The following says it all:
"There is a further false innuendo that the UK court’s decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true."
That simply is true. The UK court went above and beyond what was necessary to dismiss the case. They wanted Apple to make a public apology to clarify that Samsung has not wilfully infringed on Apple's IP. Other courts have found Samsung has wilfully copied them with plenty of evidence and fined them. Those two decisions are directly opposed. While the judgements on a particular element of this whole saga are in agreement, the overall conclusions drawn from each side aren't.
The intent of the UK ruling was declared to be the following:
"to correct the damaging impression the South Korean-based company was copying Apple’s product."
And yet at another point in time was decalred to be:
"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law.
So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products.The registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad. It is quite a lot different. For instance the iPad is a lot thinner, and has noticeably different curves on its sides. There may be other differences - even though I own one, I have not made a detailed comparison. Whether the iPad would fall within the scope of protection of the registered design is completely irrelevant. We are not deciding that one way or the other. This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed."
Seems a bit of a contradiction to me to rule on whether the Galaxy Tab infringes on the patent, ignoring the iPad and then make a ruling to indicate to the public that Samsung hadn't copied Apple's product when all they established was that they didn't infringe on the patent, which looks nothing like it. The court is being disinigenuous by overreaching the intent of the ruling.
Let the UK court see the new design patent they have and Samsung's internal documents detailing every element they intended to copy to improve their own substandard implementation. Let's see if that urges them to reach the same conclusion.
Maybe it will help if Sir Ive pulls out his knighthood:
"In July this year police dropped the case, amid claims evidence was covered by parliamentary privilege and could not be used in court."
The integrity of the UK judicial system in plain view.