Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by scott_w on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:42AM
(#4727747)
As noted above, the UK doesn't operate on the exact wording of the law. For example, a judge will sometimes wiggle around the wording of an Act of Parliament if he feels that the intent of the Act was breached.
The case taught to law students is that of the prostitutes soliciting from their windows. The law stated that they could not solicit "in" the streets. The judge in the case expanded this to solicit "to" the street, as the purpose was to prevent people being hassled when they walked down the street.
Similar principles apply to judgements: the point of the judgement was to mitigate the public perception that Samsung was copying Apple's designs. Saying "this judge says they didn't copy... but they really did" goes completely against the point of the judgement.
The case taught to law students is that of the prostitutes soliciting from their windows. The law stated that they could not solicit "in" the streets. The judge in the case expanded this to solicit "to" the street, as the purpose was to prevent people being hassled when they walked down the street.
Similar principles apply to judgements: the point of the judgement was to mitigate the public perception that Samsung was copying Apple's designs. Saying "this judge says they didn't copy... but they really did" goes completely against the point of the judgement.