[Hontano]

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.

[vidarh]

> 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.

[Hontano]

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.

[Deestan]

> 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.