• Home
  • Apple
  • News
  • UK Court Punishes Apple (Again), Orders Them to Pay Samsung’s Legal Costs

UK Court Punishes Apple (Again), Orders Them to Pay Samsung’s Legal Costs

UK Court Punishes Apple (Again), Orders Them to Pay Samsung’s Legal Costs

There has been a lot of heat lately surrounding a controversial U.K. court ruling requiring Apple to publicly apologize to Samsung, and advertise that Samsung did not copy the iPad. After the ruling was handed down, Apple initially posted a somewhat snarky online notice, which angered the judge. This angered the judge, so Apple revised it – but then they allegedly hid the notice with some code on the Apple U.K. website.

 The U.K. judge that ordered the ruling is once again rather unhappy with Apple over their shenanigans with the notice, and has now chastised Apple’s “unprofessional actions,” and has punished them by ordering Apple to pay Samsung’s legal expenses for the case.

While Apple won’t care about the money, this will create an embarrassing black mark for some on the company’s reputation – but what about the judge’s reputation? Any judge that would rule Samsung’s products are “not as cool,” then punish Apple for quoting the ruling, should have their professionalism (and their license to practice law) questioned as well!

Here’s the full text of the ruling, via 9to5Mac:

31. 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.

31. Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that “for technical reasons” Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.

  1. MRonin says:

    “Any judge that would rule Samsung’s products are “not as cool,” thenpunish Apple for quoting the ruling, should have their professionalism (and their license to practice law) questioned as well!” This, THIS is what I’ve been screaming for months now. It’s clear there is either abject bias or blatant stupidity on the part of the judges in this case. Ruling against Apple is one thing, you win some you lose some. Acting like some arrogant holier-than-thou king dictating to his “lowly” subjects is another thing entirely and should never be condoned in any court of law in any country.

  2. LDMartin1959 says:

    Sounds more like a judge with a hard-on for Apple and more insterested in how he can screw them than a judge who is interested in impartial judicial behaviour.

  3. PVD says:

    C’mon let’s face it, how would have Samsung handled their apology if the result had gone the other way? Probably the exact same way! This is not to say that Apple could of handled their apology a bit better but these day it all seems about point scoring and market leadership at any cost. Personally the whole Apple , Samsung thing has become rather tiresome.

  4. 386836 524104Some genuinely good info , Gladiola I observed this. 685074

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *