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?
