In the statement, Apple has acknowledged that its previous statement was “incorrect” and “did not comply with the court order” on the homepage with a link to the statement regarding the judgement.
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.
The statement regarding the judgement is similar to the apology ad it ran in UK newspapers earlier in the week. It says:
Samsung / Apple UK judgment
On 9 July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s Community registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available from www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available from www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the Community registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
The judges ordered to acknowledge that its previous statement was incorrect on the homepage after Apple posted “Samsung didn’t copy iPad” apology notice on its UK website, but instead of just acknowledging the judgement, it unleashed a scathing attack on Samsung by highlighting the comments made by the judge while comparing Apple and Samsung products and pointing out that a German court had found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design while ruling on the same patent. Apple had linked to the apology notice in the footer section of the website.
It is the first time we’ve ever heard a company getting ordered by the court to acknowledge the statement on its website. While some readers have found this excessive, we wonder if courts should do this more often to prevent companies from suing for everything.
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.