Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
1–10 of 243 posts
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#2AOL "journalist" told to reword "The Guardian's article":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsu...
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#3How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#4How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.
"The following is not true:"
Context counts for a lot.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#5How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.
Beats me. Apple complied with a sloppy judgment. I'm no great fan of Apple in this, but the appeal judges fucked up by not clearly specifying what Apple needed to do and could not do.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#6This attempt at being "clever" has definitely backfired on apple. If they had just done what was asked the first time, that would have been the end of it. Now it has to be dredged up and people will be reminded (again) that they lost the case. I find it hard to believe that their lawyers advised them that they would get away with something like this.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#7This is silly.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#8How is it non-compliant? It uses the exact wording in the judgment, which did not state that there could not be additions.
Well, law is not (yet) code, and you are expected to use common sense. Apple didn't.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#9AOL "journalist" told to reword "The Guardian's article": http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsu...
To be fair i don't think they ever claim to be journalists-- the source link is always in their posts.
If there is any wrong doing, it is the people who post links to one aggregator (like engadget) on another (like HN).
I guess in the HN case it is likely because of the url dupe filter.
Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
#10Here's the original page:
http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/
It's basically "The UK court found Samsung non infringing, but said our products are great, and other courts found them infringing.". Far from an apology.