.
Shame on you. Don't hate the game.
So, you're saying YOU can determine the spirit of the ruling better than the lawyers that were in the courtroom?
Or is there the chance that he said those things, but felt he to rule the other way, and will give Apple leeway to show his words?
That didn't happen.
Yeahhhhh.