[metatronscube]

The UK legal system is a complete joke. Apple should consider using its considerable resources to take legal action with this demand and simply post " X is not as cool as Y" and leave it at that. I can not fathom why this has been pulled up, and would challenge the appeals court to explain why the original passage is non-compliant and if they cant give a reasonable answer I would be meeting them in court.

[vidarh]

In this case the UK legal system is pretty much exactly like any other civilized legal system.

The judge in this case is the court, and when he says the original passage doesn't comply with his order, by definition it does not comply with his order. If they choose to continue to fail to comply with this order, the people responsible finds themselves at risk of being found in contempt of court and jailed.

[Karunamon]

So a single person can perhaps issue an order and not be overruled or challenged in any way?

That hardly seems like a "civilized" legal system. In fact it sounds like something in a corrupt banana republic.

[vidarh]

It can be challenged by appealing the finding. This is already in the appeals court - good luck to Apple's lawyers in getting the UK Supreme Court to overrule a court order about a small statement on their website.

But what metratonscube suggested was to ignore the court order and put up a message that is blatantly in violation of the order then fight them in court if they didn't come up with a reason to comply. Ignoring this court order would be straightforward contempt of court at this stage, and will result in substantially more severe sanctions than being told to put a modified message up.

And yes, this is how a civilized legal system handles it - every single European country, the US and most other countries in the world gives the judges (in this case a panel in the appeals court, so not just one) wide latitude in ensuring compliance with their orders. The failure to comply with a judge's legally issued order without specifically going to the court and asking for a stay pending an appal, is considered extremely serious exactly because the rule of law requires someone to be the arbiter, and if one party was able to get away with just ignoring what the judge orders them to, then the court has no ability to carry out it's duties.

[DannyBee]

Err, this is true in almost all "civilized" legal systems.

Judges everywhere are always responsible for determining if you are compliant with their orders, and holding you accountable if not.

Not everything is appealable.

In every justice system, there is always someone who is "always right because they are last", not "last because they are always right".

For example, in the US, the supreme court judges also act as the highest individual judge in a given circuit court. This usually comes into play with stays of death penalty cases. The judges usually refer the petition to the full court, and the full court takes a vote. However, this is not required. The judge could simply deny/accept it. You would have no way to appeal this.

[smackfu]

In this case, the original judge wanted the notice on Apple's UK home page. Apple did appeal that judgement, and the appeals court said it would be sufficient to put it in a link from the footer. So there is recourse.

[awfabian2]

In the US, such orders usually have to be in writing, be pretty specific, and the meaning has to be fairly clear. You would have a very difficult time holding someone in contempt for a court order that's not written. And, so, what's written IS the order, regardless of the judge's intent.

In other words, a third party judge should be able to judge compliance with the order, so it certainly would not be the case that if the original judge thinks something doesn't comply with his order that it necessarily doesn't comply.

[vidarh]

The court order is in writing, and it includes a proposed text of the statement. Apple changed it. This is what the court wrote:

"Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. 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.:"

If Apple thinks that "I would propose the following" means they're free to change the text as they please, they better fire their lawyer, especially given the preceding "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side".

[michaelhoffman]

Apple already is meeting them in court. Apple lost.

[blibble]

fighting an institution that makes the law probably isn't the best of ideas

[BCM43]

They're not (they're fighting the institution charged with penalizing), and it happens all the time.

[pyre]

The parent was seemingly promoting the idea of Apple personally suing the judge because they don't like his ruling. If this was possible most legal systems would crumble.