Apple Will Pay For Paltry Samsung Apology
U.K. judge, irritated with Apple's halfhearted compliance with the court's decision, orders it to pay Samsung's legal fees.
The U.K. court found Samsung innocent of infringing on Apple's iPad design earlier this year. Apple was asked to make a public apology on its U.K. website stating that Samsung did not, in fact, copy the iPad. It apologized, sort of. The first few paragraphs of the apology explained well enough how things turned out in the U.K. case. But then Apple followed up with this:
More Global CIO Insights
- The Untapped Potential of Mobile Apps for Commercial Customers
- Protecting Enterprise Data From Endpoint Threats
- Effectively Controlling IT Change
- Web Conferencing for SMBs: 3 Key Considerations for IT Teams at Small to Midsized Firms
"In a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."
That ticked off the U.K. judge a wee bit. "I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," said Judge Robin Jacob. "That is a plain breach of the order."
The court itself added, "What Apple added was false and misleading. There is a false innuendo that the U.K. court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true."
[ Want more about the smartphone wars? See Samsung Galaxy S III Steals iPhone's Crown. ]
Jacob ordered Apple to resubmit the apology within 24 hours. Apple did, but stuck the apology "below the fold" on its website, making it difficult to find. That didn't make the judge too happy, either.
Now Apple has to pay. Said the court:
"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. ... I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple."
Apple has had mixed results in overseas courts in its crusade against competitor Samsung. In the United States, it won a massive $1.05 billion judgment from a jury in August when Samsung was found guilty of infringing on a number of Apple patents regarding smartphones. Apple has asked that Samsung be prevented from selling the infringing devices in the United States, in addition to the fine. The judge overseeing that case, which is taking place in San Jose, Calif., is reviewing materials December 6, when a more final outcome is likely to be made clear.
InformationWeek is conducting our annual Outlook Survey to explore how IT leaders are planning their priorities and budgets for 2013. The results of the survey will appear in an upcoming issue as well as in an in-depth report. Take our InformationWeek 2013 Outlook Survey now and enter to win one Samsung Series 5 Chromebook. Survey ends Nov. 19.