UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad
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.