Apple ordered to publish Samsung apology in UK

 

'iPad is cool' judge balances the scales.

A UK court has ordered Apple to publicly admit key rival Samsung did not copy the iPad tablet in its own designs.

Under the order from UK High Court Judge Colin Birrs, Apple would be forced to publish details of its key loss in a patent battle against the South Korean manufacturer earlier this month on its website, Bloomberg reported.

Apple must also take out and pay for notices published in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, as well as The Guardian's mobile magazine and T3.

The order from Birrs, who earlier this month ruled Samsung's tablets were unlikely to be confused with iPads because they were not as cool, was seen as a way of restoring the balance for the Korean company, whose victory against Apple was hollowed out by his choice of words.

Apple's lawyer in the patent case, Richard Hacon, protested that the order meant the California-based company would have to publish an advertisement for Samsung.

"No company likes to refer to a rival on its website," Hacon says.

Samsung said that "should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited".

Lawyers for the Korean company had complained at the court hearing that statements made by Apple that Samsung had copied designs "caused real commercial harm".

Apple indicated that it would appeal Birss's initial decision.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Apple ordered to publish Samsung apology in UK
 
 
 
Top Stories
Beyond ACORN: Cracking the infosec skills nut
[Blog post] Could the Government's cybercrime focus be a catalyst for change?
 
The iTnews Benchmark Awards
Meet the best of the best.
 
Telstra hands over copper, HFC in new $11bn NBN deal
Value of 2011 deal remains intact.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest Comments
Polls
Who do you trust most to protect your private data?







   |   View results
Your bank
  39%
 
Your insurance company
  3%
 
A technology company (Google, Facebook et al)
  8%
 
Your telco, ISP or utility
  7%
 
A retailer (Coles, Woolworths et al)
  2%
 
A Federal Government agency (ATO, Centrelink etc)
  20%
 
An Australian law enforcement agency (AFP, ASIO et al)
  14%
 
A State Government agency (Health dept, etc)
  6%
TOTAL VOTES: 1801

Vote
Do you support the abolition of the Office of the Information Commissioner?