Apple ordered to pay Samsung’s legal fees after ‘huge confusion’ and ‘false innuendo’

Apple ordered to pay Samsung’s legal fees after ‘huge confusion’ and ‘false innuendo’Where were we with the Apple/Samsung apology saga? Most recently, we heard that Apple was using JavaScript to hide its apology (since amended).

If you rewind your brains back a tad further, you’ll remember Apple’s first attempt at an apology didn’t quite meet requirements, and as such the Californians have now been ordered to pay Samsung’s legal fees on an indemnity basis.

A fantastic document from the England and Wales Court of Appeal reveals just how much upset Apple caused, as its original statement is torn to shreds.

Ultimately, we’re told that Apple’s statement was “false and misleading”, “misleading by omission”, and “calculated to produce huge confusion”, and contained “false innuendo”.

Amusingly, Sir Robin Jacob adds that Apple’s claim that it’d take 14 days to make amendments to its website “beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous.”

With regards to the fees: "we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, "standard" basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order."

Sir Robin concludes: “The reality is that wherever Apple has sued on this registered design or its counterpart, it has ultimately failed. It may or may not have other intellectual property rights which are infringed.

“Indeed the same may be true the other way round for in some countries Samsung are suing Apple. But none of that has got anything to do with the registered design asserted by Apple in Europe.

“Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it.”

via: The Verge

Read more about: Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1AndroidiOSApple iPad

Add a comment
4 comments

Pondlife  Nov. 12, 2012 at 12:17

Cue eddyday without reading the linked court case link declaring apple were still right...

That linked document is a good read.

socialjeebus  Nov. 12, 2012 at 13:42

Cue eddyday without reading the linked court case link declaring apple were still right...

That linked document is a good read.


If they've got any sense at all (by they I mean Apple) they won't be going back to an English or Welsh court for a long time.

By their borderline contempt of court and incredulous response they've burned more than a few bridges.

The last sentence is the most damning imo:

"I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple."

Pondlife  Nov. 12, 2012 at 13:49

You'd have to question whether they do have any sense, the more you look at Apple's first statement the more you wonder what they were thinking when they put it up.

socialjeebus  Nov. 12, 2012 at 13:56

You'd have to question whether they do have any sense, the more you look at Apple's first statement the more you wonder what they were thinking when they put it up.

Like I've said before, Apple really does pick the worst law firms to represent them.

If you get the chance, check out their defence argument against Proview, they claimed the law firm they hired to be the proxy in the deal to buy the rights to the name couldn't read Chinese script hence they hadn't fully understood the purchase contract.

This being a law firm based in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Needless to say it destroyed any remaining credibility they had.

Email:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

Comment: