UK Court of Appeal Reprimands Apple Over Mandated Samsung Statement

Macthorpe writes "In the UK, Apple were previously ordered to add a statement to their website stating that Samsung did not copy their designs, following a previous case where this was ruled by the UK courts. However, today the same court revealed that Apple's statement is not good enough. From the article: 'The acknowledgement put up last week, linked from the home page by a tiny link, was deemed to be "non-compliant" with the order that the court had made in October. The court has now ordered it to correct the statement – and the judges, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob, indicated that they were not pleased with Apple's failure to put a simpler statement on the site.' It appears the main objection is the statement is on a separate page and only linked from the hompage — and that the statement is buried in marketing blurb, and also put next to references to a case Apple won."

Comments

Pissing off judges

[onyxruby]

I'm surprised the judges didn't throw the book at them when they tried this bit:

Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site

How on earth did the person who argued that get away with not being charged with perjury? To be perfectly frank, I'm absolutely amazed that they got away with a simple reprimand. I would imagine that if Apple pulls another stunt that they will face much more than a reprimand.

Re:Apples' response to the reprimand

[Rogerborg]

Indeed, but a key critera of a notice is that it be noticeable. Tucking it away in teenyfont among the nobody-reads-us links at the bottom of the page is an unreasonable interpretation of the modified order: "uncluttered" is not the same as "obscured".

Apple asked for and were gifted a reasonable compromise, and chose to take advantage of it. A sanction that simply restores the original order is appropriate.