In July, 2012, Samsung had won a judgment in the UK to the effect that its Galaxy Tab computers did not infringe Apple's registered design.
In spite of this, Apple continued to assert, broadly and widely, that Samsung's tablet computers did in fact constitute blatant copying of Apple's design and was therefore wrongful.
Therefore, Samsung went to the court trying to get an injunction barring Apple from making such claims because the claims were causing commercial harm to Samsung within the UK and thereby were negating the effect of the judgment won by Samsung.
Alternatively, Samsung sought a publication order requiring Apple to publicize the fact of the judgment on a long list of Apple websites as well as in certain financial publications. The idea of this order was to clear the confusion created by Apple's continued claims of illegal copying notwithstanding that it had lost on this issue in the UK courts.
The judge hearing the follow-up proceeding issued a very thoughtful ruling (found here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html) that in fact denied Samsung's request for an injunction against Apple's being able to claim illegal copying. The judge acknowledged the inherent unfairness of barring a party that had lost in a court proceeding from contesting the ruling and from publicly claiming that the ruling was wrong. It thus agreed with Apple that Apple should not be muzzled in asserting its legal right to speak.
The judge then turned to the more limited request made by Samsung for the publication order and described it as follows: "Samsung say that, notwithstanding the fact that Apple have lost this case, they continue to assert that Samsung infringes and that the damage that was caused and has been described there continues to apply. Accordingly, Samsung seek orders that I should require Apple to put on their websites and to put in certain newspapers references to this judgment and a statement that the court has found that the Samsung Galaxy tablets do not infringe." The judge went on to say that he believed "there is a useful purpose in a clear public statement that a product alleged by a rights holder to infringe those rights does not infringe," reasoning that "[t]he more frequently and the more loudly a rights holder has asserted infringement, the more useful it is to have a clear public statement to the contrary."
So, the whole point of the order was to ensure that Apple made a clear public statement to the effect that a UK court had ruled that the Galaxy Tab did not infringe Apple's registered design. Nothing in the order prevented Apple from continuing to assert that it was right and that the UK decision was wrong. Apple had full scope to make these assertions as and when it wanted and has obviously been making them freely.
At the same time, Apple was required to make the clear public statement called for by the follow-on order. Apple appealed this follow-on order and lost. It therefore had exhausted its remedies within the relevant court system and was left with the requirement that it comply.
That is when it purportedly complied by placing a teeny link buried at the bottom of its UK home page that linked to a text that, within the disclosure itself, bombarded the reader with all the reasons why Samsung really did infringe notwithstanding the UK judgment that had been rendered against Apple.
A few thoughts:
1. This conduct by Apple did not merely violate the "spirit" of the order. It clearly violated the order itself. Where Apple had been ordered to make a clear public statement publicizing the fact of the UK judgment, Apple had in fact offered up an obscure link to a statement full of argumentative statements aimed at creating obvious doubt about the question of non-infringement.
2. Apple did this in a context where the order had given it free scope to argue all it liked about its free speech rights to contest the original judgment and to continue claiming infringement on grounds that it disagreed with that judgment. Instead of accepting the order on its terms, Apple went way out of its way to undercut the limited disclosure that it had been required to make.
3. Lawyers say, "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered," meaning that when a litigant gets too greedy, it risks having its legal proceeding go badly wrong. Apple had been given a reasonable accommodation by the court addressing its legitimate concerns but it was not content to settle for that. It wanted to do nothing that might acknowledge that Samsung had legitimate issues as well - issues that had been found valid by a UK court and affirmed on appeal. Therefore, Apple decided to respond in a way it deemed clever, in effect defying the judicial authorities who had ruled against it.
4. We can each judge for ourselves whether this was smart or not. My view is that it is conduct unbecoming of lawyers (and of Apple as the principal in the case) and, indeed, is an outrageous affront to judicial authority. Courts and judges are not always right but, when they rule against you and you exhaust your appeals, you had better comply. If you think you are above the law in the sense that you need not comply, you will regret it. Those of us who are mere mortals need to live by these rules. So too does Apple.
Note that regarding the link part, the judgement specifically requested a link among other links on the UK site:
He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled " Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate.
Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days
to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that
one judge said he "cannot believe".[1]
Clearly the judge hasn't ever submitted an iOS app for review?
And to people who don't understand why Apple are held to be in "non-compliance" despite copying verbatim the extract from the judgment: it was because of how "snarky" Apple were.
- Saying their device is much more popular.
- Signing off by disregarding the purpose of the statement: "Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."
- Saying that Samsung's device is "not as cool".
- Not using the correct font size. (Although, I don't care about this point)
- Dedicating 80%~ of the statement to supporting their claims in other jurisdictions... and brushing past the verbatim copied statement.
Apple were ordered to factually represent the judgment in a statement issued on their website.
They cherry picked quotes, out of context and attempted to create confusion in any readers, with the intention of misleading them as to the judges present ruling.
This episode is the childish and vindictive zenith of an amazing year of childish and vindictive behavior from Apple. Frankly I just don't get it. They make fantastic hardware and their software is usually at least good. Why do they have to lash out like a schoolyard bully at anybody that threatens to put the tiniest dent in their giant pile of cash money? Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves?
If the incumbents at the time had behaved the way Apple is behaving now when Apple was in its infancy there would be no Apple today and we would all be the worse for it.
Only a few years ago I had a lot of respect for them as a company but they've pretty much burned it all away.
> Why can't they let their products sell and speak for themselves?
Because of Android.
The rise of Android is clearly showing that Apple products can no longer "speak for themselves" and Apple is feeling the pressure on all fronts, some that they used to have a 90% monopoly on (phones and 10' tablets) and some that they are joining late (7' tablets).
I see the proactive litigation as a move to delay the inevitable (iOS devices being relegated to sub 15% market share across the board, which they are on their way to).
What is strange here is that Apple seems to be perfectly able to compete on merits - take MacBooks. Granted, they aren't dominating the market like iPhone used to, but they have a sizable niche and when some years ago I didn't see any Macs around on conferences now almost everybody has MacBooks. But they don't seem to be that eager to sue everybody else on that market. The merits of the platform are enough for them to be successful. Why can't they do the same for the phone market?
Apple isn't in this (the lawsuits) for the money. I'm quite sure they're spending more on the suits than they'd lose to Samsung in the marketplace. It's about credit and fairness from their point of view. They don't want people riding their coat-tails or cheapening what they've created. I don't know that they're right -- I think their brand is strong enough to shake off Samsung, and they should take a page from the fashion industry, where brand is everything and copying is rampant, but nobody sues. But that's how they see it. Notice they're not suing Microsoft over the Surface? I'd bet there's some patent somewhere that would apply. Maybe there's some sort of understanding going on, but I seriously doubt it. I think it's because the Surface is genuinely different.
Because iOS is getting features like "Facebook integration" while Android rolls out 360 degree panoramas on a device that outspecs the iPhone 5 and is less than half the price.
I am continually amused at how much emphasis people like you put on spec lists. Most people in the world don't care about specs. They care about the actual experience of using the device.
Apple seems to disagree with you since in the past year, all the new products that they have introduced have pretty much been spec upgrades with no innovation (and sometimes, regressions, e.g. maps).
There is actually a lot of innovation in those spec upgrades. The A6 SoC is custom designed and pretty impressive considering it is faster than the competition whilst using less power. And the thinness of the screen (i.e. integration of touch sensors) is definitely innovative.
Okay? Android's experience has been evolving from day one. iOS is basically the same experience except for major features like multitasking menu, notification menu, etc (and where did those come from).
"Features" are a major part of the experience and was the more important part of my post. Your desire to focus on specs and attempt to dismiss my entire post goes to show the value of lumping "people like me" together and trying to pretend like the specs don't affect the experience. Here's an experience, day-in-and-day-out hearing about people complain about how crashy apps are in iOS.
At least you didn't try to claim that people don't notice a difference between $300 and $650.
I'm very happy to talk experience and features. I mean, come on, did you watch the 4.2 announcement video???
Huh? Your entire post was dismissing one of the features iOS introduced in the same breath as you talked about Android "outspec[cing]" iPhone. And yet you're claiming I'm trying to focus on specs, but you're trying to focus on "features", as if that's any different and better.
Every time someone has tried to hype an Android phone in a discussion I've been a part of, all they do is throw out a bunch of buzzwords and acronyms made up by companies like Samsung to try and market their phone. They don't even try and explain what these damn things are, much less why I should care about them. It seems the goal is to try and overwhelm me with the quantity of "features", even though, were I to actually buy this phone, I wouldn't even use most of the things they hyped.
So please, keep talking about spec lists. Just don't be surprised when not everyone buys into your hype.
Are you a troll? Because all you did was just repeat yourself, nitpick something I didn't even say and ignore everything else.
Go watch the 4.2 announce and note how every feature is about enhancing the experience and adding core features that iOS will probably not seen any, anytime soon.
I mocked "Facebook integration" because it is mockable, that's what you're going to argue is "experience enhacning"? Android had it from it's very first release via Intents.
Again, I didn't even mention spec lists in that last post, you are really desperate to keep trying to attack me with that, aren't you? (Also, did you watch the iPhone 5 keynote, all it is is specs. Are you paying any attention to iOS and Android or are you just repeating stereotypes from 2 years ago?)
>Every time someone has tried to hype an Android phone in a discussion I've been a part of, all they do is throw out a bunch of buzzwords and acronyms made up by companies like Samsung to try and market their phone. They don't even try and explain what these damn things are, much less why I should care about them.
Vague. Ambiguous. Completely void of a single example. I can't even think of an acronym in Android that I could use as a feature. Also, what, now you admit that Android has features but you can't be bothered to learn what they are because iOS will never get it? Jesus.
Ah, the old accusation of being a troll merely for disagreeing. Thanks for letting me know I can discount anything you say as you are not trying to argue in good faith.
>Ah, the old accusation of being a troll merely for disagreeing. Thanks for letting me know I can discount anything you say as you are not trying to argue in good faith.
Yes, ignore the other 4 paragraphs and then do the same thing you accused me of in the same sentence. You're a piece of work, have a good afternoon.
"Android's experience has been evolving from day one."
Yep from a blackberry clone to an underperforming iphone clone with some +1 features to a near parity iphone clone with some +1 features.
"iOS is basically the same experience except for major features like multitasking menu, notification menu, etc (and where did those come from)."
This is funny because to me the biggest feature in Android 4.2 that you're so excited about is the AirPlay clone. Over the last few years iOS has fundamentally rebuilt phone calling (Facetime), texting (iMessage) and the primary interaction ux (Siri). Where on earth have you been? How on earth do you call it "basically the same experience" when I can now just order the phone to do tasks like Montgomery Scott in Star Trek IV: The One with Whales?
>the biggest feature in Android 4.2 that you're so excited about is the AirPlay clone.
what are you talking about? I'm very well aware of AirPlay and I'm not aware of a feature (introduced) in 4.2 that is even similar... I certainly have not mentioned any such feature today.
>when I can now just order the phone to do tasks like Montgomery Scott in Star Trek IV: The One with Whales?
Google Now has already leapfrogged it. I just got a card telling me there's traffic to meet up with my friend and a card reminding me my parts are arriving tomorrow in the mail.
I think you're dead wrong to characterize Android as being at "parity" with the iPhone, in fact that's absolutely down right absurd. Android can feature for feature match iOS and then go on for half a dozen more. Please let me know how that is inaccurate if you think it is.
It's described almost everywhere as AirPlay-esque functionality.
"Google Now has already leapfrogged it"
You: iOS hasn't changed in forever.
Me: example of radical changes in iOS recently.
You: Google did one of those too!
Instead of moving the goalposts just admit I was right and we can move on. I certainly don't contest the idea that Google has copied anything.
"Android can feature for feature match iOS and then go on for half a dozen more. Please let me know how that is inaccurate if you think it is."
Lists of features =/= parity in device or OS quality. If lists of features are so important why are the headline for every major Android update the claims that it's now lag free and it doesn't look like shit anymore? Seriously go back and look at what the main selling point of Froyo, Gingerbread, Honeycomb, ICS and Jellybean have been. The correct answers are performance, both, ui, both and performance. The headline feature isn't ever a feature, it's always "not sucking anymore."
And there's plenty of features that Android doesn't offer -- like regular OS updates to the vast majority of their users or LTE with both battery life and insane thinness. Or a superior media ecosystem around the world. Android devices are only now surpassing the graphics capabilities of chips Apple started shipping in March 2011.
Oh give me a break. Microsoft was doing tablets in 1999. It really isn't that impressive. Hell, that's a better argument because those tablets were actually usable. It's not like Apple had a consumer product at that time that did that.
You do realize I'm talking about taking the panoramas, not just displaying them in Quicktime, right?
Which is again not consumer based hand-held 360 degree panoramas? And jesus, we're talking about the experience of having it a phone. How far do we have to stretch this to try to discount ONE feature added to 4.2?
If we want to play this game, I remember my dad finding some trial-ware when I was a kid and we took a few photos and were able to stitch them, I had to have been in middle school. yikes, 8-10 years ago, anyway, my point wasn't that it's the first time a real human being has been able to take two photos and stick them together.
Apple is the biggest corporation on the planet, and hence has more to lose than anyone else. There are literally trillions of dollars on the line. This while doing business in an intensely competitive space and relying on an incredibly powerful, but fragile, branding strategy.
I don't like it, but I get it. And it's fascinating to watch.
> relying on an incredibly powerful, but fragile, branding strategy
Saying Apple relies on a "branding strategy" denigrates several entire fields, particularly interaction design and supply chain management. You don't seem to realize that these are important domains of expertise that can confer immense advantages on companies that do them well.
>"You don't seem to realize that these are important domains of expertise"
No, I realize it. These strategies are open and replicable. Apple is great at them, but other companies are closing the gap. Supply chain means margins, and those are getting squeezed. Joe Public can get a product that's functionally like an iPhone for a similar or cheaper price, so the supply chain management ability isn't unique.
What they've done with the brand, on the other hand, is remarkable. Apple is a status symbol. You think "fanboyism" occurs only on hacker sites? Go to any forum anywhere and people are vehemently praising the company. It may be my opinion, but it's the most valuable thing they have, and why they protect it at all costs, up to and including disobeying orders and making sure people know that competitors aren't as cool.
> Joe Public can get a product that's functionally like an iPhone for a similar or cheaper price, so the supply chain management ability isn't unique.
Not really at all. The supply chain management allows them to get it to you for a similar price while achieving margins that other companies would kill to have even half of.
The person holding the phone cares about a) the fact that the iPhone was easier to use than any computer before it, and b) the fact that their iPad at launch cost hundreds of dollars less than a similarly capable general purpose computer.
Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab.
I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.
How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of them.
Xerox did give Apple access to PARC, but see how that allows Apple to freely use any of their IP without compensation.
According to Xerox:
''The ruling does not mean Apple hasn't taken substantial portions of the Star and claimed them as their own,'' a statement issued by Xerox said. ''The court merely held, we believe erroneously, that Xerox does not have standing to present facts in support of our contention.''
Emphasis can be a powerful thing. If you see an array of amazing things (as I'm sure Jobs & Co did at PARC), and then you select a key item to emphasize and popularize, then you have, in fact, contributed value. One could say that this was Steve Jobs' first act of 'technology curation' - an act which has (successfully) been commoditized and monetized via the App Store.
If a company doesn't protect its intellectual property, it is liable to lose it. The only thing that's changed is now Apple is leading the market and is in a position where they need to fight these battles.
It does. The grand parent statement is exactly why folk like EFF, FSF and RMS dislike the term "Intellectual Property". It confuses thee very different types of law with each other (copyright, patents and trademark).
Not true. In past, there were patented technologies (GIF, MP3) that were allowed to be used freely, until they got widespread. Then the lawyers started asking for the money. It was deliberate strategy, that would not work if the above would be true.
In Troxler Electronic Labs v. Pine Instrument Pine waited 5 years before suing, saying he didn't feel motivated to pursue the claim, and the judge found that insufficient reason. Symbol v. Lemelson found that the submarine patents were invalid due to laches.
It's easy to get lost in the law, though, so I'd love some specific citations that go the other way.
That caught my eye as an excuse of the super enterprise-y. I don't recall the page they put up after Steve Jobs passed away taking quite near that long.
1). Suspense during their events
2). To keep people from buying the older devices that they are about to discontinue. No reason to have to field support calls for people wanting to cancel/return their newly purchased items.
I guess the ridiculousness of this excuse is that the page already exists and would simply (I would think) be a matter of changing the page text. I wouldn't think this would require intensive site-wide testing, but I've been wrong on these thigns before.
This is true, but I don't think I've ever seen a ruling quite like this one, so the lawyers probably don't know how far they can push it. I expect them to do 'better' but still get it wrong, its a delay of game tactic that makes the judge look like he is being picky. I would agree though that Apple is coming off looking badly (to me at least, and I think I am part of their target market).
A lot of the posts that are saying something like "The judge didn't say that they couldn't do it like this!" are deliberately missing the point. In the UK, you are expected to comply with the spirit of such a court order, not just the letter of it. Try and pay a court fine with bins full of loose change and see what happens.
It's entirely possible to be punished for contempt of court to a much greater extent than the lesser offence. Deliberately choosing to behave in a childish manner and annoy a judge is a dangerous game to play and can be self-defeating. Apple's lawyers should have known this and should have advised them against it. It would have cost them nothing to comply with the ruling properly in the first place; they are now cutting their nose off to spite their face.
That's not a debt - that's a point-of-sale. They're allowed to accept or refuse any form of payment there (at least under US law - UK is probably similar).
The reason for the laws surrounding debt is to prevent creditors from purposefully holding debtors in debt by refusing to accept their payments ('Oh, sorry, you HAVE to pay me in this form, so I'll refuse your payment and instead charge you an extra day of interest, etc.)
Would love to see the source code for this situation, where payment is disrupted due to the change jar needing to emptied. I bet the programmers put in some amusing comments.
Is there a way this scenario can be coded in any other way than:
---
while(moneyGotSoFar < targetMoneyToget)
{
// code to interface with hardware device which
// is taking in money
// NOTE: moneyGotInThisBurst would be told by the
// hardware device software
...
// some time out code. And exception handling if
// no cash entered
moneyGotSoFar += moneyGotInThisBurst;
}
---
So point is, the developers may not think upfront of these kind of cases. And this case can be a boundary condition test case - May potentially test any array overflows. Or some looping done the wrong way. Or out of memory if it has been coded in Java(Oops. Sorry :-))
Legal Tender only means what you have to accept in settlement of a debt. You can choose to accept small denomination coins in any volume, or anything else for that matter. But if you have agreed a transaction with someone, or otherwise have a debt to that person, a court will consider the payment made if you pay (or try to pay) with legal tender.
"Legal tender" only means they're compelled by law to accept the payment to discharge a debt. Anyone can decide to accept anything as payment.
Also, paying for your groceries in that way (self-checkout) isn't discharging a debt as no debt was incurred: You could have decided not to pay and put the groceries back, after all.
In most jurisdictions, you are expected to comply with the spirit of a court order. Lawyers have some wiggle room when it comes to wordings, but it's a fine line between seeming clever and pissing the judge off.
Annoying a judge is a really bad idea. The court system is normally quite free from corruption, but all that goes out off the window when it become personal and political. See the pirate bay court case, or just any of the police brutality cases.
If Apple is going all out with lawyers and legal prowness, instead of competiting with products, they need to get better at it.
Is this specifically in reference to the UK legal system or just a blanket statement about practice around the world?
If it is the former, I really must disagree with the notion that the legal system in the UK is in any way corrupt. Quite far from it, I think it is one of the things that we can be most proud of.
If it is the latter, may I suggest you either be more specific or more correct.
In many civilized and relatively non-corrupt jurisdictions, judges nonetheless tend to get... shall we say, petulant when they feel they've been wronged.
(and I say "relatively" because of things like libel tourism and superinjunctions, both of which enable corruption to various degrees)
Presume you're referencing Richard O'Dwyer (tvshack.net), who a magistrate recently found was suitable for extradition to the US.
This is quite rare, there have been 99 extraditions since 2006, of which 35 were british nationals, so although extradition is reasonably rare it is not entirely uncommon.
Also, you say the UK found the alleged crime was "not worth prosecuting", which is loosely technically true, it doesn't really give the full picture: His actions were found to be legal under UK law and so hence there was no case for prosecution. His operations are, however, suspected of being illegal under US law and so hence the case for extradition was submitted.
To bring this back to the parent discussion: Few would argue that Mr O'Dwyer has been unfairly treated with respect to the current law. Some do, however, argue that it is the extradition statute itself that is unfair, with Mr O'Dwyers case being an example.
As a matter of interest, Theresa May has recently announced some changes to the extradition process following the results of the Baker Review. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/gary-mckinnon...)
There are other examples, but this is a function of our executive's decision to bend over to US demands and rewrite UK law, rather than corruption of the legal system itself.
Can you give an example of the police brutality cases you had in mind? I'd be interested to ready more about the social dynamic with the judge, if you can point me in the right direction.
A blogpost at rickfalkvinge.se recently talked about a few of those cases (site down for the moment). In particular, I was referring to the Ian Tomlinson case, but there have been similar events in Sweden and elsewhere.
I have yet to hear a police brutality case where an coverup was fully prosecuted to the point where all police officer involved (and who did nothing) was sentenced. It just do not happen. By the time it gets out, it has become personal and political.
The judge, in fact, included proposed text in the order, and said "use this subject to submissions by either side". Rather than submit anything and argue about it, they just decided to do whatever they wanted.
This attempt at being "clever" has definitely backfired on apple. If they had just done what was asked the first time, that would have been the end of it. Now it has to be dredged up and people will be reminded (again) that they lost the case. I find it hard to believe that their lawyers advised them that they would get away with something like this.
I'd never heard of this until this. It only confirms my casual (don't own anything Apple) view of Apple as a corporate two year old that makes great products (I've heard), all the while employing armies of lawyers to shout "No fair! No fair!"
Best if they'd just relax back into the big chair and be the adult.
“I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.”
On Technical Difficulties to take 14 days to change the notice
“I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on” their website, Jacob said. “I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?”
I'm really impressed that he asked for an affidavit from the head of apple. That would've really put apple in deep trouble had they gone that route. Good job on calling their bluff on the 'it will take us 14 days to update the site'. =/
Apple just seems so slimy these days. I absolutely love many of their products but lately they seem quite meh.
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 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."
"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. 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.
It's interesting just how quickly Apple's style of simplicity and minimalism can be thrown out the window. If the ruling were in their interest, I can't ever see them leading off with that first paragraph, for example.
They presented the facts and they should be allowed to mention that other jurisdictions have other views of the matter. Does anyone think that they shouldn't be able to?
The purpose of the notice was explicitly to counter some of the damage from Apple's very public claims that Samsung had clearly copied the iPad with their Samsung Galaxy Tab. Apple tried to damage Samsung by taking victory in advance. When they then lose, it is only natural they face consequences, otherwise they would have no incentive not to the same again.
They chose to take the proposed wording, chop it into two pieces, and inject their own paragraphs that are clearly intended to play up Apple and to downplay and dilute the purpose of the message and create doubt about whether or not there was copying by referring to other judgements, and on top that they are misrepresenting the court cases they mention:
The German court did not find that Samsung had carried out any infringing copying of their design. The US jury did NOT find the Samsung Galaxy Tab infringing. Apple's comment is technically correct, but they are on purpose clearly failing to mention that the judgement is mostly irrelevant to the UK case as it deals mainly with other products than the UK case (which only deals with the Galaxy Tab), and in the one instance where it is relevant, Samsung prevailed.
Apple is free to question the judgement, but doing so by diluting the effect of the very message the judges ordered them to put in place is at best a stupid mistake, at worst wilful attempt at doing an endrun around the court. The only reason they got away with this as lightly as they did is because the judges can't prove it wasn't someone just being stupid. So they've given Apple another chance and given them more rope - if Apple tries this stunt again, someone will be in serious personal trouble.
To me, the core problem is that the UK court is compelling speech. Maybe that is okay in the UK, but I don't think a court would be able to get away with that in the US.
I think is okay to have Apple announce the court's judgement, but they should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree with it.
They are not compelling speech. They are compelling Apple to facilitate dissemination of a message that is very clearly labelled as not being Apple's opinion.
It is pretty clear that this is not a problem under US law either: All kinds of legal requirements exist to add specific notices to various products, for example.
> but it should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree with it.
There is nothing in the proposed wording that implies Apples agreement. In fact, the very purpose is to announce the verdict of a court case where Apple very obviously argued for the opposite result.
The proposed wording starts "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled". There's no implication that Apple agrees anywhere.
Of course those slimy judges can't get away with it in the US. Corporations in the US are people now.
Should cigarette companies be allowed to write their own diatribe under the "Surgeon General's Warning" label? Cigarette companies definitely don't agree that smoking causes cancer, so why not post a rant about how <Country X> has not yet declared smoking dangerous so the UK is wrong?
What a US court thinks is irrelevant in the UK, and has zero bearing on the Apple UK site. Thank $DIETY the USPTO is confined to where it is.
If Apple doesn't want to comply with laws, they shouldn't operate in those countries.
That said, it was obvious they'd get chewed out for this from when they posted it (if you know anything about UK law). It's okay to be smug and they would have probably gotten away with everything except the very last paragraph.
The last paragraph was completely unnecessary, and now they're facing the consequences of their hubris.
Exactly. I see nothing wrong or made up in that. All the presented information are facts. They are saying in a way, we lost, and here are the facts. In a case May be the the Judge should order the Prime Minister for an Public apology and if he does not like it, apologise until he likes? This is just stupid. And this isn't a Apple's is right or wrong issues with Samsung Copied or not either.
Read the judgement. It sets out the purpose of the message very clearly, and it proposes a message. It is very plainly obvious that the way they modified the proposed wording makes a mockery of the stated purpose of the order.
The judgement also describes the UK courts view on the US and German cases, which sheds even more light on why they were pissed of at this: Apple's wording might be technically true, but they're misleading the readers of the note the put up there too (e.g. they seem to try to imply the Galaxy Tab - which is what the UK case was about - was found infringing in the US case; it was not).
Nobody is requiring that. They are free to publish pages upon pages of opposing views if they please.
They are required to comply with a court order with a very clear intent: To rectify the false impression Apple had created that the Samsung Galaxy Tab infringed on UK law and might get banned from sale.
All the court is requiring is that Apple is not diluting that message by including other paragraphs that are at best irrelevant and at most directly misleading.
If I'm required to put "the surgeon general has determined that smoking causes cancer" on the cigarettes I sell, then I'm required to put that message there.
I am not following that law if I add "but the surgeon general is a stupid head" right after that. Or "but smoking is totally cool in Europe."
I have plenty of other avenues in which I can try to persuade people that the surgeon general is a mean poopy head that they should ignore.
It's insulting to pretend not to understand this, which is also how the judge feels.
Maybe because it's required in response to their failed attempt to use the UK court's view of the facts to block a competitor's products from the market?
It's basically "The UK court found Samsung non infringing, but said our products are great, and other courts found them infringing.". Far from an apology.
The judge could be taking quite a bit of heat from Samsung… Surely Apple's lawyer division (and it must be a division by now) went through that judgment with a fine tooth comb before posting the statement.
I wonder if the judge could have added a clause requiring Apple to submit the statement to him for review first.
Right, the main goal was to make it clear to consumers that even though Apple won a EU-wide case against Samsung in Germany (which got a lot of publicity), that didn't apply in UK after they lost this court case.
That published statement 'dispels commercial uncertainty'? Not to a lawyer, but to the consumer who is its target order? How does it do anything except increase commercial uncertainty?
Its important to understand that they weren't asked to publish an 'apology' or state any beliefs. They were asked to publish a specifically worded statement of fact about the outcome of the case.
What they were asked to publish is roughly the first and fifth paragraphs of what they actually published. They added four other paragraphs.
Points 87 and 88 of the appeal judgement here say what they should have published:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on (date). A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link [link given]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
Aggregators don't replace the original source they point you to it.
Engadget (and similar sites) are just parasites that extract every ounce of value from someone else's work, stuff it full of SEO spam and hope they do it fast enough to usurp the traffic too.
I do agree that they shouldn't be submitted though!
Did the court seriously think ANY COMPANY would have reacted differently than Apple did? This is a childish and completely unproductive order. Fine Apple and be over with it if you think they did something wrong.
I think that the court's ruling is not childish. The problem with Apple is their attitude, they think they are over the rules, look at the Italian case of the warranties, the law requires 2 years but Apple would give only one.
Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose, name a device and than pay if it breaks some trademark or whatever.
I think the judge understood this and wanted to teach them a lesson of humility, which Apple didn't get and showed once again that they think they are more clever and over the rules. But the reality is that the judge has the power and is not a stupid, and I bet he doesn't like to be treated like one.
> Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose...
Supposedly, in the UK, Apple pays a £50/day fine rather than posting the required no-smoking signs in the windows of their stores. (I mention this as another example.)
I can't find any reliable source for this claim. They range from "a friend who works in the Apple Store in Norwich"[1] to a "man who told it in the pub"[2] which makes me doubt its authenticity.
(Hence why I said "supposedly"; the claim, however, is trivially falsifiable, and I have yet to see anyone attempt to argue with it, despite I having been been posted around a bit last year. I realize that does not make it true, again hence "supposedly". Even if it was true at one point, it might no longer be.)
But that's not what you wrote. "Non-banana republic" can only be parsed as [non-banana] republic. You need to write "non-banana-republic" if you want to say non-[banana republix]. Better yet, use a less clumsy turn of phrase. Best of all: drop the remark entirely, it's pointless.
It is an elegant order. Rather that trying to collapse everything down to a dollar value (and thus have extended bickering between the parties) you have a simple "You accused them of copying. They did not copy. They say they are damaged by your claims. Retract your claims."
The problem with money is that Apple has a lot of it, and thus making them pay for realistic (as oppose to punitive) damages is not a disincentive to further poor behaviour. It just becomes a cost of doing business.
For the issue of patent wrangling, which is very much a gray area, yes, I do think monetary fines are the most appropriate.
The court cannot make Apple be sincere in an apology if Apple believes they are in the right. Just the same way Sally's Mother cannot make little Jimmy sincerely apologize for tattling on her daughter when she copied his homework, especially after the teacher already praised him for bringing it to her attention.
As others have noted: it is difficult to counteract the effect of negative publicity brought against Samsung by Apple's accusations. Having Apple publicly retract those accusations is the court's way of trying to mitigate that.
Your analogy is deeply flawed. Apple had a choice as to whether to bring this matter before the courts and UK judge has no vested interest in protecting Samsung. There is no 'teacher' figure in this case; no more objective person involved in the case than the UK judge.
If Apple had no respect for the court's opinion, they should not have brought the lawsuit. In bringing the suit against Samsung into that court, they have effectively asked the court to pass judgement and agreed to respect and abide by the decision. The entire problem is that whoever is in charge at Apple believes they are in the right and that the court is wrong; the statement shows a lack of respect for the court and therefore is, in a way, a challenge to the court's authority. This is the judge's way of reminding them that they should respect the verdict and comply with it.
The only resolutions to this are Apple complies fully, or stops operating in the UK. The UK court system woud much rather get rid of Apple from the UK than allow a challenge to their authority to stand, and Apple would rather continue to operate in the UK than flounce out over a matter like this and lose the UK (and potentially the EU) market. Apple should have folded before, and should definitely fold now. The longer this silly game goes on, the more they have to lose.
Slightly off topic, but I just want to point out that I think he was getting at in his analogy was that German courts were "the teacher".
That is to say, it'll be a hard time getting Apple to believe they were in the wrong because a different court has already said their accusations are correct.
The obvious answer is to use progressive fines, making them proportional rather than a fixed amount. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
Honestly, I'm sure Apple's lawyers were very opposed to the text they posted, and were overruled by management. Most other companies listen to their lawyers.
To those saying that Apple "complied"... Do you think Apple would have complied if the text were in #FEFEFE over #FFFFFF in a page including, say "buy iPhone and be happy!" in clear #000000 and a Photo of Steve?
It would be literally complying:
The text would be there to be read, anyway.
It's not like it even matters. Apple is dead, and these are just their final gasps of air.
Apple is pulling the Edison maneuver to protect their rapidly dwindling monopoly on mobile consumer hardware - and they will lose because Tesla (aka Android) is better for both the industry and consumers.
Android is open, Android is iOS equivalent, Android is cheap, Android is backed by the rest of the world's electronic mobile manufacturers. Apple can't win - the world is now chasing their profits with ravenous rage and hundreds of billions of dollars in invested capital. They will be commoditized because all they sell, and all they have ever sold, was glass with a grey backs. The only thing that protected Apple - really protected them was iOS. Those apps made Apple. And the openness of Android will commoditize them.
Apple can shock elephants (ban tablets) and write false accusations about the merits of AC (Samsung sucks) all they want - it doesn't change the fact that their monopoly in mobile hardware is in a terminal and rapid death spiral.
Samsung made Apple. And Samsung will destroy them for the fundamental reason that style can and will be copied vociferously for the betterment of the consumer, but the substance behind it cannot.
Glass with grey backs are commodity. Market saturation is imminent. Competitive equivalence has occured.
I saw this coming. Their 'apology' was just another thinly veiled stab at Samsung. They're simply coming off as childish and immature now. They're not exactly getting into the good-books of that judge which would have worked in their favour if they ever encountered him again which judging by their history and mantra of 'sue everything' is highly likely.
Kind of ridiculous. Samsung obviously did copy, the court just ruled that it didn't merit an infringement ruling. I mean, does anyone think, really, that Samsung didn't set out to copy all of Apple's products? Wouldn't it be better for all (except Apple) if it was spelled out that Samsung copied them but it is ok?
The article said that the judge ordered Apple to say that "Samsung did not copy their design." Apple, essentially, said that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy its design.
That is factually correct. I don't see how anyone can be compelled to make the former statement rather than the latter one.
Isn't that the whole purpose of a court system? If you insist on calling OJ Simpson a murderer who got away with it, he can sue you for libel. He is, as a point of fact, not legally a murderer, and you would be lying to defame him. Legal truth isn't some abstract concept. It is defined by the court's opinion. The factual statement in UK law is now "Samsung did not copy their design." End of story.
You don't get to flout a court ruling by continuing to behave the same way, only with a disclaimer that says, "Well, the judge said we're wrong, but screw him."
Some US courts make judgements that will end a human life, and you think what's shocking is that a UK court can order a company to retract a claim that has been found to be false?
Exactly. Again i have difficulty understanding the notion behind it. You can rule, and fine, or what ever you want. But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in.
> But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in.
This is not an apology. It's a publication of the facts, as determined by a court of law.
In the US, slander and libel are both illegal, as is defamation, etc. Part of the judicial process is to determine the facts of the case. After the facts are determined and the defendant is acquitted, the plaintiff can't keep publicly affirming the defendant's guilt without risking consequences. This is completely precedented.
Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them. In this case, Apple acted as if they had already won by prematurely advertising a victory ('Samsung copied us!'), so they're being required to retract that.
(Typical disclaimers of UK vs US law and IANAL apply, though my point is that this would not be unusual or unreasonable if it had happened in the US).
> Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions
No, because those jurisdictions aren't relevant once the court has already made a ruling for its own jurisdiction.
> the fact that they don't agree with the court?
There's nothing to 'disagree' about. As far as the court is concerned, once it's made a ruling, it's determined the facts, and you can't disagree with their facts. There's nothing to appeal in an acquittal (because of double-jeopardy), so the courts have had their final word on the matter.
This is a civil case, but to use the analogy in a criminal case: once the defendant in a murder trail has been acquitted, the prosecutor can't continue to say, "The court has determined the facts, but I have a different opinion."
They weren't asked to apologise or say they believed anything. They were asked to publish a certain statement, giving the facts of the outcome of the case. Along the lines of "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that ....".
So they were asked to publish a statement of fact on their own site and in several newspapers. But they added extra stuff to the end, thus changing the tone and context.
I'm trying to find out what they were originally asked to print so we can compare to what they actually did.
"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe."
It seems broadly similar to the warning on cigarette cartons. Though now it's explicitly under the label: "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING", for a period of time it simply said "Cigarette smoking is hazardous to your health".
This seems like BS to me. They put the judgement on their site, and then they put other things on THEIR site. As long as the put the piece they wanted them to put, they should be able to do anything else they want. If they think the statements made make for good marketing pieces, why shouldn't they be able to put them on their website.
All this is besides the point that the UK is in the minority in their ruling, and the US case did a pretty good job of showing that Samsung did in fact copy Apple, and said so many times in internal communications.
The goal of the publicity order was to "dispel commercial uncertainty," not as punishment. If Apple publishes the required statement, but obscures it in a way that it doesn't meet the original goals, should the court really stand idly by?
People. Top post? For hours? 165 comments and counting? For a legal spat in the UK? For every post that claims the top spot there's one that fails to get noticed.
These articles are our "Brad and Angelina" equivalents.
"Joe, who thought we were cool and clearly did not think Bill was cool, told us to tell you that he doesn't think Bill copied our amazing coolness. (Of course, Joe is in the minority position on this one, so please ignore him: you should really listen to Sally and Jack.)"
The point of the order was the court felt that Apple should dispel their previous public accusation that Samsung copied their design.
So when Apple issues a statement that says "Court X ordered us to tell you that Samsung didn't copy us, but Court Y did say they copied us." then it's not really following the intent of dispelling their claim
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.
Beats me. Apple complied with a sloppy judgment. I'm no great fan of Apple in this, but the appeal judges fucked up by not clearly specifying what Apple needed to do and could not do.
The courts don't work like this, largely because it's a waste of the court's time to figure out every single way some slimy bastard could try and weasel out of their rulings. This is pretty clear-cut too - the court ordered Apple to post a notice saying that Samsung's products had been found not to infringe, and Apple decided to instead post one that argued the court had got it wrong and Samsung were a bunch of evil copycats, which also misrepresented court rulings in other juristictions to make them seem more favourable to Apple in the process.
The judgement specified where, when, and how to publish the notice down to which website and publications, the typeface, and point size.
It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication.
Apple complied with the letter of the judgment and arguably the spirit of the judgment which was "not designed to punish" but rather "to dispel commercial uncertainty". It clearly states that Samsung's products were found not to infringe in England and Wales. Unambiguously. Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?
Going on to provide nuance by quoting the original judge and including rulings from other jurisdictions doesn't negate that.
Apple have been foolish in getting the court's dander up, but they're not wrong.
> It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication.
The judgement included a proposed wording with the introduction "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following". Apple might think that gives them carte blanche to write what they think, but I can guarantee you that no British lawyer would think a wording like that means anything than that they should thread _very_ carefully if deviating from it without consent from the court and/or private agreement with the other party.
> Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?
No, but we can read the rest of the text where they tried to confuse the matter again by misrepresenting rulings from other courts. E.g. the German court did not find infringing copying. The US jury explicitly found the Galaxy Tab (which is what the UK court case and the notice is about) non-infringing.
It clearly and blatantly has a purpose that is at odds with the spirit of the judgement.
You're right, I just re-read the judgment with the proposed wording. Apple should have gone with that verbatim and otherwise shut up so as to not drag it out.
They made what could have been a publicly boring notice buried in the page footer a spectacle.
> It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication.
No, it was pretty clear what message Apple were supposed to give, and that's a good enough ruling.
> "Billy, don't take cookies from the jar."
< munch munch "I didn't take them, they fell out when I held the jar upside down."
> "Don't touch the jar, then."
< munch munch "I did't touch the jar, I used a spoon."
> "Stay 5 meters away from the jar at all times."
< munch munch "I did stay away! I just convinced my brother to get them for me."
Et cetera. With lawyers involved, this kind of process can go on indefinitely. At some point, you have to stop adjusting the rules and call them out on obvious disobedience.
Sorry, but no, they didn't.
The judge didn't fuck up. The court was quite specific in it's order, as someone quoted below:
"Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
In the result I would dismiss both appeals but vary the publicity order as indicated or in such other way as may be agreed or settled by further argument. I would hope that any such argument (and any other consequential) arguments can be resolved by written submissions"
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.
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.
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.
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.
In this case, the original judge wanted the notice on Apple's UK home page. Apple did appeal that judgement, and the appeals court said it would be sufficient to put it in a link from the footer. So there is recourse.
In the US, such orders usually have to be in writing, be pretty specific, and the meaning has to be fairly clear. You would have a very difficult time holding someone in contempt for a court order that's not written. And, so, what's written IS the order, regardless of the judge's intent.
In other words, a third party judge should be able to judge compliance with the order, so it certainly would not be the case that if the original judge thinks something doesn't comply with his order that it necessarily doesn't comply.
The court order is in writing, and it includes a proposed text of the statement. Apple changed it. This is what the court wrote:
"Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
In the result I would dismiss both appeals but vary the publicity order as indicated or in such other way as may be agreed or settled by further argument. I would hope that any such argument (and any other consequential) arguments can be resolved by written submissions.:"
If Apple thinks that "I would propose the following" means they're free to change the text as they please, they better fire their lawyer, especially given the preceding "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side".
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.
In spite of this, Apple continued to assert, broadly and widely, that Samsung's tablet computers did in fact constitute blatant copying of Apple's design and was therefore wrongful.
Therefore, Samsung went to the court trying to get an injunction barring Apple from making such claims because the claims were causing commercial harm to Samsung within the UK and thereby were negating the effect of the judgment won by Samsung.
Alternatively, Samsung sought a publication order requiring Apple to publicize the fact of the judgment on a long list of Apple websites as well as in certain financial publications. The idea of this order was to clear the confusion created by Apple's continued claims of illegal copying notwithstanding that it had lost on this issue in the UK courts.
The judge hearing the follow-up proceeding issued a very thoughtful ruling (found here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html) that in fact denied Samsung's request for an injunction against Apple's being able to claim illegal copying. The judge acknowledged the inherent unfairness of barring a party that had lost in a court proceeding from contesting the ruling and from publicly claiming that the ruling was wrong. It thus agreed with Apple that Apple should not be muzzled in asserting its legal right to speak.
The judge then turned to the more limited request made by Samsung for the publication order and described it as follows: "Samsung say that, notwithstanding the fact that Apple have lost this case, they continue to assert that Samsung infringes and that the damage that was caused and has been described there continues to apply. Accordingly, Samsung seek orders that I should require Apple to put on their websites and to put in certain newspapers references to this judgment and a statement that the court has found that the Samsung Galaxy tablets do not infringe." The judge went on to say that he believed "there is a useful purpose in a clear public statement that a product alleged by a rights holder to infringe those rights does not infringe," reasoning that "[t]he more frequently and the more loudly a rights holder has asserted infringement, the more useful it is to have a clear public statement to the contrary."
So, the whole point of the order was to ensure that Apple made a clear public statement to the effect that a UK court had ruled that the Galaxy Tab did not infringe Apple's registered design. Nothing in the order prevented Apple from continuing to assert that it was right and that the UK decision was wrong. Apple had full scope to make these assertions as and when it wanted and has obviously been making them freely.
At the same time, Apple was required to make the clear public statement called for by the follow-on order. Apple appealed this follow-on order and lost. It therefore had exhausted its remedies within the relevant court system and was left with the requirement that it comply.
That is when it purportedly complied by placing a teeny link buried at the bottom of its UK home page that linked to a text that, within the disclosure itself, bombarded the reader with all the reasons why Samsung really did infringe notwithstanding the UK judgment that had been rendered against Apple.
A few thoughts:
1. This conduct by Apple did not merely violate the "spirit" of the order. It clearly violated the order itself. Where Apple had been ordered to make a clear public statement publicizing the fact of the UK judgment, Apple had in fact offered up an obscure link to a statement full of argumentative statements aimed at creating obvious doubt about the question of non-infringement.
2. Apple did this in a context where the order had given it free scope to argue all it liked about its free speech rights to contest the original judgment and to continue claiming infringement on grounds that it disagreed with that judgment. Instead of accepting the order on its terms, Apple went way out of its way to undercut the limited disclosure that it had been required to make.
3. Lawyers say, "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered," meaning that when a litigant gets too greedy, it risks having its legal proceeding go badly wrong. Apple had been given a reasonable accommodation by the court addressing its legitimate concerns but it was not content to settle for that. It wanted to do nothing that might acknowledge that Samsung had legitimate issues as well - issues that had been found valid by a UK court and affirmed on appeal. Therefore, Apple decided to respond in a way it deemed clever, in effect defying the judicial authorities who had ruled against it.
4. We can each judge for ourselves whether this was smart or not. My view is that it is conduct unbecoming of lawyers (and of Apple as the principal in the case) and, indeed, is an outrageous affront to judicial authority. Courts and judges are not always right but, when they rule against you and you exhaust your appeals, you had better comply. If you think you are above the law in the sense that you need not comply, you will regret it. Those of us who are mere mortals need to live by these rules. So too does Apple.