After losing a patent lawsuit with Samsung in the UK, Apple was required to post information about the ruling on its website and in media advertising. After seeing Apple interweave the details into an amusing editorial and later tuck it out of sight with a clever web design trick, the court appears not to be amused. As quoted by Chris Foreman at Ars Technica:
"The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying, which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying," Sir Robin Jacob noted in the final order, which was published online on Sunday. "There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it."

21 Responses to “Apple ordered to pay Samsung's legal fees in UK after 'false and misleading' notice”

  1. NelC says:

    Writing as an Apple fanboy, I have to say that was a pretty disrespectful move on Apple’s part, and they deserved to be smacked down for it.

  2. Wait, I need to get to the shop, buy some popcorn, come back, pour some wine, then re-read that judgement, possibly with the 1812 Overture playing. Joy.

  3. Isaac Marx says:

    I think at this point they’re just drawing more attention to it by pulling these ridiculous stunts.  If they had just gone ahead and posted the info without any fuss it would be over and forgotten by now.

    • That_Anonymous_Coward says:

      But but but they thought they would take the courts idea and make it better… like so many things they “invented” after seeing others do it first.  They aren’t always good after the polishing… Lets all log into PING and discuss… er wait…

  4. SuperMatt says:

    The UK court keeps insisting that they *didn’t* come to a different conclusion about copying compared to other countries.  Well, it’s obvious that they *did* come to a different conclusion than other countries did.  I think the whole “you lost, now say you’re sorry,” is absurd when it comes to a court case.

    Let’s take this approach to its logical conclusion.  Assume somebody is raped.  The prosecution somehow makes errors, or loses or contaminates evidence, and the rapist is acquitted.  Imagine the court now makes the rape victim publish an apology to the rapist in the newspaper!

    • Lexicat says:

      I was going come here and troll some fanboy by writing that they had misspelled “Apple were being a bunch of douche-canoes” as “Poor Apple… yadda yadda…” but, given what you just wrote, I think Apple has been usurped in that role.

    • flarktobble says:

      Perhaps the logical conclusion might seem more, well, logical if you reviewed the history and specifics of the case.

      To continue the wildly inappropriate analogy, it would be more like the Daily Mail publishing an editorial claiming that Politician X was guilty of rape, and then — when the court determined that no such event occurred — ordered them to publish a retraction.

      As to your first paragraph, remember that the courts don’t generally address the large, amorphous issues like “copying”; they tend to be more concerned with the specifics of “does X infringe on Y patent P?” or “does Z improperly use registered design W?”, and that those questions can have different answers without any overall inconsistency.

  5. stephenl123 says:

    Apple underestimated the vindictive stupidity of the judge.  They did exactly what they were told.  Then the judge said the law is not about specifics it’s about intention, which is nuts.  Now he’s saying Apple needs to be punished for the innuendo that he said ANYTHING; which he is saying is false because his decision (he claims) was a non-decision.  And he says Apple falsely implied that his decision was different than the decisions of courts that ruled exactly the opposite of what he did, again, based on the claim that his decision didn’t imply that he had made ANY conclusion  about the case.  Apple needs to either get out of any relation to this case as quickly as they can, or else come back with a very vigorous defense and try to get to a higher court.

    • flarktobble says:

      …not about specifics it’s about intention, which is nuts.

      Could you expand on why you think this is ‘nuts’?  Given that the judge didn’t claim that the law itself, but rather the remedy, was about about intent, and keeping in mind that the referred remedy (the public statement of non-infringement of the registered design) was specified because the determined harm was akin to libel (slander?  I forget which).  The upshot being that the Apple’s previous false claims should be corrected by Apple — hence the perceived intent of the public statement is very much the important bit of the order.  If Apple’s statement can reasonably be understood as claiming that Samsung’s products _did_ infringe on the registered design, that statement is not compliant with the order.

      …is false because his decision (he claims) was a non-decision.

      You may be a bit confused by oversimplification here.  The judge(s) made no such claim.  They were quite clear in that their decision refers to the allegation of infringement of the community registered design, and not in reference to other litigation regarding patents or specific Apple products.   They take great pains to distinguish this particular case (in re: the community registered design) and other cases heard in other parts of the world.  It isn’t a “non-decision” at all.

  6. stephenl123 says:

    Also, the “clever web trick” accusation is clearly false as has been shown many times by many people.  They put the message on the page they were told to put it on in the place they were told to put it.  The page behaves exactly as it did before the order was issued and exactly as other similar pages at Apple work.  The ignorance of the people (BoingBoing included) repeating an accusation which everyone knows is false is more like election campaigning than anything else.

    • Lexicat says:

      That’s really amusing since Apple’s snippet of javascript makes unambiguously clear what their intentions were.

      Neener neener pants on fire!

      • Paul Renault says:

        stephen123, search for “resizeHero: function”.  Google will return you a plethora of sites that comment on and display the source code from the Apple web page.

        The resize function would dynamically resize the window to not display the lowest 310 pixels of the page – where the apology was.  Yes, to me it’s unambiguously clear what their intentions were. 

        Maybe if Petraeus’s stint on Celebrity Apprentice doesn’t pan out, maybe he can work for Apple.  :-P

        • stephenl123 says:

          And that’s what the code did before the notice was placed there, and that’s what the code does on similar pages that Apple has which have no such notice.  Another way of putting it is that Apple scales up their main graphic on home pages to fill available space.

          • Paul Renault says:

             So what was in those 310 pixels before?

          • teapot says:

            NO. IT. DOESN’T. NO. IT. WASN’T. Get your facts right and stop spreading crap you sad fanboy.

            They put the code on the UK site only, just before they had to comply with this order. You are full of shit and readers of BB aren’t as stupid as you would hope. I bet they miss you over at macrumors.. why don’t you do us all a favour and fuck off back there?

            Just in case there’s any doubt thanks to this clown I took these screenshots JUST NOW on my 27″ imac to prove the point. US site, AU site & UK site.

  7. flarktobble says:

    Rob, at the risk of being overly pedantic, this wasn’t a “patent lawsuit”, in that no patents were involved.   It was about a community registered design, which is a slightly different animal.

  8. Anne Onimos says:

    Apple is the snotty, arrogant, rich kid from a John Hughes movie.

  9. pjcamp says:

    Well who didn’t see that coming?

    Oh. Yeah. Apple.

  10. Apple’s website still doesn’t publish the correct statement ordered by the Court of Appeal.  It states
    “On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung’s Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement. ”

    So the correct statement is not on their site, but on Samsung’s!? I guess there is even more to follow on this one.

Leave a Reply