Samsung v Apple: "Be you never so high ....."

In Apple v Samsung: the Appeal  I discussed the notice that Apple was ordered to display on its British website and the words that it actually displayed.  Many people I spoke to (especially those who own Apple phones and tablets) thought that notice was very clever and marvelled at the spin that Apple had put on bad news.   It appears from "Apple ordered to re-write 'inaccurate' Samsung statement"  that the Court of Appeal took a different view and ordered Apple to take the notice down and replace it with one that does comply with their lordships' intentions.

Apparently Apple's counsel asked the Court for 14 days to compose its new notice.  That seems to have gone down like a lead balloon,    Lord Justice Longmore replied:: "We are just amazed that you cannot put the right notice up at the same time as you take the other one down."  Sir Robin Jacob, added: "I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit about why that is such a technical difficulty for the Apple company."

The BBC's website links to a number of other commentaries on the hearing of which the most amusing is The New Statesman's "Apple reprimanded over Samsung non-apology" 1 Nov 2012 with its lovely cartoon of one "Sad Mac",  Referring to the detail of Judge Birss QC's order earlier in the year which I discussed in Samsung v Apple - the Aftermath on 28 Aug 2912 it noted that "the judge failed to mention one important rule: don't take the piss."   A fuller report on the hearing is carried by Bloomberg "Apple Leaves U.K. Judge at ‘Loss’ Over Samsung Web Posts".

News of the case quickly crossed the Atlantic.  I actually learned of it from the Washington Post Tech News Daily "British court: Apple must reissue apology to Samsung" 1 Nov 2012.  The comments on the Washington Post and Bloomberg articles are interesting. "Well maybe the court should first rewrite its opinion, if it can" suggested one.  Another added "This is a childish judgement and Apple put a finger in the judge's eye by telling him he was wrong in his judge and they don't like it.  What else is new about Apple bashing but that it put some meaning into some people's sad lives." However, yet another wrote: "It's pretty simple what happened here. Apple tried to push their luck, and they got caught.  They've turned a minor setback into a much bigger, more embarrassing setback."

If and when a transcript is published I shall return to this subject with some analysis.


Peter Groves said…
Interesting comments on Washington Post and Bloomberg articles? From what you quote, they appear pathetic and ignorant. As for Apple, the word that springs to mind is "hubris", but perhaps I am just more polite than the New Statesman.

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright - Ashley Wilde Group Ltd. v BCPL Limited

What to do about the new Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct

Software Patents: January Patents Limited's Application