Apple ordered to remove 'untrue' anti-Samsung statement

Apple ordered to remove 'untrue' anti-Samsung statement

Summary: Less than a month after a U.K. court forced Apple to add a court judgment to its U.K. website, Apple has now been forced to remove "untrue" elements of the statement.

SHARE:

Apple has been forced by the U.K. Court of Appeal in London to remove an "untrue" and "incorrect" statement about Samsung from its U.K. website, in which the maker of shiny rectangles continued to insist that Samsung did indeed copy Apple's products.

The statement, which can be found on Apple's U.K. website, sufficiently riled U.K. appeal judges enough to force Apple to remove the statement within 24 hours, reports Bloomberg.

It comes less than a month after a lower court ordered Apple to add the statement which stated Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad, and therefore did not infringe a key Apple patent, which the technology giant did, but embellished the text with additional detail that was not sanctioned by the court.

The first paragraph of the statement was court-ordered, as laid out by U.K. High Court Judge Colin Birss, in which the text had to include a specific 56-word statement along with a link to the judgment online. 

However, the subsequent paragraphs went above and beyond the call of duty in Apple's bid to justify the statement on its website. 

Apple expanded the court-ordered statement with two comparisons made by the judge in the original case between Apple's iPad and Samsung's Galaxy tablets, noting how the iPad was "a cool design," while noting the Samsung products are "not as cool." 

The final paragraph of the expanded statement, however, delivered a scathing attack on Samsung, which noted various similar cases around the world in regards to Apple's design patents for the iPad, including Germany and the United States. The technology giant made it clear that the U.K. ruling in Samsung's favor was a one-off event:

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

"I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," said U.K. appeals judge Robin Jacob, claiming the statement's expansion was a "plain breach of that order."

Apple lawyer Michael Beloff told the court that the iPhone and iPad maker complied with the original order. He said the order was not designed to punish Apple or "make [the company] grovel," adding: "The only purpose is to dispel commercial uncertainty."

The Cupertino, CA.-based technology giant requested 14 days to make the changes, which was also blasted by the court.

"I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on [the U.K. website]," added Jacob.

The full text of the statement can be found here.

Topics: Apple, iPad, Legal, Samsung, Tablets, United Kingdom

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

134 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Now that's funny...

    "The Cupertino, CA.-based technology giant requested 14 days to make the changes, which was also blasted by the court."

    Must be all the design and testing required to make such a change. LOL
    Badgered
    • Need 14 days

      to see if they can patent the apology process (valid now it's done on a website).

      So, where are all the isheep that claimed this was fine and there would be no comeback? Maybe we're just waiting for them to wake up. Once again what's obvious to the rest of us, seems anything but to those people with reality-distortion disorder.
      Little Old Man
      • Who's the iSheep

        I don't see any iSheep. I do see iTrolls right here and right now.
        X_Tech
        • You are?

          I see dead people, we should get together and share our experiences.
          Little Old Man
          • You must work for Microsoft.

            http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010823&slug=microlob23
            Arm A. Geddon
          • Yes, of course.

            I see you.
            X_Tech
          • Really?

            Fair play for admitting you are an isheep.
            Little Old Man
      • Patent jokes aside, there is nothing "untrue" in Apple text -- the title of

        ... this news is false.

        And judge did not really say anything about any part of Apple's text to be "untrue". He simply complained that Apple included comments from the judge and reference to cases in Germany and USA.
        DDERSSS
        • Well,

          You obviously didn't follow the links. The UK judge deemed what Apple had on its website to be untrue. And the US court decision is awaiting the appeal ruling.
          benched42
          • I didn't follow the link either

            but what does the US court decision awaiting appeal have to do with anything? Did the jury not side with Apple? Has the verdict been overturned? Until the day comes, if ever, that the verdict is overturned it still stands, Samsung lost.
            non-biased
        • Of course not. Even looking at it blindfolded

          (which you did) you can see how it's all 100% true, Apple on the moral high ground.

          Say good night, Dennis.
          William Farrel
        • You are right.

          Apple did posted LITERAL truth.

          Though human language is a bit tricky, you know. eg. by putting 3 things together you can suggest (strongly) that they relate to each other.

          Of course US order DID NOT FOUND SAMSUNG INFRINGING.
          Of course German order WAS NOT RELATED.

          But by putting them all toghether in one paragraph, Apple could suggest that they all relate to each other, and that in one case we have courts of Germany and USA who found Samsung guilty, and court of UK who found Samsung innocent in the same matter.

          It was of course just suggestion. And as such it mandated no penalty, as it could be JUST mistake and not conscious and deliberate disregard to Court verdict.
          przemoli
      • Why?

        Nothing in that last paragraph was untrue. Nor did the UK ruling stipulate that Apple could not disclose the results of similar suits in other countries.
        athynz
        • Well then,

          Why didn't Apple disclose ALL court decisions instead of just the ones that ruled in their favor?
          benched42
          • Good question!

            The answer of course is obvious... Apple is trying to make themselves look good.
            athynz
        • I'm not debating with you,

          the courts decision was final, one of those FACT things so rarely seen on here.

          Try and twist it how you like, apple failed in their little game, the judge ordered them (not forced) to change it. He even took the p*ss out of the apple lawyer when they asked for 14 days to change it.
          Little Old Man
          • The court's decision

            Was wrong. However what is done is done and Apple has to comply with it.
            athynz
          • Please explain that to the Judge.

            Your legal expertise is obviously greater than his...
            Zogg
          • Obviously

            The judge is blind. I'm drafting a letter to him now detailing how wrong his ruling was. I'll be sure to mention that you were te inspiration. Thanks.
            athynz
          • Don't forget to mail it afterwards.

            Obviously just "drafting" it is not enough.

            However would the World cope without untrained armchair lawyers such as yourself?
            Zogg