Anyone who read thru the previous article concerning Apple's compliance with the order and followed my links to the Appeals Court order itself explaining it shouldn't be shocked that Apple got the court's attention again. I explained my view for a possible reason for Apple to get an additional court sanction several days back. In hindsight it's pretty well dead-on.
"I thought it a bit silly myself when it was first ordered. But now with Apple's latest response to the judge's order it does seem to serve a purpose. Apple continues to assert that Samsung is infringing on this design patent even after the EU wide legal judgement that they do not, and apparently the UK judge may have anticipated Apple's continued claims contrary to the ruling.
...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.
"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."