In the last paragraph of the judgment, Sir Robin Jacob wrote as follows:
88. 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.
So the choice is either (1) run the publicity "as indicated" or (2) "as may be agreed or settled" between the parties. I do not imagine that Samsung had agreed to, or settled with the notice Apple put up on their site at the moment. The only possible notice compliant with the court order would, therefore, be "as indicated" by Sir Robin Jacob. He indicated in the preceding paragraph 87:
"... 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."
Apple should have put up a notice with this text (which is "as indicated" by the court). If you freely add or subtract paragraphs from the text ordered by the court, you are not complying with the court order. I do not suppose Judge Birss intended his "not as cool" passages to be quoted and used in the manner Apple did.
Slashdot Mirror
So the choice is either (1) run the publicity "as indicated" or (2) "as may be agreed or settled" between the parties. I do not imagine that Samsung had agreed to, or settled with the notice Apple put up on their site at the moment. The only possible notice compliant with the court order would, therefore, be "as indicated" by Sir Robin Jacob. He indicated in the preceding paragraph 87: "... Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
Apple should have put up a notice with this text (which is "as indicated" by the court). If you freely add or subtract paragraphs from the text ordered by the court, you are not complying with the court order. I do not suppose Judge Birss intended his "not as cool" passages to be quoted and used in the manner Apple did.