Apple's grudging replacement statement appears online

Apple's grudging replacement statement appears online

Summary: Snide remarks aside, Apple has now replaced its "inaccurate" statement concerning the Apple v. Samsung case.

SHARE:
27

Apple has replaced the Samsung message on its U.K. website to make it more court-friendly.

apple samsung apology new notice uk website
Apple's "apology", found in U.K. newspaper The Guardian.

The technology giant recently lost its appeal to a U.K. High Court to stay a previous ruling from July which said that Apple had to publish a notice on its U.K. Web site stating that rival Samsung did not copy its products, a result of the lengthy battle between rival electronics makers Apple and Samsung.

On Friday morning, the firm took the notice down after rival firm Samsung objected to its content and the court ordered Apple to take down the non-compliant statement and replace it with a more court-friendly and respectable version.

Instead of simply providing a link to a correct statement, Apple now has to keep the following message on its U.K. home page:

"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."

Following the link, the new message reads:

"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."

This is the same version of the statement that appeared yesterday in various U.K. newspapers.

It was left for us to guess whether the drier, shorter version that appeared in print was simply to keep the costs of apology down for the tech giant -- who had to pay for the advertising space out of its own pocket -- but it seems that the safer version of the 'apology' is here to stay.

According to the court's judgement, the court-friendly version of the statement must remain in place for one month.

Image credit: Tim Acheson

Topics: Apple, 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

27 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Contempt

    APPL's contempt for the law shines brightly in this incident, betraying most global corporate's thinking, one suspects.

    I too share some of that contempt - I think APPL should have been hit with a HUGE fine for their arrogance.
    jacksonjohn
    • There is no contempt; Apple posted court's decision; it only added comments

      ... from the judge himself, as well as cited outcomes of similar cases in Germany and USA.
      DDERSSS
      • Huh?

        Are you suggesting that added comments cannot be contemptuous?

        Ridiculous in the extreme.
        D.T.Long
        • Initial court definition did not say that Apple's post should not contain

          ... comments from the judge about this particular trial or mention trials in Germany and USA. Hence there is contempt and no penalty for Apple.
          DDERSSS
          • Wow

            Love my job, since I've been bringing in $5600… I sit at home, music playing while I work in front of my new iMac that I got now that I'm making it online(Click on menu Home)
            ...........http://goo.gl/k9m64
            veronrio
      • Because, as you have stated so many times in the past,

        that Apple can do no wrong.
        John Zern
    • A thinking mans judge would have taken this opportunity to

      make apple double the duration and triple the font size for both web and print media and move it to an obscuring popup at the top of the web page that must be dismissed with a user initiated click on a button displayed in a random position.
      Johnny Vegas
  • It's cleverly at the bottom of the page

    It's cleverly at the bottom of the page which is higher than many monitor's resolution, most people will miss it unless they scroll down.
    bradavon
    • Complying with the letter, but not the spirit?

      Apple is not alone in such behavior by any means, but it does not build any respect at all, at least not from me.
      D.T.Long
      • The decision itself is about letter, but not about the spirit

        Samsung's tablet design is obvious rip-off of iPad. It can be seen anyone who saw Samsung's tablets prior to iPad.

        So this court went with letter, not the spirit of the issue, saying that the back of SGT has some embellishment, hence the design is supposedly "different" and not a rip-off of iPad.

        The judges obviously confuse counterfeit law and trade dress law. The former requires faked goods to be literal copy of original ones, and the latter requires goods to be confusingly similar.

        Samsung Galaxy Tab is a trade dress legislation issue, not a counterfeit issue. And yet UK's court ridiculously treated it as counterfeit issue, and said that there are little changes on the back of SGT, and hence is is not a rip off.

        So with that approach, Apple has every right to honour only letter, but not the spirit of decision, which basically thrown away spirit of the whole case.
        DDERSSS
        • Yet, I suspect if the courts had agreed with you...

          You'd be singing praises to the intelligence of the British legal system.

          The fact is, the courts are the experts in law. Not you. And this decision has been reviewed in the British courts and so far, has been found to be sound. It's also been duplicated in other jurisdictions. Even in the US, in the famous Kohl trial - if you were paying attention, the same decision was reached - that these tablets did not infringe on Apple's design.

          So, unless you believe you're smarter than all those judges and juries, you may want to turn down the rhetoric.
          The Werewolf!
          • lol

            He will respond by saying he is a legal expert and a holder of a Law degree lol and once held a position in the high court
            Jacques Antoine Jr
          • You believe you are smarter than German court?

            I explained in just two paragraphs difference between counterfeit and trade dress law, and it is obvious how Apple versus Samsung case about iPad/Galaxy Tab should be treated according difference between those two types of legislation.

            You could not offer any counter argument -- because there is no way legally and rationally explain why would trade dress case such as this is getting counterfeit legislation treatment.
            DDERSSS
          • Re: You believe you are smarter than German court?

            The case hasn't actually gone to trial in Germany yet. If/when it does, they will take careful account of this UK decision.
            ldo17
          • German court had its final decision; Samsung had to produce SGT 10N model

            ... with updated design that barely avoids "blatant rip-off" label.
            DDERSSS
          • When will you get a clue

            You do not have a clue. Did you read Apple's statement."That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union".

            The UK court is the ultimate court of appeal and supercedes any thing the lower court in Germany says. You have lost any credibility left.
            Van Der
          • DDERSSS

            My response is for DDERRSSS
            Van Der
          • Sorry mate

            My UK court has no lein over the German court. But our German friends might refer to it

            And unless the UK decision is added to European central legislation, it stands alone

            This is for clarity and in no way supports DDERRSS who is just plain wrong
            sonnet37
          • Not wrong; German court had its final say and Samsung complied, realeasing

            ... changed tablet design.
            DDERSSS
        • No Trade Dress Law in UK

          Actually this isn't about confusing counterfeit law with trade dress law, since the UK doesn't have legislation on trade dress. We do have laws regarding passing of goods as a copy of the original. Since the Samsung tablet says Samsung on its front face, then it's obviously not a counterfeit of the iPad.
          DJL64