They presented the facts and they should be allowed to mention that other jurisdictions have other views of the matter. Does anyone think that they shouldn't be able to?
They chose to take the proposed wording, chop it into two pieces, and inject their own paragraphs that are clearly intended to play up Apple and to downplay and dilute the purpose of the message and create doubt about whether or not there was copying by referring to other judgements, and on top that they are misrepresenting the court cases they mention:
The German court did not find that Samsung had carried out any infringing copying of their design. The US jury did NOT find the Samsung Galaxy Tab infringing. Apple's comment is technically correct, but they are on purpose clearly failing to mention that the judgement is mostly irrelevant to the UK case as it deals mainly with other products than the UK case (which only deals with the Galaxy Tab), and in the one instance where it is relevant, Samsung prevailed.
Apple is free to question the judgement, but doing so by diluting the effect of the very message the judges ordered them to put in place is at best a stupid mistake, at worst wilful attempt at doing an endrun around the court. The only reason they got away with this as lightly as they did is because the judges can't prove it wasn't someone just being stupid. So they've given Apple another chance and given them more rope - if Apple tries this stunt again, someone will be in serious personal trouble.
I think is okay to have Apple announce the court's judgement, but they should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree with it.
It is pretty clear that this is not a problem under US law either: All kinds of legal requirements exist to add specific notices to various products, for example.
> but it should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree with it.
There is nothing in the proposed wording that implies Apples agreement. In fact, the very purpose is to announce the verdict of a court case where Apple very obviously argued for the opposite result.
The proposed wording starts "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled". There's no implication that Apple agrees anywhere.
Should cigarette companies be allowed to write their own diatribe under the "Surgeon General's Warning" label? Cigarette companies definitely don't agree that smoking causes cancer, so why not post a rant about how <Country X> has not yet declared smoking dangerous so the UK is wrong?
http://www.law.arizona.edu/faculty/FacultyPubs/Documents/whi...
(See page 8.)
Do you also admonish American parents who tell their child to say they are sorry for an infraction?
If Apple doesn't want to comply with laws, they shouldn't operate in those countries.
That said, it was obvious they'd get chewed out for this from when they posted it (if you know anything about UK law). It's okay to be smug and they would have probably gotten away with everything except the very last paragraph.
The last paragraph was completely unnecessary, and now they're facing the consequences of their hubris.
The judgement also describes the UK courts view on the US and German cases, which sheds even more light on why they were pissed of at this: Apple's wording might be technically true, but they're misleading the readers of the note the put up there too (e.g. they seem to try to imply the Galaxy Tab - which is what the UK case was about - was found infringing in the US case; it was not).
They are required to comply with a court order with a very clear intent: To rectify the false impression Apple had created that the Samsung Galaxy Tab infringed on UK law and might get banned from sale.
All the court is requiring is that Apple is not diluting that message by including other paragraphs that are at best irrelevant and at most directly misleading.
I am not following that law if I add "but the surgeon general is a stupid head" right after that. Or "but smoking is totally cool in Europe."
I have plenty of other avenues in which I can try to persuade people that the surgeon general is a mean poopy head that they should ignore.
It's insulting to pretend not to understand this, which is also how the judge feels.