Apple was ordered to make a statement that Samsung had not copied them. Saying "Joe told me to tell you X" is not the same as me telling you X.

Apple trying to pull a fast one by saying "The court of appeals says we should tell you that Samsung didn't copy us" was never going to fly.

"Joe, who thought we were cool and clearly did not think Bill was cool, told us to tell you that he doesn't think Bill copied our amazing coolness. (Of course, Joe is in the minority position on this one, so please ignore him: you should really listen to Sally and Jack.)"

"The following is not true:<exact wording in the judgment>"

Context counts for a lot.

The point of the order was the court felt that Apple should dispel their previous public accusation that Samsung copied their design.

So when Apple issues a statement that says "Court X ordered us to tell you that Samsung didn't copy us, but Court Y did say they copied us." then it's not really following the intent of dispelling their claim

As noted above, the UK doesn't operate on the exact wording of the law. For example, a judge will sometimes wiggle around the wording of an Act of Parliament if he feels that the intent of the Act was breached.

The case taught to law students is that of the prostitutes soliciting from their windows. The law stated that they could not solicit "in" the streets. The judge in the case expanded this to solicit "to" the street, as the purpose was to prevent people being hassled when they walked down the street.

Similar principles apply to judgements: the point of the judgement was to mitigate the public perception that Samsung was copying Apple's designs. Saying "this judge says they didn't copy... but they really did" goes completely against the point of the judgement.

Thanks, that is finally making some sense to me.

Well, law is not (yet) code, and you are expected to use common sense. Apple didn't.

Some people think legal stuff is all about finding loopholes in the rules, but loopholes usually don't work since intent matters more.

Beats me. Apple complied with a sloppy judgment. I'm no great fan of Apple in this, but the appeal judges fucked up by not clearly specifying what Apple needed to do and could not do.

The courts don't work like this, largely because it's a waste of the court's time to figure out every single way some slimy bastard could try and weasel out of their rulings. This is pretty clear-cut too - the court ordered Apple to post a notice saying that Samsung's products had been found not to infringe, and Apple decided to instead post one that argued the court had got it wrong and Samsung were a bunch of evil copycats, which also misrepresented court rulings in other juristictions to make them seem more favourable to Apple in the process.

The judgement specified where, when, and how to publish the notice down to which website and publications, the typeface, and point size.

It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication.

Apple complied with the letter of the judgment and arguably the spirit of the judgment which was "not designed to punish" but rather "to dispel commercial uncertainty". It clearly states that Samsung's products were found not to infringe in England and Wales. Unambiguously. Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?

Going on to provide nuance by quoting the original judge and including rulings from other jurisdictions doesn't negate that.

Apple have been foolish in getting the court's dander up, but they're not wrong.

> It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication.

The judgement included a proposed wording with the introduction "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following". Apple might think that gives them carte blanche to write what they think, but I can guarantee you that no British lawyer would think a wording like that means anything than that they should thread _very_ carefully if deviating from it without consent from the court and/or private agreement with the other party.

> Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?

No, but we can read the rest of the text where they tried to confuse the matter again by misrepresenting rulings from other courts. E.g. the German court did not find infringing copying. The US jury explicitly found the Galaxy Tab (which is what the UK court case and the notice is about) non-infringing.

It clearly and blatantly has a purpose that is at odds with the spirit of the judgement.

You're right, I just re-read the judgment with the proposed wording. Apple should have gone with that verbatim and otherwise shut up so as to not drag it out.

They made what could have been a publicly boring notice buried in the page footer a spectacle.

> It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication.

No, it was pretty clear what message Apple were supposed to give, and that's a good enough ruling.

> "Billy, don't take cookies from the jar."

< munch munch "I didn't take them, they fell out when I held the jar upside down."

> "Don't touch the jar, then."

< munch munch "I did't touch the jar, I used a spoon."

> "Stay 5 meters away from the jar at all times."

< munch munch "I did stay away! I just convinced my brother to get them for me."

Et cetera. With lawyers involved, this kind of process can go on indefinitely. At some point, you have to stop adjusting the rules and call them out on obvious disobedience.

It is only sloppy if you are ignorant of / choose to ignore the law that applies to it.

Sorry, but no, they didn't. The judge didn't fuck up. The court was quite specific in it's order, as someone quoted below:

"Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following: On 9th 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 registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given]. That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe. In the result I would dismiss both appeals but vary the publicity order as indicated or in such other way as may be agreed or settled by further argument. I would hope that any such argument (and any other consequential) arguments can be resolved by written submissions"