View Single Post
Old 07-26-2012, 10:46 AM   #48
Graham
Wizard
Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,569
Karma: 30624239
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Sony PRS-650, Nexus 4, HP Touchpad, Nexus 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. View Post
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.
Apple came straight out of the court and continued to state its standard line about "this kind of blatant copying is wrong". Samsung objected, pointing out that the ruling had been that there was no blatant copying, and that continued repetition of this line in the context of court cases with Samsung was damaging.

The judge said that Apple were entitled to their opinion, but that they should run the ads to correct the impression that they had fostered that Samsung were guilty of blatant copying.

Graham
Graham is offline   Reply With Quote