5 ms·

The UK legal system is a complete joke. Apple should consider using its considerable resources to take legal action with this demand and simply post " X is not

The UK legal system is a complete joke. Apple should consider using its considerable resources to take legal action with this demand and simply post " X is not as cool as Y" and leave it at that. I can not fathom why this has been pulled up, and would challenge the appeals court to explain why the original passage is non-compliant and if they cant give a reasonable answer I would be meeting them in court.

blibble 14y ago
fighting an institution that makes the law probably isn't the best of ideas
- BCM43 14y ago
  They're not (they're fighting the institution charged with penalizing), and it happens all the time.
  - pyre 14y ago
    The parent was seemingly promoting the idea of Apple personally suing the judge because they don't like his ruling. If this was possible most legal systems would crumble.
michaelhoffman 14y ago
Apple already is meeting them in court. Apple lost.
vidarh 14y ago
In this case the UK legal system is pretty much exactly like any other civilized legal system. The judge in this case is the court, and when he says the original passage doesn't comply with his order, by definition it does not comply with his order. If they choose to continue to fail to comply with this order, the people responsible finds themselves at risk of being found in contempt of court and jailed.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  So a single person can perhaps issue an order and not be overruled or challenged in any way? That hardly seems like a "civilized" legal system. In fact it sounds like something in a corrupt banana republic.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    It can be challenged by appealing the finding. This is already in the appeals court - good luck to Apple's lawyers in getting the UK Supreme Court to overrule a court order about a small statement on their website. But what metratonscube suggested was to ignore the court order and put up a message that is blatantly in violation of the order then fight them in court if they didn't come up with a reason to comply. Ignoring this court order would be straightforward contempt of court at this stage, and will result in substantially more severe sanctions than being told to put a modified message up. And yes, this is how a civilized legal system handles it - every single European country, the US and most other countries in the world gives the judges (in this case a panel in the appeals court, so not just one) wide latitude in ensuring compliance with their orders. The failure to comply with a judge's legally issued order without specifically going to the court and asking for a stay pending an appal, is considered extremely serious exactly because the rule of law requires someone to be the arbiter, and if one party was able to get away with just ignoring what the judge orders them to, then the court has no ability to carry out it's duties.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    Err, this is true in almost all "civilized" legal systems. Judges everywhere are always responsible for determining if you are compliant with their orders, and holding you accountable if not. Not everything is appealable. In every justice system, there is always someone who is "always right because they are last", not "last because they are always right". For example, in the US, the supreme court judges also act as the highest individual judge in a given circuit court. This usually comes into play with stays of death penalty cases. The judges usually refer the petition to the full court, and the full court takes a vote. However, this is not required. The judge could simply deny/accept it. You would have no way to appeal this.
  - 14y ago

blibble 14y ago

fighting an institution that makes the law probably isn't the best of ideas

BCM43 14y ago
They're not (they're fighting the institution charged with penalizing), and it happens all the time.
- pyre 14y ago
  The parent was seemingly promoting the idea of Apple personally suing the judge because they don't like his ruling. If this was possible most legal systems would crumble.

michaelhoffman 14y ago

Apple already is meeting them in court. Apple lost.

vidarh 14y ago

In this case the UK legal system is pretty much exactly like any other civilized legal system. The judge in this case is the court, and when he says the original passage doesn't comply with his order, by definition it does not comply with his order. If they choose to continue to fail to comply with this order, the people responsible finds themselves at risk of being found in contempt of court and jailed.

Karunamon 14y ago
So a single person can perhaps issue an order and not be overruled or challenged in any way? That hardly seems like a "civilized" legal system. In fact it sounds like something in a corrupt banana republic.
- vidarh 14y ago
  It can be challenged by appealing the finding. This is already in the appeals court - good luck to Apple's lawyers in getting the UK Supreme Court to overrule a court order about a small statement on their website. But what metratonscube suggested was to ignore the court order and put up a message that is blatantly in violation of the order then fight them in court if they didn't come up with a reason to comply. Ignoring this court order would be straightforward contempt of court at this stage, and will result in substantially more severe sanctions than being told to put a modified message up. And yes, this is how a civilized legal system handles it - every single European country, the US and most other countries in the world gives the judges (in this case a panel in the appeals court, so not just one) wide latitude in ensuring compliance with their orders. The failure to comply with a judge's legally issued order without specifically going to the court and asking for a stay pending an appal, is considered extremely serious exactly because the rule of law requires someone to be the arbiter, and if one party was able to get away with just ignoring what the judge orders them to, then the court has no ability to carry out it's duties.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Err, this is true in almost all "civilized" legal systems. Judges everywhere are always responsible for determining if you are compliant with their orders, and holding you accountable if not. Not everything is appealable. In every justice system, there is always someone who is "always right because they are last", not "last because they are always right". For example, in the US, the supreme court judges also act as the highest individual judge in a given circuit court. This usually comes into play with stays of death penalty cases. The judges usually refer the petition to the full court, and the full court takes a vote. However, this is not required. The judge could simply deny/accept it. You would have no way to appeal this.
- 14y ago