Doesn't this strike anyone as unusual? IANAL (or a solicitor for that matter) but this seems like the sort of ruling you'd get in some sort of defamation case. This was a patents case. Isn't the court over stepping the mark with this, or is it not unusual?
Apple was hit with this because they _were_ in effect defaming Samsung by being extremely aggressive about making statements about how they had a slam dunk case that Samsung were ripping them off, well beyond just saying they were "confident" or similar vague phrase that parties often throw around.
If they'd left the talking to their lawyers in the court room, this would indeedhave been a strange ruling. But the judge has in effect made an attempt at providing Samsung restitution of sorts for the false claims Apple were repeatedly making in the press.
They even sent out statements that basically pretended the original court ruling against them didn't happen in response to media inquiries about that ruling. That had to require huge brass balls, but I can't see it impressing any judge.
'Apple declined to comment specifically on the UK case but, in a statement, repeated its view that there was no "no coincidence" that Samsung's latest products resembled the iPhone and iPad.
It added: "This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual properties when companies steal our ideas."'
Thanks. I misread the article and thought they had to "continue running the ad". As if they were already running it. Switched off my adblocker for nothing it seems :)
