View Single Post
Old 07-21-2012, 12:56 PM   #43
Andrew H.
Grand Master of Flowers
Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,183
Karma: 8206736
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabredog View Post
It is no different to what an Australian Court ordered Apple to undertake when bought to trial for lying to customers regarding the iPad3's 4G connectivity to Australian mobile phone networks.

A public admission that Apple had overstepped the mark. In the case of above, that was also the violation of consumer protection law.
No, it's quite different.

In the Australian case, Apple was brought to trial for making misleading statements to consumers. The result was that they had to correct the misleading statements they had made.

In the UK case, Apple sued Samsung for patent infringement. Apple lost and was required to notify consumers of this fact. The suit wasn't about misleading statements at all.

It's *unusual* for a corporation who sues another corporation and loses to have to put a notice on their website informing consumers that they were wrong. When Apple lost a similar case in the NL, they weren't required to notify consumers of their loss; when Apple won a similar case in Germany, Samsung wasn't required to notify people that they had been found liable.

AFAIK, this isn't typical for cases in the UK. I don't think think it's wrong at all, but it is different, and I'm curious about *why* this particular remedy was ordered in this particular case. There has to be more to it than Company X brought a suit and lost.
Andrew H. is offline   Reply With Quote