Apple lost their suit. Instead of stating that they would try and appeal or that they didn't agree with the decision - they openly mocked the court.
Let's add to the Timeline here :
9th of July : Apple lost the lawsuit about Community Design Registration '607 to Samsung in the UK.
Even after this ruling, they kept the media pressure, stating that Samsung had copied them.
18th of July : Judge grants an injunction to Samsung to prevent Apple from spreading confusion about the earlier verdict, so that people won't believe there is an legitimacy problem with Samsung products. This injunction includes relief in the form of Apple posting the results of the 9th on their website and in printed publications.
Following this, Apple files for an appeal on both rulings. Requirements for the advertisements in the 18th's ruling are suspended during appeal.
18th of October : Apple loses both appeals. 3 Judges uphold the original ruling about non-infringement and also agree that Apple's media behavior following the ruling requires relief to Samsung. They also agree with the original ruling's legal basis for such relief.
Then we get the childish games. First the "BUT!" message that includes "false" information in the form of stating that Apple has won victories in other countries against Samsung. The goal of the message was to remove confusion, but since Apple's victories have nothing to do with Community Design registration '607 or the US equivalent, Design Patent '889, the court finds that Apple's message is misleading and confusing, thus not following the original spirit of the ruling.
When asked to change it, Apple replies it will take 24 hours to take down the message and 14 days to put in the new one. This raises a bit of ire from the court, who impose a 48 hour limit.
Then the Javascript bit, to push the message off to the bottom of the page.
From the court
ruling of the 9th of November, highlighting why Apple failed to comply and why more remedies are needed, Samsung even went so far as to quote "Apple fanboys" on the Register's site :
Samsung has supported its application by citation from a large number of press and web reports showing that the effect of the Contested Notice has indeed been to undermine what was intended. Our attention was specifically drawn, for instance, to an online magazine called "The Register":
APPLE : SCREW YOU, BRITS, everyone else says Samsung copied us
Apple has complied with a UK court order by admitting on its website that Samsung 's Galaxy Tab did not rip off the patented iPad design. High Court Judge Birss had instructed Apple to publish a statement online and in print that the South Korean electronics giant had not infringed Cupertino's patent.
The statement can be found via a small link labelled " Samsung/Apple UK judgement" on Apple 's UK homepage and is a mealy mouthed six-paragraph account of the litigation over Apple 's registered design.
It's funny, because it's the same kind of postings we have here, basically people have not read the rulings, don't understand the case and just think it's about "copying the iPad", thus demonstrating the confusion Apple is creating by its messages. Your own words used against your fandom. Harsh.
Also, people confused about what was false need to read the ruling, it's plainly detailed what the court took exception to, the same thing we've been trying to explain :
Here what Apple added was false and misleading. I turn to analyse it. The first sentence reads:
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design.
That is false in the following ways:
(a) "Regarding the same patent." No patent of any kind has been involved in Germany or here, still less "the same patent."
(b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published.
(c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the 10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law. But the statement is likely to be read as of more general application.
The second sentence reads:
A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc.
That is misleading by omission. For the US jury specifically rejected Apple 's claim that the US design patent corresponding to the Community Design in issue here was infringed. The average reader would think that the UK decision was at odds with that in the US. Far from that being so, it was in accordance with it.
The third sentence reads:
So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung wilfully copied Apple 's far more popular iPad.
This is calculated to produce huge confusion. The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying, which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying. There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true.
Can't get clearer than that now.
Now, as to why all this "media hoopla" Apple generated actually hurt them, the "They should have kept their mouths shuts" bit, well, that did hurt them :
Given our finding that the Contested Notice did not comply with our order and did not achieve what was intended there was no dispute but that we should order it be removed. There was dispute as to what should go up in its place. Apple contended that no more was needed on its home page. We thought otherwise. The Contested Notice had had over a million hits.
I'm pretty sure MacRumors, AppleInsider, 9to5, CultofMac and other publications "reporting" on "Apple's playfulness" with the ruling sure helped generate those million hits... Too bad I guess.
So, Apple's big mouth hurt them, then it's fan base hurt them even more by rallying behind their big mouth and generating publicity, not to mention more confusion by them not understanding the verdict. Yes, everyone here who posted "Samsung copied the iPad, it's known!" while ignoring what the case was really about actually hurt Apple.
Good job guys.
Last tidbit from the 9th's ruling, this one is particularly telling :
I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple .
Lack of integrity folks. That's what you're defending when you keep saying the U.K. court is to blame.
