Court Says UK Apology Mealy Mouthed, Demands Apple Pay Samsung's Legal Costs - Page 3
Samsung appealed over the addition of content within and throughout the statement, rather than afterward, as well as the time period it took Apple to place the apology on its own site and in papers. The court, overseen by Sir Robin Jacob and attended by Lord Justices Longmore and Kitchin, saw Apple's printed notices as having created additional confusion, pointing out headlines from news sites and blogs that covered the printed apology:
APPLE: SCREW YOU, BRITS, everyone else says Samsung copied us was one headline taken from The Register. The court cited that a number of other articles existed that were posted just after Apple's publication, and with similar sentiment.
Seems Apple forgot the difference between the court of public opinion and actual courts in its choice of wording for its mea culpa. The former loves to see a little in-your-face, and the comments in support of Apple on dozens of tech sites indeed supported this. The latter, however, saw the same supportive comments as proof that the public in general did not understand the nature of the October verdict. In response to a complaint by Samsung, the court then moved to demand repayment of Samsung's court costs, as a result of Apple not having complied.
Payment for damages, according to the Appellate Court, are to be done on an indemnity basis, which is typically at a higher rate than the standard basis.