> 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."
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).