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."
