Sam Oliver
A link to a statement saying Samsung didn't copy the design of the iPad on the front page of Apple's U.K. website has been declared non-compliant with a court order, forcing Apple to rewrite it and post it more prominently within two days.
The altered statement will have to remain on the front page of Apple's U.K. website until December 14, according to The Guardian. The revised statement must be posted by Apple within 48 hours.
"I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," Judge Robin Jacob said, according to Bloomberg. "That is a plain breach of the order."
Last week, Apple updated its site with a link at the bottom entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgement." Clicking the link takes users to a blank page with no links, logos or other information.
The site lets visitors know that the High Court of Justice in England and Wales ruled on July 9, 2012, that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe on Apple's design patent No. 0000181607-0001. It also quotes the judge as saying Samsung's products are "not as cool" as Apple's.
But at a hearing held in London Thursday morning, the judge told Apple it must change the wording of the statement within the next two days. The revised statement must have an 11-point font and be displayed on the company's website front page.
The iPhone maker told the judge it would need at least 14 days to put a revised statement on its site, but one judge said he "cannot believe" it would take so long.
The statements about Samsung devices being "not as cool" came from a ruling by Judge Colin Birss in July, when he found that Samsung's products were distinctive from Apple. Apple attempted to appeal the decision, but lost last month.
Birss ordered Apple to run advertisements on its UK website as well as in British magazines and newspapers, declaring Samsung did not copy the iPad. The Web notice is to remain active at least six months, while other ads would be taken out in various print publications as a consolation for the "damaging impression" Samsung suffered a result of the suit.
Andrew Orr
Amber Neely
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
AppleInsider Staff
477 Comments
Couldn't Apple just refuse? What's the worst that could happen? They'll make the UK angry? Surely they can afford to pull out of that market if it comes to that. It's a fairly small market. No offense intended to UK customers, but a court demanding a written apology like this is just silly.
Oh boy.... Judge Robin Jacob must be an iPad 3 customer or something....
The judges are taking this personally. No apology was ever order. Apple was required to make a statement of fact in order to dispel confusion by potential customers. They did this to the letter, even pasting exactly the wording that was ordered. They followed every part of what they were instructed to do. They worst one can claim is that they added additional facts to their statement. But the judges here say that they think Apple is in breach of the order because they included statements that were "incorrect" and "untrue". I'd ask the judges to point out a single statement in Apple's notice that was untrue or incorrect.
They won't be able to. And that shows that this is personal. The judges feel that Apple gave them the finger, I think mainly because the media portrayed it that way. The media mistakenly reported the notice by Apple as being an apology and and sarcastic one at that. But there was no apology ordered. The order specifically said it was not meant to make Apple lose face but only to clarify the status of the case to potential buyers. They did this. But the judges have their panties all bunched up because the media portrayed it as Apple insulting them and they bought into it.
It becomes obvious by Samsung selected the UK to Apple in. Mushy headed judges seem fairly common there.
Judge didn't stipulate font color!... A soft white for text and link should do nicely...
It's not like the UK can put Apple in jail. They should really give this judge the middle finger and see what happens. I predict nothing at all. Again, worst case scenario is they can no longer sell in the UK. Small country; no big loss.