1. Made on the home page itself
2. In a 14pt font which (according to http://www.getallfix.com/2011/11/convert-empxpt-and-in-css/) should be some 19px high.
They also revised the time it has to be there down from 6 months to 1 month.
Open to interpretation, IMHO, though I would have assumed the judge meant the front pages.
>Mr Carr [for Samsung] realistically recognised that Apple had a genuine interest in keeping it uncluttered. He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate.
When your big advantage is that you and your products exude class where others don't, gloating about it like a little kid just feels very wrong.
Casual visitors to apple.com/uk are not going to read this.
Unfortunately, the class you mention tends to be overshadowed by this. Apple can't afford to be classy, if it gives up it's bullying ways for even a short period of time, it will find that Samsung responds not in kind, but will sense weakness and launch an even stronger offence.
What we have now is a case of mutually assured destruction, eventually both companies will be so wrapped up in legal dealings and spiteful actions that they will lose sight on what's really important: giving your customers cool and functional gadgets to play with, which as well as being bad for both of these companies is also bad for the industry and we, the consumers.
They were ordered to give an apology, and instead forwarded a conceited, weasley worded temper tantrum. There's nothing ruthless about that, it's something toddlers do every day.
Apple is certainly no angel but if you think Samsung is a company with no ethical concerns or that it isn't a ruthless competitor you haven't been looking very closely. [No very large company is completely free of ethical issues. I'm not aware of Samsung being over the line to the extent that I wouldn't work for them on that basis.]
So far I've found: http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-seeking-block-sales-up... Article claims it was just mirroring of Apple court strategy.
I don't know if that's the same thing here: http://www.firstpost.com/tech/south-korea-court-bans-both-ap... But if so then it didn't turn out particularly good for either of the companies.
There was also a bit of government protectionism in South Korea http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html?mod=... but I think you can't attribute this to Samsung offensive action.
"Goldstein is not a crook?! Goldstein is not a thief?!"
"This intonation does not sound like a revocation at all."
"Your honour, I have read what has been written. The intonation has not been written here."
"Well, then at least apologize!"
"I apologize that Goldstein is a crook! I apologize that Goldstein is a thief!"
But to be honest given what the judge actually said, he surely can't have expected anything else? Cherry picking was obviously going to be an option for Apple and he frankly gave them the cherry to end all cherries.