Muppetry, they can't get much closer than "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."
BTW, my guess as to the Judge Birss' reasons for making such an order in the first place is apparently dead on correct. See points 44 and 45 from the judges order.
As an aside, I'm guessing Apple already confirmed they don't have any other cases arriving in that UK court in the foreseeable future. Any Apple penalties or admonitions in other UK proceedings might consider how Apple complied with this one. With the billions that Apple has they can certainly afford to be a bit arrogant if they wish, and absolutely have the means to back it up. In my opinion tho it wasn't the best way to go about this one, even if may meet the letter of the law and the judge's order. . . . but of course my opinion isn't the one that counts anyway.
EDIT: If you read item 51 in the judge's ruling on Apple's appeal, it speaks to the very same issue that Apple is again repeating in their court-ordered notice.
"In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing."
...Which is why the order to publish was upheld on appeal. Yet Apple again makes the same claims that led to the order in the first place. When this thread first started this morning I disagreed that Apple was in any danger of any further court sansctions on the matter. Now, after reading the reasons behind the order in the first place, I'm not as certain.
For those wondering why the order was made to begin with, but lacking the patience to read the entire document to know why, just read items 43 thru 58. It will take less than three minutes.
Edited by Gatorguy - 10/26/12 at 11:11am