Topic 'Clarification' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: Clarification

Sat, 03 Nov 2012 00:38:14 EDT

tanzam75 posted :

said by MrWhooHooHoo :

You can get away with that kind of childish behaviour if you're a corporation in the US. In Britain it would be regarded [correctly] as a deliberate attempt to show contempt for the court. Up to two years in prison and and an unlimited fine. All they had to do was do what the court ordered and nobody would have paid any attention. Now they look like they're run by five year old kids. Instead they chose to thumb their nose at the court. Smacking may be outlawed in the US, but it's still legal in Britain, at least if you piss off a judge.

Indeed.

British law tends to put more emphasis on the spirit of the law, rather than the exact wording. You simply cannot get away with the sort of childish games that American lawyers play.

Re: Clarification

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:58:52 EDT

gateguy posted :

said by jjeffeory:

...true apology...

That's in the eye of the beholder.
--
Time for a new message.

Re: Clarification

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:57:36 EDT

gateguy posted : Then the court should have stated exactly what they wanted.

I would have done the exact minimum per the court decision, meaning

From Apple
Sorry
Samsung did not copy Apple
End from Apple

Not one word more.
--
Time for a new message.

Re: Clarification

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:51:17 EDT

anon posted : You can get away with that kind of childish behaviour if you're a corporation in the US. In Britain it would be regarded [correctly] as a deliberate attempt to show contempt for the court. Up to two years in prison and and an unlimited fine. All they had to do was do what the court ordered and nobody would have paid any attention. Now they look like they're run by five year old kids. Instead they chose to thumb their nose at the court. Smacking may be outlawed in the US, but it's still legal in Britain, at least if you piss off a judge.

Re: Clarification

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:43:18 EDT

jjeffeory posted : The court has better things to do than hassle a company. If Apple had given a true apology, there would be no need for the court to redirect...

Believe me, the courts are busy and have MUCH more pressing matters than addressing the childish BS Apple pulled.

Clarification

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 09:49:52 EDT

gateguy posted : If the first attempt at an 'apology' was not to the courts liking, I would ask the court for the exact text to use.

Otherwise, the court could continue this forever.

Also interesting, to just be a dick, I would use 72 point font and be very long winded in the apology (72 is at least an 11 point font)
--
Time for a new message.