Oh dear:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/ap...ewspapers-but-doesnt-seem-any-more-heartfelt/
How lame.....
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/11/ap...ewspapers-but-doesnt-seem-any-more-heartfelt/
How lame.....
Did the judge rule they have to apologise? I thought they just had to advertise the fact Samsung didn't infringe Apple copyright.
Apple's courtroom troubles cast gloomy shadow on a day that should've been remembered for the launch of the iPad mini.
Apple fought in court against Mexican telecom iFone over similarly sounding names. Arrogance or ignorance, Apple didn't have much of case there, as the iFone trademark was registered four years before the first records of the iPhone name.
Finally, to make things even worse for Apple, Samsung is requesting Apple VP of Marketing Phil Schiller for questioning in court regarding Apple’s seek of ban for various Samsung products. Samsung claims Schiller’s newest written testimony includes statements that are "new or in conflict with his testimony at trial".
Apple tried to fight this, but the judge ordered Phil Schiller to make himself available for questioning before November 5th.
The end of what? They have enough cash they could coast for years on back to back failures and it's unlikely they're going to experience anything worse than a gradual erosion of their market share in certain markets.
Didn't the judges say that the statement needed to be on the front page and not on a linked page?
"Apple must now within 48 hours publish a correction on their homepage with a link to the corrected statement in not less than 11-point font."
Nothing wrong with the link but they were asked to write an apology and they didn't so were asked a second time and haven't again.
Haha, brilliant placement!