|Apple has been ordered to pay Samsung's costs in its UK legal battle. The Court of Appeal made the order under an "indemnity basis," typically higher than the normal "standard" basis of legal costs, due to the "false and misleading" information placed by Apple in the first court-ordered statement on its website.
As noted by GrokLaw, the court has since published its judgment online. While the online statements' contents were considered a more important matter, the court first addressed Apple's print-based statements, which was described as “lackadaisical at best.” The initial order to publish advertisements with the statement was given on October 18th, with publication set to be "in the earliest available issue" of the specified newspapers and magazines. The company was said to understand that it had to "co-ordinate adverts across those publications in order to ensure the widest readership possible is exposed to the advert on the same day," which is a difficult task to complete considering the different publishing schedules and long lead times for magazines compared to newspapers.
The initial statement, put onto the UK section of Apple's website, included the infamous "Not as cool" comments from Judge Birss. When introduced by the words "In the ruling, the judge made several points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products," it was the view of the court that the Judge's comments would be taken by readers as being a direct comparison between the scrutinized Samsung products and the iPad, when the case was between Samsung's products and Apple's patent.
The mention of other cases that went Apple's way also came under fire. While Apple mentioned its win in the billion-dollar US case, it neglected to note that the same design claim that was used in the UK case was rejected by the US jury. The court said "The average reader would think that the UK decision was at odds with that in the US. Far from that being so, it was in accordance with it."
The decision finishes with a comment over the company's need for 14 days to comply with the second statement. At the time, the court said that the 48 hours, considered generous by the judges, was sufficient to make the changes, but would consider extending the time allowed upon receiving an application, complete with an affidavit from a senior executive explaining why more time was needed. In the end, the change was made without a time extension, leading one judge, Sir Robin Jacob, to say "I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple."