A court of appeal has reprimanded the “non-compliant” statement Apple published on its website regarding the case against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab in the United Kingdom. Apple now has 48 hours to correct the statement, which must then be displayed on the homepage of its website until December 14.
Having lost its appeal against the Samsung Galaxy Tab in a High Court ruling in the United Kingdom earlier this month, Apple was ordered to publish advertisements in British newspapers and magazines, and on its website, which must say that Samsung did not copy the iPad.
The Cupertino company has now published a statement on its website, and it makes for a very humorous read. Basically, Apple quotes the judge, who said that Samsung’s tablets “are not as cool” as Apple’s, then says that despite the decision, Samsung did copy the iPad really.
Apple has lost its appeal against a High Court ruling in the United Kingdom that deemed the Samsung Galaxy Tab does not infringe its copyright for the iPad. Despite the similarities between the two devices, the Court of Appeal upheld its decision that Samsung did not copy the iPad when producing the Galaxy Tab.
Apple will now have to place “prominent advertisements” in magazines and newspapers, explaining that Samsung did not infringe its design.
Google chairman Eric Schmidt is currently on a tour of Asia, where he announced the company’s $199 Nexus 7 tablet in Tokyo on Monday. During his announcement, Schmidt found some time to talk about Apple and its patent wars against other companies. Schmidt revealed that while Apple is a “very good partner,” he doesn’t agree with patent wars, and feels they “prevent choice” and innovation.
Apple’s victory in its patent trial against Samsung is already a few hours old but the shock of the damage tally is still hard to shake off. The final figure of $1,049,393,540.00 is a staggering rebuke of Samsung’s design and manufacturing process and may force the company toward more original ideas.
The completed jury verdict form, released late Friday night and attached below, reveals the Korean company maybe never really had a chance to win the case.