There has been a lot of heat lately surrounding a controversial U.K. court ruling requiring Apple to publicly apologize to Samsung, and advertise that Samsung did not copy the iPad. After the ruling was handed down, Apple initially posted a somewhat snarky online notice, which angered the judge. This angered the judge, so Apple revised it – but then they allegedly hid the notice with some code on the Apple U.K. website.
While Apple won’t care about the money, this will create an embarrassing black mark for some on the company’s reputation – but what about the judge’s reputation? Any judge that would rule Samsung’s products are “not as cool,” then punish Apple for quoting the ruling, should have their professionalism (and their license to practice law) questioned as well!
Here’s the full text of the ruling, via 9to5Mac:
31. As to the costs (lawyers’ fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, “standard” basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court’s disapproval of a party’s conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple’s conduct warranted such an order.
31. Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that “for technical reasons” Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.