<story><title>Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.</title><url>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/apple-must-publish-notice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says.html</url><text></text></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>Terretta</author><text>This is not a disjunctive syllogism.&lt;p&gt;If Apple could not prove that Samsung copied them, it does not follow that Samsung didn&apos;t copy them, just as if California couldn&apos;t prove that OJ did it, it doesn&apos;t follow that he didn&apos;t do it.&lt;p&gt;This ruling, that Apple has to affirm something equally unproven, is bizarre.</text></comment>
<story><title>Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.</title><url>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/apple-must-publish-notice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says.html</url><text></text></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>bratsche</author><text>Wasn&apos;t the original ruling basically saying, &quot;It&apos;s not a copy of the iPad because it&apos;s not as cool&quot;?  You know if Apple really does have to put this notice on their website, they&apos;ll probably find a way to work that into the announcement.</text></comment>