Exactly. I see nothing wrong or made up in that. All the presented information are facts. They are saying in a way, we lost, and here are the facts. In a case May be the the Judge should order the Prime Minister for an Public apology and if he does not like it, apologise until he likes? This is just stupid. And this isn't a Apple's is right or wrong issues with Samsung Copied or not either.
back
1 comments
Read the judgement. It sets out the purpose of the message very clearly, and it proposes a message. It is very plainly obvious that the way they modified the proposed wording makes a mockery of the stated purpose of the order.
The judgement also describes the UK courts view on the US and German cases, which sheds even more light on why they were pissed of at this: Apple's wording might be technically true, but they're misleading the readers of the note the put up there too (e.g. they seem to try to imply the Galaxy Tab - which is what the UK case was about - was found infringing in the US case; it was not).
Again, why should a company be required to only give the UK court's view of the facts?
Nobody is requiring that. They are free to publish pages upon pages of opposing views if they please.
They are required to comply with a court order with a very clear intent: To rectify the false impression Apple had created that the Samsung Galaxy Tab infringed on UK law and might get banned from sale.
All the court is requiring is that Apple is not diluting that message by including other paragraphs that are at best irrelevant and at most directly misleading.
If I'm required to put "the surgeon general has determined that smoking causes cancer" on the cigarettes I sell, then I'm required to put that message there.
I am not following that law if I add "but the surgeon general is a stupid head" right after that. Or "but smoking is totally cool in Europe."
I have plenty of other avenues in which I can try to persuade people that the surgeon general is a mean poopy head that they should ignore.
It's insulting to pretend not to understand this, which is also how the judge feels.
Maybe because it's required in response to their failed attempt to use the UK court's view of the facts to block a competitor's products from the market?