U.K. Judge Gives Apple 48 Hours To Correct “Samsung’s Not As Cool” Non-Apology


The teeny tiny link to Apple's statement.

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.

Apple published its initial statement last week, but it wasn’t at all easy to spot. The Cupertino company published it on a new page of its website, which was free from any Apple branding, then added a tiny link to it at the bottom of its homepage. The court deemed this “non-compliant” with the order made by the court earlier this month.

Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin, and Sir Robin Jacob indicated that they were not happy with Apple’s “failure to put a simpler statement on the site,” The Guardian reports, and they’re demanded an alteration. During a hearing on Thursday morning in a London court, Apple was given 48 hours to make the changes, which must be published on its homepage — not another page — in at least 11-point font.

“The objection was that Apple had added to the statement that the court of appeal had ordered, so did not comply with the original order, and furthermore that the additions were not accurate,” explained Darren Smyth of EIP Partners.

Apple attempted to convince the court that it would take at least 14 days to make the correction, according to the report — a claim that one judge said he “cannot believe.”

Apple lost its case against the Samsung Galaxy Tab in a U.K. court earlier this year, and it was ordered to publish a statement on its website and in prominent British magazines and newspapers to explain that its claims against the device were unfounded. While it did do that — sort of — it also added in details from other cases against Samsung in the U.S., in which Apple was successful.

Jacobs said Apple’s statement was “a plain breach of the order,” Bloomberg reports.

Source: The GuardianBloomberg

  • Atienne


  • Tcphoto1

    Apple’s response, “Scott was in charge of that task”.

  • Robert X

    It was never supposed to be an “apology”. Other than that, Apple tip toed across the line and the Judge pushed them back.

  • B066Y

    I’m beginning to think that Apple is trying to help Samsung because all they are doing is getting them a lot of free advertising. They aren’t keeping anyone from buying a Samsung device, didn’t Samsung profits start going up once all this stuff started? Maybe they are doing this to keep competition alive and not end up like MS in the late 90s being hassled for having a monopoly.

  • JeromeKurliak

    What a load of hogwash. Compliance is compliance.

    “Failure to put a simpler statement” is nonsensical. It’s possible to fail to include something, but not possible to fail to not include it. This criticism is especially invalid when the Court’s ruling included no stipulation regarding complexity.

    “The objection was that Apple had added to the statement” makes no sense when there was no stipulation that Apple refrain from doing so.

    The only thing that the Court has a real leg to stand on with respect to compliance is whether Apple obeyed or disobeyed its directives. Apple was careful to obey, and not disobey, them. Whether their intent was respected or not is another story. The responsibility for any failure in that regard, however, lies with the Court and the sloppiness of its ruling. Now it’s attempting to clean up its mess after the fact, whilst placing the blame on Apple.

  • ashymore

    If in doubt, Samsung own a weapons division.. lol

  • hanhothi

    I am surprised Apple did not get slapped with a contempt of court fine. I did not think Apple would get way with their bullshit on this.