Apple's snarky Samsung post not good enough for British judge

[HotelUser]

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-samsung-judge-20121101,0,6877841.story

We think the British-court-ordered notice on Apple's website that says Samsung did not copy Apple's patented tablet design is hilarious, but the judge isn't laughing.A British court has given Apple 24 hours to remove the statement from its website, and 48 hours to post a new one, the BBC (http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/media-industry/bbc-ORCRP001723173.topic) reports (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20165664).
Apple asked for 14 days to write a new statement, but the court refused.
"I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties," said Judge Robin Jacob, Bloomberg reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html). "...This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?"
The original statement, ordered by the High Court of Justice of England on Oct. 18, was supposed to be a simple one that clarifies the court's finding that the design of three of Samsung's Galaxy Tablet computers does not infringe on Apple's patented design.
Apple, complied, but with a twist. In the original notice (http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/) posted on its website, the company lays out the court's findings in the first paragraph, but also includes some additional paragraphs that display a certain...um...feisty attitude.
The statement includes two paragraphs pulled directly from the court's ruling that say that Apple's design is cooler than the Samsung design.
The company then goes on to say that a German court found that Samsung did copy the iPad (http://www.latimes.com/topic/services-shopping/electronic-devices/apple-ipad-PRDCES000000029.topic) design. And that a U.S. jury found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design.
The original statement concludes:
So while the U.K. (http://www.latimes.com/topic/intl/united-kingdom-PLGEO000005.topic) court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
"I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," Jacob said, according to the BBC. "It is a plain breach of the order."
In addition to writing a new notice, the court has ordered Apple to link to the new notice on its homepage. The company must also publish notices with details of the ruling in British newspapers and trade magazines, the BBC reports.

Personally, I find this hilarious :D.

On a more serious note, although I think all these companies are making a complete mess with these patent suits - I find this judge's ruling to be completely outrageous. I think his ruling is a disgusting infringement of freedom of speech. Shouldn't Apple be allowed to have the opinion that Samsung copied them whether it's the popular opinion or not? The judge told Apple to post something on their website. No government owns Apple, so how dare a government proceed to tell Apple exactly what to post on their website. Apple believes Samsung did infringe their patent, but now because of the British government users would be lead to believe that Apple believes the opposite. The internet should in my opinion be a haven of freedom of speech. I couldn't be more disgusted in the British government for allowing rulings which cause the British government to directly meddle with content on the Internet (which they do not own, should not own, and have no more business screwing with than any other government).

Not only that, but what in the heck happened to freedom of freaking press? The British government told Apple to post something on their website and Apple did, but Apple also posted saying they disagree with the decision. Since when has it ever been illegal to disagree with a government's course of action?! Perhaps David Cameron should get a judge to instruct every website exactly what to say and what not to say about the Conservative party :rolleyes:.

[xxMATTGxx]

Was only time they were going to get made to change it. Once I read it I did wonder if that was even acceptable to what the court wanted. I do love how they wanted 14 days to change it once they took it down but looks like the judge denied that and want it up as soon as the old one is taken down.

[HotelUser]

Was only time they were going to get made to change it. Once I read it I did wonder if that was even acceptable to what the court wanted. I do love how they wanted 14 days to change it once they took it down but looks like the judge denied that and want it up as soon as the old one is taken down.

Yeah. With the 14 day thing Apple is being petty about it, but I think this goes beyond the consumer technology industry - what really worries me is how much this issue becomes a freedom of press and freedom of speech problem. I think that judge might of caused a very slippery slope.

[xxMATTGxx]

Yeah. With the 14 day thing Apple is being petty about it, but I think this goes beyond the consumer technology industry - what really worries me is how much this issue becomes a freedom of press and freedom of speech problem. I think that judge might of caused a very slippery slope.

There's nothing wrong with what the judge asked Apple to do it. They just want it to be clear and no snarky comments aimed at Samsung.

[HotelUser]

There's nothing wrong with what the judge asked Apple to do it. They just want it to be clear and no snarky comments aimed at Samsung.

So even if you disagree with a corporation's opinion they're not allowed to have one of their own, and it's perfectly fine for any government to tell a publicly owned company that not only are they not allowed to talk about their opinion, but that they have to broadcast the exact opinion of the government instead?

[Futz]

I don't care much for the comment but they should have just cooperated and put a simple notice but being Apple they had to put a smug remark. The thing that makes me angry are some of the patents Apple have though and imo really holds back any future phones from evolving

- They have patent for a rectangular phone with rounded edges
- They have a patent for a speaker on the front of the phone, WHAT?
- They have patent for bounce back scrolling
- They have patent for pinch to zoom
- They have patents for edge to edge glass screen

I mean c'mon how can you patent some of this ****

[HotelUser]

I don't care much for the comment but they should have just cooperated and put a simple notice but being Apple they had to put a smug remark. The thing that makes me angry are some of the patents Apple have though and imo really holds back any future phones from evolving

- They have patent for a rectangular phone with rounded edges
- They have a patent for a speaker on the front of the phone, WHAT?
- They have patent for bounce back scrolling
- They have patent for pinch to zoom
- They have patents for edge to edge glass screen

I mean c'mon how can you patent some of this ****

It's annoying how every tech company screws with patents (Microsoft is a latest victim of such behaviour).

It would of been better if Apple put above the statement something like: "We at Apple believe us being forced to make this statement violates freedom of speech and freedom of press."

[xxMATTGxx]

So even if you disagree with a corporation's opinion they're not allowed to have one of their own, and it's perfectly fine for any government to tell a publicly owned company that not only are they not allowed to talk about their opinion, but that they have to broadcast the exact opinion of the government instead?

I wish you stopped saying the government and even mentioned David Cameron in your first post. It's the justice system and it's the judge who decided they wanted it changed, not the PM or MPs. I am just saying the whole message wasn't about putting snarky comments aimed at Samsung. That's why they want it changed.

[HotelUser]

I wish you stopped saying the government and even mentioned David Cameron in your first post. It's the justice system - I am just saying the whole message wasn't about putting snarky comments aimed at Samsung. That's why they want it changed.

To be fair I said David Cameron should ask a judge, and either your government or supreme court (if it works like it does in Canada) could both stop this crap from happening.

[xxMATTGxx]

To be fair I said David Cameron should ask a judge, and either your government or supreme court (if it works like it does in Canada) could both stop this crap from happening.

I would expect our PM has more bigger issues to deal with than giving a crap about Apple and Samsung crying over each other.

[HotelUser]

I would expect our PM has more bigger issues to deal with than giving a crap about Apple and Samsung crying over each other.

sarcastic statement is sarcastic.

[xxMATTGxx]

sarcastic statement is sarcastic.

Deal with it but just being honest. But if that's what happens in Canada than fair do's.

[HotelUser]

Deal with it but just being honest. But if that's what happens in Canada than fair do's.

Nothing for me to deal with, it's people in Britain who are being manipulated by the government because some folks will see the statement on Apple's website and assume it's an Apple backed statement, when in actuality it's actually not even the opinion of Apple in the first place.

[Tomm]

I've not read into much detail regarding this but it does not really have anything to do with that. Firstly, this has nothing to do with the government. In fact the judge expressly said there is no legislation that would require Apple to publish anything if they lost. However, he did make reference to a EU IP Enforcement Directive that enables the applicant in a IP infringement case to request, if they win the case, that the infringer publish information about the case:



"Member States shall ensure that, in legal proceedings instituted for infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of the information concerning the decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part. Member States may provide for other additional publicity measures which are appropriate to the particular circumstances, including prominent advertising."


But this does not directly apply to a situation where the applicant loses the case. Therefore the judge used his powers under the senior courts act: "The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so."

The court of appeal upheld the judge's right to grant the publicity order under this section.

Also the reason the judge issued the order, which was also upheld by the court of appeal, is due to the fact that customers might be confused by what has been published by the media. Read what the judge in the court of appeal said:



But I have come to the firm conclusion that such an order is necessary now. The decision of the Oberlandesgericht received much publicity. What was the ordinary consumer, or the marketing department of a potential Samsung customer to make of it? On the one hand the media said Samsung had won, on the other the media were saying that Apple had a German Europe-wide injunction. Real commercial uncertainty was thereby created. A consumer might well think "I had better not buy a Samsung - maybe it's illegal and if I buy one it may not be supported". A customer (and I include its legal department) might well wonder whether, if it bought Samsung's 7.7 it might be in trouble before the German courts. Safest thing to do either way is not to buy.


Of course our decision fully understood actually lifts the fog that the cloud of litigation concerning the alleged infringement of the Apple registered design by the Samsung Galaxy 10.1, 8.9 and 7.7 tablets must have created. And doubtless the decision will be widely publicised. But media reports now, given the uncertainty created by the conflicting reports of the past, are not enough. Another lot of media reports, reporting more or less accurately that Samsung have not only finally won but been vindicated on appeal may not be enough to disperse all the fog. It is now necessary to make assurance doubly so. Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that it acknowledges that the court has decided that these Samsung products do not infringe its registered design. The acknowledgement must come from the horse's mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely.




So even if you disagree with a corporation's opinion they're not allowed to have one of their own, and it's perfectly fine for any government to tell a publicly owned company that not only are they not allowed to talk about their opinion, but that they have to broadcast the exact opinion of the government instead?

[xxMATTGxx]

Nothing for me to deal with, it's people in Britain who are being manipulated by the government because some folks will see the statement on Apple's website and assume it's an Apple backed statement, when in actuality it's actually not even the opinion of Apple in the first place.

Justice/Legal System - Why do you even keep mentioning the government? What have Apple been made to do is a lot better for both companies compared to other countries. Even ones closer to your home.

[GommeInc]

I did wonder when Apple was going to get in trouble. I like how the Apple lawyer said "They didn't think there was a problem." Yeah, sure... Turning a court decision into a self-glorification statement wouldn't cause problems?

The opinion of the Court is final, if they say Samsung did not infringe Apple's patent then it should be taken as fact. What Apple did was turn a court decision into a snarky self-glorification comment on their website, pretty much humiliating the Court in the process. They shouldn't of referred to other Court decisions stating how Samsung somehow violated their patents, because that's simply not how law works and is just putting a court-on-court battle because they simply cannot accept people buy these phones and can tell the difference between an SII from an iPhone.

It's a win for common sense. The consumer gets to keep using and buying clearly favourable and popular products from both companies, and all Apple has to do is acknowledge they were wrong for once, and leave the room with their tail in between their legs. Samsung has already been called "uncool", so it's hardly one sided. If they couldn't do something so simple then they should be pleased the Court didn't outright ban some Apple goods in the UK, unlike a certain biased country with a biased court which did ban popular products, hindering consumer choice. The decision seems to of made a statement industry wise, the UK court doesn't give a damn about restrictive, stupid patents.

[Tomm]

How does this statement, that the judge ordered, look like it has anything to do with Apple's opinion?



On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given]


That is just a statement of fact.


Nothing for me to deal with, it's people in Britain who are being manipulated by the government because some folks will see the statement on Apple's website and assume it's an Apple backed statement, when in actuality it's actually not even the opinion of Apple in the first place.

[HotelUser]

How does this statement, that the judge ordered, look like it has anything to do with Apple's opinion?



That is just a statement of fact.

Because Apple got into trouble for also posting other paragraphs which essentially disagreed with the court's opinion.


I did wonder when Apple was going to get in trouble. I like how the Apple lawyer said "They didn't think there was a problem." Yeah, sure... Turning a court decision into a self-glorification statement wouldn't cause problems?

The opinion of the Court is final, if they say Samsung did not infringe Apple's patent then it should be taken as fact. What Apple did was turn a court decision into a snarky self-glorification comment on their website, pretty much humiliating the Court in the process. They shouldn't of referred to other Court decisions stating how Samsung somehow violated their patents, because that's simply not how law works and is just putting a court-on-court battle because they simply cannot accept people buy these phones and can tell the difference between an SII from an iPhone.

It's a win for common sense. The consumer gets to keep using and buying clearly favourable and popular products from both companies, and all Apple has to do is acknowledge they were wrong for once, and leave the room with their tail in between their legs. Samsung has already been called "uncool", so it's hardly one sided. If they couldn't do something so simple then they should be pleased the Court didn't outright ban some Apple goods in the UK, unlike a certain biased country with a biased court which did ban popular products, hindering consumer choice. The decision seems to of made a statement industry wise, the UK court doesn't give a damn about restrictive, stupid patents.

Apple obviously knew this would displease the court (which is awesome because the court's idea to do this was stupid imo), and Apple didn't reject the court's decision. Apple lost and cannot collect money from Samsung. They shouldn't have to broadcast the court's opinions all over their website, and suppress their own opinions on their own website.


Justice System - Why do you even keep mentioning the government? What have Apple been made to do is a lot better for both companies compared to other countries. Even ones closer to your home.

I just said David Cameron could talk to a judge, and I mentioned your supreme court...


I've not read into much detail regarding this but it does not really have anything to do with that. Firstly, this has nothing to do with the government. In fact the judge expressly said there is no legislation that would require Apple to publish anything if they lost. However, he did make reference to a EU IP Enforcement Directive that enables the applicant in a IP infringement case to request, if they win the case, that the infringer publish information about the case:



But this does not directly apply to a situation where the applicant loses the case. Therefore the judge used his powers under the senior courts act: "The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so."

The court of appeal upheld the judge's right to grant the publicity order under this section.

Also the reason the judge issued the order, which was also upheld by the court of appeal, is due to the fact that customers might be confused by what has been published by the media. Read what the judge in the court of appeal said:

Based off your first post then, it's legal to force a corporate to make a statement which goes against their own opinion because their opinion isn't the right opinion? What really bothers me is that Apple were told to revise their statement because it included that they essentially disagreed with what they had to post. I'm concerned about that. By this law, it's as if opinions become matter of fact. If the courts determined that Samsung did not infringe then that ruling is fine with me. Telling the company what to post on their website concerns me, and I am gravely concerned that in forcing the corporation to post a statement to appease the court, that such statement cannot contain any additional conjectures of the company victimized by the ruling. Since when has it been illegal to broadcast your opinion.

As for what you said about why such rulings occur, I also believe that's unfair to the corporation victimized by this unjust ruling. Apple don't control the media no more than the government should. All the media outlets didn't all agree with Apple and paint Samsung as evil so why does it make sense for the legal system to bully Apple into posting opinions Apple doesn't believe in, and then telling Apple that they're not allowed to post their own opinion along with what they were forced to post :S

[xxMATTGxx]

Why does he need to talk to the judge? What the judge has done is fair and there is nothing wrong with it.

[HotelUser]

Why does he need to talk to the judge? What the judge has done is fair and there is nothing wrong with it.


sarcastic statement is sarcastic.

I was joking saying that maybe if David Cameron doesn't like what the media are saying about the Conservative party, that he could go ask a judge to tell media websites to talk about how good the Conservative party is. It's a joke about David Cameron and the Conservative party, but I'm glad to see you didn't take it too seriously, or literally...

[xxMATTGxx]

I was joking saying that maybe if David Cameron doesn't like what the media are saying about the Conservative party, that he could go ask a judge to tell media websites to talk about how good the Conservative party is. It's a joke about David Cameron and the Conservative party, but I'm glad to see you didn't take it too seriously, or literally...

Should probably keep your jokes to yourself. They don't seem to be effective.

[HotelUser]

Should probably keep your jokes to yourself. They don't seem to be effective.

Since the day I met you I've never seen you catch onto any sarcasm very well. You're very much so a Sheldon from Big Bang!

[GommeInc]

Apple obviously knew this would displease the court (which is awesome because the court's idea to do this was stupid imo), and Apple didn't reject the court's decision. Apple lost and cannot collect money from Samsung. They shouldn't have to broadcast the court's opinions all over their website, and suppress their own opinions on their own website.

I just said David Cameron could talk to a judge, and I mentioned your supreme court...
Because Apple's opinions are attempting to alter the fact that Samsung did not copy Apple designs. By stating other court cases in the statement, something that is highly irrelevant, is attempting to tell visitors of the site that the English courts are wrong and in a sense reject the final decision. The Court sees this the best remedy, and seeing as the statement is only made visible to English/British/UK citizens, the matter really isn't a concern outside the UK boundaries and jurisdiction - though it may hold some precedence, particularly in the EU.

David Cameron can't get involved, he has no judicial powers and the legislature and the judiciary are separate from one another. If he talks to a judge to alter the decision it will only throw the decision out and another judge will be appointed. Besides, it's a matter of fact these days that Samsung did not copy Apple. It's a poorly created and maintained patent system that is the problem, trying to throw out common sense on a systematic technicality.

It will only happen to other companies if they bother to bore the Courts again with mindless patent disputes.

[HotelUser]

Because Apple's opinions are attempting to alter the fact that Samsung did not copy Apple designs. By stating other court cases in the statement, something that is highly irrelevant, is attempting to tell visitors of the site that the English courts are wrong and in a sense reject the final decision. The Court sees this the best remedy, and seeing as the statement is only made visible to English/British/UK citizens, the matter really isn't a concern outside the UK boundaries and jurisdiction - though it may hold some precedence, particularly in the EU.


If you lose a court battle you should publicly be allowed to say you disagree with the decision.



David Cameron can't get involved, he has no judicial powers and the legislature and the judiciary are separate from one another. If he talks to a judge to alter the decision it will only throw the decision out and another judge will be appointed. Besides, it's a matter of fact these days that Samsung did not copy Apple. It's a poorly created and maintained patent system that is the problem, trying to throw out common sense on a systematic technicality.

It will only happen to other companies if they bother to bore the Courts again with mindless patent disputes.

Dear sweet god, other than not liking his professionalism on Twitter, I do not care about David Cameron, nor would I legitimately attempt to instruct him what to do. If you don't think my joke was funny then don't laugh but sarcasm is sarcasm nobody even said David Cameron should get involved in the first place :S

[Tomm]

There is not a issue with Apple disagreeing with the judgement and their right to publish their opinion. However, the intend of the order (which is clear if you read the quote I posted originally) was to dispel customer confusion, especially regarding other court proceedings in Europe. By adding the additional information to the statement regarding other court's judgements they totally undermined the intent of the order. Now obviously I'm not the judge so I'm only speculating here but I'm quite sure if Apple had just added something along the lines of "we were disappointed in this judgement/disagree with it" then there would be no problem.


Because Apple got into trouble for also posting other paragraphs which essentially disagreed with the court's opinion.



Apple obviously knew this would displease the court (which is awesome because the court's idea to do this was stupid imo), and Apple didn't reject the court's decision. Apple lost and cannot collect money from Samsung. They shouldn't have to broadcast the court's opinions all over their website, and suppress their own opinions on their own website.



I just said David Cameron could talk to a judge, and I mentioned your supreme court...



Based off your first post then, it's legal to force a corporate to make a statement which goes against their own opinion because their opinion isn't the right opinion? What really bothers me is that Apple were told to revise their statement because it included that they essentially disagreed with what they had to post. I'm concerned about that. By this law, it's as if opinions become matter of fact. If the courts determined that Samsung did not infringe then that ruling is fine with me. Telling the company what to post on their website concerns me, and I am gravely concerned that in forcing the corporation to post a statement to appease the court, that such statement cannot contain any additional conjectures of the company victimized by the ruling. Since when has it been illegal to broadcast your opinion.

As for what you said about why such rulings occur, I also believe that's unfair to the corporation victimized by this unjust ruling. Apple don't control the media no more than the government should. All the media outlets didn't all agree with Apple and paint Samsung as evil so why does it make sense for the legal system to bully Apple into posting opinions Apple doesn't believe in, and then telling Apple that they're not allowed to post their own opinion along with what they were forced to post :S

[Stephen]

hoteluser are you related to undertaker

Edited by Jordan (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly

[GommeInc]

If you lose a court battle you should publicly be allowed to say you disagree with the decision.

Dear sweet god, other than not liking his professionalism on Twitter, I do not care about David Cameron, nor would I legitimately attempt to instruct him what to do. If you don't think my joke was funny then don't laugh but sarcasm is sarcasm nobody even said David Cameron should get involved in the first place :S
Not when the punishment is meant to state factual information - their opinion shouldn't be involved in the Court statement.

As for the "sarcasm". There's a saying here - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Mentioning it mid-discussion sort of defeats the point you are trying to make.

[HotelUser]

Not when the punishment is meant to state factual information - their opinion shouldn't be involved in the Court statement.

As for the "sarcasm". There's a saying here - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Mentioning it mid-discussion sort of defeats the point you are trying to make.

Ah, then it is fortunate that I have not practised the lowest form of wit, for my statement regarding Mr. Cameron was at the end of my post, not the middle ;)


There is not a issue with Apple disagreeing with the judgement and their right to publish their opinion. However, the intend of the order (which is clear if you read the quote I posted originally) was to dispel customer confusion, especially regarding other court proceedings in Europe. By adding the additional information to the statement regarding other court's judgements they totally undermined the intent of the order. Now obviously I'm not the judge so I'm only speculating here but I'm quite sure if Apple had just added something along the lines of "we were disappointed in this judgement/disagree with it" then there would be no problem.

I would agree with you in the sense that the statement Apple was told to make initially doesn't seem to speak onbehalf of Apple itself, but that doesn't alleviate my concern for the fact that Apple was never permitted to expand the statement and explicitly point out that they thought the ruling wasn't credible.

As for dispelling customer confusion I still don't agree that this is fair on Apple. We live in a society where we're allowed to to freely express our conjectures, and if Apple wanted to express theirs, and if the media wanted to cover the trial of Apple's accusation then in my opinion Apple has that right to their trial, and the media has the right to talk about the trial however they choose to, because it's not like they're coercing anyone.

[GommeInc]

Ah, then it is fortunate that I have not practised the lowest form of wit, for my statement regarding Mr. Cameron was at the end of my post, not the middle ;)
I said mid-discussion, not post ;)

[HotelUser]

I said mid-discussion, not post ;)

Something in the first post of a 3 page discussion isn't in the middle ;)

[GommeInc]

Something in the first post of a 3 page discussion isn't in the middle ;)
Seeing as we were in the middle of discussing why the decision was fair and you stating that the Government should be involved, making no hint as to it actually being sarcasm, was a poor way to do it. Besides, it was really pointless to say it, as everyone knows the Government can't get involved with Court matters. It sort of made you look a bit silly, when sarcasm usually portrays hilarity and wit (albeit low).

[HotelUser]

Seeing as we were in the middle of discussing why the decision was fair and you stating that the Government should be involved, making no hint as to it actually being sarcasm, was a poor way to do it. Besides, it was really pointless to say it, as everyone knows the Government can't get involved with Court matters. It sort of made you look a bit silly, when sarcasm usually portrays hilarity and wit (albeit low).

My sarcastic statement is mutually exclusive of me using the word government in place of court elsewhere (I can post me saying I'll now correctly use the term court in lieu of government on my website if you'd like) , and I still didn't mention David Cameron in the middle of this thread as you've suggested, but at the start...

[GommeInc]

My sarcastic statement is mutually exclusive of me using the word government in place of court elsewhere (I can post me saying I'll now correctly use the term court in lieu of government on my website if you'd like) , and I still didn't mention David Cameron in the middle of this thread as you've suggested, but at the start...
I only saw it half way, saying it at the beginning and carrying on saying it onto about page 2 is worse really as it suggests you strongly believe he could have a say, usually sarcasm is picked up immediately or the person who said it doesn't keep suggesting the Government should step in to change the Court's decision.

Are you sure you were not being serious? Because it seems like you were, but because it's was coming off as a bit of a silly comment you're now too embarrassed to admit you were serious, and are now claiming it was sarcasm to try and limit damage? Especially when Government and Judiciary are two very different systems in most countries. The Canadian and American Government and Court systems mimic ours in the sense they are separate from each other...

[HotelUser]

I only saw it half way, saying it at the beginning and carrying on saying it onto about page 2 is worse really as it suggests you strongly believe he could have a say, usually sarcasm is picked up immediately or the person who said it doesn't keep suggesting the Government should step in to change the Court's decision.

Are you sure you were not being serious? Because it seems like you were, but because it's was coming off as a bit of a silly comment you're now too embarrassed to admit you were serious, and are now claiming it was sarcasm to try and limit damage? Especially when Government and Judiciary are two very different systems in most countries. The Canadian and American Government and Court systems mimic ours in the sense they are separate from each other...

If you thought this was serious:


Perhaps David Cameron should get a judge to instruct every website exactly what to say and what not to say about the Conservative party :rolleyes:.

Especially considering:

1. It came at the end of the post
2. It contains an eyeroll emote at the end
3. If it were an actual suggestion it would be completely stupid

Then all I have to say to you is: god help you Gomme.

[GommeInc]

If you thought this was serious:



Especially considering:

1. It came at the end of the post
2. It contains an eyeroll emote at the end
3. If it were an actual suggestion it would be completely stupid

Then all I have to say to you is: god help you Gomme.
Explain this:

To be fair I said David Cameron should ask a judge, and either your government or supreme court (if it works like it does in Canada) could both stop this crap from happening.
Doesn't seem very sarcastic to me... If it was, you would of told Matt long before this post you were being sarcastic. Besides, it's not crap at all - you're the only person disagreeing with what was a perfectly good corporate court case for once, and you wouldn't keep suggesting the Government (and/or David Cameron, both synonymous with each other) to step in when there's nothing wrong.

[HotelUser]

Explain this:

Doesn't seem very sarcastic to me... If it was, you would of told Matt long before this post you were being sarcastic. Besides, it's not crap at all - you're the only person disagreeing with what was a perfectly good corporate court case for once, and you wouldn't keep suggesting the Government (and/or David Cameron, both synonymous with each other) to step in when there's nothing wrong.

I was telling Matt what I had said in my initial post because he misread :S :S :S

After my first post you would have to be a total moron to think I was being serious, because the very idea that in any nice country a leader would intentionally and unjustly suppress the media is stupid.

As usual you have turned a perfectly fine discussion into something trivial, which misrepresents something someone else said, congratulations.

If you can't read into an eye roll hinting at sarcasm here then there must be something seriously wrong with you, and you should get checked (and me telling you to get checked isn't sarcasm ;) )

[GommeInc]

I was telling Matt what I had said in my initial post because he misread :S :S :S

After my first post you would have to be a total moron to think I was being serious, because the very idea that in any nice country a leader would intentionally and unjustly suppress the media is stupid.

As usual you have turned a perfectly fine discussion into something trivial, which misrepresents something someone else said, congratulations.

If you can't read into an eye roll hinting at sarcasm here then there must be something seriously wrong with you, and you should get checked (and me telling you to get checked isn't sarcasm ;) )
Hey, you're the one that kept referring to David Cameron/the Government throughout the thread, because you found the decision unfair. The decision can't be overturned, and what's shocking is I think you fell for your own sarcasm, because you do keep referring to Cameron/the Government and dropped the sarcasm bomb way too far into the thread, as if you yourself even believed your own sarcasm until it was becoming irrelevant to the thread. The facts are: The Government can't change Court decisions when the two systems are separate - completely ignoring what has been said by myself, Tom and Matt :rolleyes:

Go home David, you lost this argument - no one agrees with you over the court decision being unfair ;)

EDIT: Also, I think you'll find you derailed this thread. There was no reason for you to add that "sarcastic" comment in your first post, because it was a really stupid thing to say.

EDIT 2: I like how you end threads when you've lost with -rep, you seem to get really frustrated with yourself :P

[HotelUser]

Hey, you're the one that kept referring to David Cameron/the Government throughout the thread,

Keep referring to David Cameron?! I mentioned him in my original post and when other people brought it up to point out that I was being sarcastic.


because you found the decision unfair.

How the hell does David Cameron have to do with this decision? Nothing. That's right, so when I brought it up I was obviously being sarcastic.


The decision can't be overturned, and what's shocking is I think you fell for your own sarcasm, because you do keep referring to Cameron/the Government and dropped the sarcasm bomb way too far into the thread

I dropped the "sarcastic" bomb in the first post with the wink at the end and the fact that oh yeah, what I said was clearly impractical and blatant sarcasm.


, as if you yourself even believed your own sarcasm until it was becoming irrelevant to the thread.

I never believed my own sarcasm because only a moron would believe that David Cameron would attempt to force the media to never insult the Conservatives.


The facts are: The Government can't change Court decisions when the two systems are separate - completely ignoring what has been said by myself, Tom and Matt :rolleyes:


Yes, and I already said myself earlier that I used the word government where I should of said courts, and I also said this is mutually exclusive to my David Cameron sarcastic comment, but you didn't read the thread because you never really do.



Go home David, you lost this argument - no one agrees with you over the court decision being unfair ;)

1. In the first post I said:

On a more serious note, although I think all these companies are making a complete mess with these patent suits
Later on I said:

Yeah. With the 14 day thing Apple is being petty about it
Oh, yeah, and then there was this:

If the courts determined that Samsung did not infringe then that ruling is fine with me
So I guess your statement here is just as poorly constructed as everything else you do.

2. Remember when you said:


It's not irrelevant just because you say it is

Hey-- yeah, so just because you want to believe this was some sort of argument I "lost" or something, doesn't mean that makes it true.

--

You don't get to tell me how to think, you don't get to be the dictator which tells me what's true and what's false. I was having a perfectly fine discussion with Tomm and then you had to barge in and turn the entire thread into useless dribble which has nothing to do with this entire topic, and which assumes I said something which it is quite clear I never said in the first place (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=763286&p=7740236#post7740236).

For someone who sure does like to accuse me of things (which I never say), for someone who sure likes to put extremely stupid words into my mouth (which don't represent my opinions), and for someone who's extremely judgemental about how I word everything under the sun, you sure don't practise what you preach, and you sure do, in my opinion, suck.