Yes, Apple was making fun of the ruling with the original statement. It was a stupid ruling that deserved mockery, tyrants should be given no respect.
And yes, I'll call it tyranny. What the original court demanded is that Apple affirmatively state the judgement as correct, to go beyond that and state not just no infringement but no copying. The mark of a democracy is the right to tell every government official "you're wrong" and say about every governmental action "This is wrong". This court decision required Apple to publicly and at their own expense state the decision was wrong. Particularly when there was no action to cure, no posts on the website about how terrible Samsung was to copy their designs or advertisements about how you shouldn't buy from those copycats Samsung.
And so, they did indeed publicly state the judgement, they also pointed out that there have been judgements going the other way. The tyrants are now insisting not only that Apple affirm their decision but deny other decisions.
Well, they have the power of the law. I wonder if they will object to Apple adding one line, "And yet it moves"
You need to review some of your terminology. Maye a refresher course in government.
It's the right of citizens in a democracy (not corporations) to disagree with elected officials (not government officials) provided that a) they support their disagreements with relevant civil or criminal statutes, generally in the form of civil liberties, and b) continue to follow the law--including those officials' decisions--unless the law goes against the civil liberties etc of part a. This case doesn't fit any of those criteria.