New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Apple Ordered to Pay All of Samsung's Court Costs in UK Tablet Design Dispute

Following a series of events in a UK court case between Apple and Samsung that resulted in Apple having to publish a revised notice acknowledging that Samsung's Galaxy Tab devices had not infringed upon the registered design related to the iPad, the court has now ruled that Apple must pay all of Samsung's legal fees. The order was made after the court decided that Apple's behavior in the matter had been inappropriate and showed a "lack of integrity".
As to the costs (lawyers' fees) to be awarded against Apple, 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.

The order also highlights the court's issues with Apple's original statement, which contained improperly inserted text within the notice that was required by the court. The court's order specifically permitted Apple to comment on or publish its own information relating to the case, but the company was judged to have purposely circumvented the intent of the order by inserting information judged to be false within the ordered text.
I do not think the order as made precluded any addition to the required notice if that addition had been true and did not undermine the effect of the required notice. But I do consider that adding false and misleading material was illegitimate. For by adding such material the context of the required notice is altered so that it will be understood differently. [...]

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.
Beyond the inclusion of false and misleading text within the required notice, the court also took exception to Apple's claim that it would take 14 days to modify the notice posted on its website. The court ultimately gave Apple 48 hours to make the changes, and the company complied with that demand.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

25 months ago
Well, that's what Apple gets for trying to be a wise-ass.
Rating: 71 Votes
25 months ago
Anyone else notice so much of the apple news lately is about these legal games and fighting with their partners, suppliers, competitors.

Apple has really lost their ability to focus on product and would rather get into school-yard squabbles than focus on their business

Apple 2012 = Microsoft 1998.
Rating: 36 Votes
25 months ago
Times are changing, macrumors used to be full of fanboys that didnt care about logic but it seems Apples behaviour has pissed them off too.
Rating: 28 Votes
25 months ago

Talk about the Judge throwing a hissy fit.

I might be a little more sympathetic to samsung, If they had not exactly copied apple advertisements, and packaging. But that is just way too "coincidental" to be an accident.

Apple disagreed with the decision, and playfully pointed out the Judges own words. He took offense and pitched a tantrum, by ordering to pay Samsung, as punishment for mocking his short sighted decision.


Please show me where he threw a "tantrum" ?

Apple didn't "playfully" do anything. It was strategic. And it backfired. They hedged a bet and lost. They knew the first post wouldn't comply. They lied about how long it would take to correct it. Then they had fun with the javascript code.

The judge ordered a specific message to be posted. Apple didn't post that message exclusively. They added commentary and negating the purpose of the message in the first place.

You can love Apple and think what they did was funny. But I can't see how anyone would think what they did was in the spirit of what the court required. Unless you're just blind.

But do show us any evidence of a tantrum. I'm pretty sure he made a ruling and when it wasn't kept to the letter of the law, he responded in kind.

You just don't like the outcome. Maybe it's you that's posting a tantrum?
Rating: 26 Votes
25 months ago

The real issue here is that the Judge made on record comments that basically sound like he agrees personally that Samsung copied, but the legal tests that would allow him to declare a violation of the law were not met. Then when he made this order he wasn't precise in the rules and opened himself up to having those comments exposed, thus causing embarrassment.

So he screams that Apple knew what was intended etc. which is a bit ironic since it seems he recognized that Samsung 'intended' to copy Apple's product design but he test of specificity failed and in patents specifics trump 'intent'.


The real issue is that you also didn't read any of the rulings
Rating: 20 Votes
25 months ago
Pretty obnoxious behaviour by Apple. I'll bet the heels wouldn't have been dragged if this had been a judgement from an American court.
Rating: 18 Votes
25 months ago

Anyone else tired of seeing that Samsung logo on this site?

If you're tired of seeing it on the site, I suggest you don't open any of your Apple products.
It's in there too. ;)
Rating: 17 Votes
25 months ago

Court to Apple:

"You know what we meant, you know how to comply. Now COMPLY."


In the UK yes, but not in the states. It's a good rule that I wish they'd implement here (in the US).
Rating: 16 Votes
25 months ago
Court to Apple:

"You know what we meant, you know how to comply. Now COMPLY."
Rating: 15 Votes
25 months ago

Maybe that intensity will start Samsung on a path to creating something completely new that blows the market away and stop with the copying. ;)


What copying ? Except for that verdict that's being contested in the states because of the foreman not understanding prior art rules or following jury instruction, they haven't been found guilty of any copying yet. ;)
Rating: 14 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]