Those observations notwithstanding, you are still misrepresenting why the judge required the announcement and what he wanted it to say, and, by extension, what Apple could or could not include in the announcement. Samsung sought two things:
(1) an injunction against Apple (or any of its agents) from suggesting that the Samsung products infringe on the registered community design in question, and
(2) an order for dissemination of the decision by Apple.
Apple resisted the first, arguing that it restricted freedom of speech and represented a sinister attempt to restrain public discussion of verdicts, and resisted the second, saying that they were no longer asserting infringement so it was not necessary.
The judge denied (1), primarily because he agreed with Apple and found that it would interfere with free speech and unfairly restrain the right to disagree with a judgement. With a number of reservations, including the observation that similar claims were being heard elsewhere with varying outcomes, he found for Samsung on the order because he felt that Apple, by innuendo, were continuing to imply infringement.
Note that he was explicitly not suggesting that Apple did not have the right to disagree with the decision or make those comments, but that in view of their apparent continued disagreement he felt that the order to disseminate was reasonable. Now, considering the order itself, the requirement was, in both intent and wording, simply to disseminate that this particular court had found that Samsung had not infringed, not to state absolutely that Samsung had not infringed - a distinction clearly made by his comments on other jurisdictions.
Apple's announcement contained the following elements:
(1) a clear statement of this court's decision, exactly as required by the judge;
(2) some of the judge's comments in support of his ruling;
(3) the observation, also noted by the judge in his decision, that other courts had arrived at different conclusions.
The announcement did not include a statement that Apple disagreed with the ruling, even though the judge had made it clear in his decision that they were entitled to do so, and that he had denied Samsung's requested injunction in support of precisely that right.
In view of which, it would seem most unlikely that the judge would even be troubled by the way that Apple complied with his order, let alone view it as failing to comply. It is not surprising to read uninformed drivel from multiple posters about contempt of court, Apple's childish behavior etc. that inevitably drowns these kind of discussions, but you would do us a service if you did not try to legitimize their misconceptions.
Vindicated.
Apparently - although I would like to read the latest ruling. Did you actually disagree with my assessment - you did not say anything after I posted it? Having re-read the original order and the earlier appeal decision, I still cannot see where Apple failed to comply.
