...except, ironically, in their home court where the CA jury ruled that the Samsung Galaxy Tab did not infringe.
Gosh, wonder why Apple forgot to include that one.
It's ironic that you take comfort in the one count Samsung wasn't found guilty on, and ignore the dozens of convictions and the billion dollar fine. I guess that's how losers live with themselves.
If the judge didn't want additional "commentary", he should have stated that explicitly. Apple is allowed to put up any commentary they want on their website as long as it's truthful and it is.
Truthful? I did a search for "apple samsung germany galaxy" and I found a link to a story saying that Apple lost in a germany court case.
Not at all. They were ordered to post the statement by the court. They did.
It had to be on the front page, in a common font and no less than 14 pt type. With a link to the ruling. It is.
Yes they took the order by letter of the law, not intent. But that's not contemptible. The Judge likely expected it or he would have been more careful with wording the order. Especially in not prohibiting additional comments from the court record.
Apple used 14px font, not 14pt font, two separate things. "px" is pixels and is smaller than a "pt". This is another sneaky way to make the text smaller (weasel/lawyer talk).
Yes, but you keep failing to address one point: the judge could have wrote the notice himself and have Apple post it. He choose not to do so. He let Apple write it. Apple complied with the Order, provided for the public the judge's reasoning (e.g. Apple's products are cooler), and pointed out that the Judge's decision only applies in the UK and that in other places Courts have found the opposite. That is important because it is highly likely people living outside the UK visit Apple's UK site.
Moreover, you'd be a fool if you thought Apple didn't run the notice before its UK counsel first. It probably even had them write it.
You agreed earlier that you disagreed with the Judge's ruling, as such, perhaps you should spend more energy on that.
I don't see that the judge's decision not to write the notice himself is relevant. He gave Apple the responsibility of writing the notice themselves, but not complete freedom to publish it on their own terms. There will be an expectation of following the intent of the court ruling.
People outside the UK visiting the UK site are not the court's concern.
I'm sure Apple's UK counsel are very good. That doesn't mean they're right, or that the judge will agree with their interpretation of the order and the law.
Apple lost the case and then lost the appeal. They win so often elsewhere that, even though I'm not convinced they should have lost, they should just let it lie.
1. Apple implied that Samsung infringed by giving evidence that Samsung copied. That's the innuendo - Apple said that Samsung copied, hoping to use that as evidence of infringing. The judge says no. ("The reference [by Apple] to copying is exactly that [innuendo that Samsung infringed].")
2. The judge clearly states (last sentence), that copying and infringing are not the same thing ("copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement"), although non-lawyers think that if someone copies your design they are automatically infringing ("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."). It's totally clear that he is separating the act of copying a design from the act of infringing, and the suit is about the legal requirements to prove infringing, which Apple didn't meet.
Again, I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this. The judge did not rule on, or even consider, whether Samsung copied Apple (only whether Samsung infringed). It's there in black and white. Think of it like this: you can copy something, but do such a bad job that it wouldn't get confused with the original, and therefore you didn't violate any patents.
Elroth, this ruling has to do with public comments Apple made after the court had already ruled Samsung was not infringing on Apple's design patent. According to the court explanation Apple continued using "innuendo" to paint Samsung as infringing anyway (and still does after claiming in the appeal not to be doing so any longer), something the judge took issue with and leading to the Apple publishing requirement appeal failing.
The judge's comments in the published appeal had to do with why or why not Apple should be required to publish the notice. The comment you're misunderstanding is part of the judge's thoughts on why Apple did need to post a clear statement that Samsung does not infringe on Apple's "iPad" design patent, since Apple was implying otherwise in statements. It had nothing to do with comments about copying compared to infringing during the trial, nor were the trial results themselves under appeal. That's probably where your misunderstanding is coming from.
Take the time to read the ruling itself, or at least from paragraph 40 on. It should only take a couple of minutes. You're pulling a couple of sentences out-of-context and causing yourself confusion on the judges intent which is clear when read in whole.
1. Apple implied that Samsung infringed by giving evidence that Samsung copied. That's the innuendo - Apple said that Samsung copied, hoping to use that as evidence of infringing. The judge says no. ("The reference [by Apple] to copying is exactly that [innuendo that Samsung infringed].")
2. The judge clearly states (last sentence), that copying and infringing are not the same thing ("copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement"), although non-lawyers think that if someone copies your design they are automatically infringing ("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."). It's totally clear that he is separating the act of copying a design from the act of infringing, and the suit is about the legal requirements to prove infringing, which Apple didn't meet.
Again, I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this. The judge did not rule on, or even consider, whether Samsung copied Apple (only whether Samsung infringed). It's there in black and white. Think of it like this: you can copy something, but do such a bad job that it wouldn't get confused with the original, and therefore you didn't violate any patents.
Elroth, this ruling has to do with public comments Apple made after the court had already ruled Samsung was not infringing on Apple's design patent. According to the court explanation Apple continued using "innuendo" to paint Samsung as infringing anyway (and still does after claiming in the appeal not to be doing so any longer), something the judge took issue with and leading to the Apple publishing requirement appeal failing.
The judge's comments in the published appeal had to do with why or why not Apple should be required to publish the notice. The comment you're misunderstanding is part of the judge's thoughts on why Apple did need to post a clear statement that Samsung does not infringe on Apple's "iPad" design patent, since Apple was implying otherwise in statements. It had nothing to do with comments about copying compared to infringing during the trial, nor were the trial results themselves under appeal. That's probably where your misunderstanding is coming from.
Take the time to read the ruling itself, or at least from paragraph 40 on. It should only take a couple of minutes. You're pulling a couple of sentences out-of-context and causing yourself confusion on the judges intent which is clear when read in whole.
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.
"Agreed. This has contempt of court written all over it."
Hard to see how stating the truth could be contempt of court.
You have to hand it to Apple's copywriters %u2013 they've managed to turn the Judge's ruling into a powerful condemnation of Samsung. The reader will go away thinking that Samsung offer a crappy, "uncool" derivative product, yet Apple haven't broken any rules.
I've been looking forward to see how Apple would spin this, and they haven't disappointed. What I would give to see the look on Samsung's Publicity Director's face when s/he reads this...
Sorry to be pedantic but this is not a UK judgement. It was made in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. It does not apply in Scotland or any other part of the UK.
Remember what the the letters UK stand for, it's NOT one country, and it certainly doesn't have a single legal system.
Sorry to be pedantic but this is not a UK judgement. It was made in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. It does not apply in Scotland or any other part of the UK.
Remember what the the letters UK stand for, it's NOT one country, and it certainly doesn't have a single legal system.
So Apple could write "The judge is a tosser" in Gaelic an post it if they wanted to?
Funny how haters try to make this seem like a big deal, but when Samsung lawyers publicized documents that Judge Koh had dis-allowed the same people were defending them.
Maybe I'm stupid, but IMO releasing documents that could taint a jury is far worse than having a little fun with your "apology".
While myself and others here may appreciate the humor in this, this is really going to piss off some UK judges....
I don't think there is a law that says "Thou shall not piss off a UK judge". You can't slander one or put words in a judge's mouth. But you sure can quote what a judge says. And if it pisses him off, too bad. Ain't a thing he can do about it. I hope his neighbours know all about it.
No idea if this might be connected to how Apple's fulfilled its posting requirements, but there's a hearing scheduled for tomorrow morning with regard to the case.
Appeals Court Schedule:
COURT 70
Before LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN and
SIR ROBIN JACOB
Thursday, 1st November, 2012
At 9.15am
APPLICATION
A3/2012/1845(E) Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited -v- Apple INC (a company incorporated under the laws of the State of California, USA). Application of Claimant for direction.
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.
Comments
deleted
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
...except, ironically, in their home court where the CA jury ruled that the Samsung Galaxy Tab did not infringe.
Gosh, wonder why Apple forgot to include that one.
...umm, because it's their website.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
...except, ironically, in their home court where the CA jury ruled that the Samsung Galaxy Tab did not infringe.
Gosh, wonder why Apple forgot to include that one.
It's ironic that you take comfort in the one count Samsung wasn't found guilty on, and ignore the dozens of convictions and the billion dollar fine. I guess that's how losers live with themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
If the judge didn't want additional "commentary", he should have stated that explicitly. Apple is allowed to put up any commentary they want on their website as long as it's truthful and it is.
Truthful? I did a search for "apple samsung germany galaxy" and I found a link to a story saying that Apple lost in a germany court case.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/21/german-court-rules-that-motorola-samsung-dont-violate-apple-patent/
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Not at all. They were ordered to post the statement by the court. They did.
It had to be on the front page, in a common font and no less than 14 pt type. With a link to the ruling. It is.
Yes they took the order by letter of the law, not intent. But that's not contemptible. The Judge likely expected it or he would have been more careful with wording the order. Especially in not prohibiting additional comments from the court record.
Apple used 14px font, not 14pt font, two separate things. "px" is pixels and is smaller than a "pt". This is another sneaky way to make the text smaller (weasel/lawyer talk).
http://images.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/styles/legal-judgement.css
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Yes, but you keep failing to address one point: the judge could have wrote the notice himself and have Apple post it. He choose not to do so. He let Apple write it. Apple complied with the Order, provided for the public the judge's reasoning (e.g. Apple's products are cooler), and pointed out that the Judge's decision only applies in the UK and that in other places Courts have found the opposite. That is important because it is highly likely people living outside the UK visit Apple's UK site.
Moreover, you'd be a fool if you thought Apple didn't run the notice before its UK counsel first. It probably even had them write it.
You agreed earlier that you disagreed with the Judge's ruling, as such, perhaps you should spend more energy on that.
I don't see that the judge's decision not to write the notice himself is relevant. He gave Apple the responsibility of writing the notice themselves, but not complete freedom to publish it on their own terms. There will be an expectation of following the intent of the court ruling.
People outside the UK visiting the UK site are not the court's concern.
I'm sure Apple's UK counsel are very good. That doesn't mean they're right, or that the judge will agree with their interpretation of the order and the law.
Apple lost the case and then lost the appeal. They win so often elsewhere that, even though I'm not convinced they should have lost, they should just let it lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
1. Apple implied that Samsung infringed by giving evidence that Samsung copied. That's the innuendo - Apple said that Samsung copied, hoping to use that as evidence of infringing. The judge says no. ("The reference [by Apple] to copying is exactly that [innuendo that Samsung infringed].")
2. The judge clearly states (last sentence), that copying and infringing are not the same thing ("copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement"), although non-lawyers think that if someone copies your design they are automatically infringing ("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."). It's totally clear that he is separating the act of copying a design from the act of infringing, and the suit is about the legal requirements to prove infringing, which Apple didn't meet.
Again, I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this. The judge did not rule on, or even consider, whether Samsung copied Apple (only whether Samsung infringed). It's there in black and white. Think of it like this: you can copy something, but do such a bad job that it wouldn't get confused with the original, and therefore you didn't violate any patents.
Elroth, this ruling has to do with public comments Apple made after the court had already ruled Samsung was not infringing on Apple's design patent. According to the court explanation Apple continued using "innuendo" to paint Samsung as infringing anyway (and still does after claiming in the appeal not to be doing so any longer), something the judge took issue with and leading to the Apple publishing requirement appeal failing.
The judge's comments in the published appeal had to do with why or why not Apple should be required to publish the notice. The comment you're misunderstanding is part of the judge's thoughts on why Apple did need to post a clear statement that Samsung does not infringe on Apple's "iPad" design patent, since Apple was implying otherwise in statements. It had nothing to do with comments about copying compared to infringing during the trial, nor were the trial results themselves under appeal. That's probably where your misunderstanding is coming from.
Take the time to read the ruling itself, or at least from paragraph 40 on. It should only take a couple of minutes. You're pulling a couple of sentences out-of-context and causing yourself confusion on the judges intent which is clear when read in whole.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
1. Apple implied that Samsung infringed by giving evidence that Samsung copied. That's the innuendo - Apple said that Samsung copied, hoping to use that as evidence of infringing. The judge says no. ("The reference [by Apple] to copying is exactly that [innuendo that Samsung infringed].")
2. The judge clearly states (last sentence), that copying and infringing are not the same thing ("copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement"), although non-lawyers think that if someone copies your design they are automatically infringing ("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."). It's totally clear that he is separating the act of copying a design from the act of infringing, and the suit is about the legal requirements to prove infringing, which Apple didn't meet.
Again, I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this. The judge did not rule on, or even consider, whether Samsung copied Apple (only whether Samsung infringed). It's there in black and white. Think of it like this: you can copy something, but do such a bad job that it wouldn't get confused with the original, and therefore you didn't violate any patents.
Elroth, this ruling has to do with public comments Apple made after the court had already ruled Samsung was not infringing on Apple's design patent. According to the court explanation Apple continued using "innuendo" to paint Samsung as infringing anyway (and still does after claiming in the appeal not to be doing so any longer), something the judge took issue with and leading to the Apple publishing requirement appeal failing.
The judge's comments in the published appeal had to do with why or why not Apple should be required to publish the notice. The comment you're misunderstanding is part of the judge's thoughts on why Apple did need to post a clear statement that Samsung does not infringe on Apple's "iPad" design patent, since Apple was implying otherwise in statements. It had nothing to do with comments about copying compared to infringing during the trial, nor were the trial results themselves under appeal. That's probably where your misunderstanding is coming from.
Take the time to read the ruling itself, or at least from paragraph 40 on. It should only take a couple of minutes. You're pulling a couple of sentences out-of-context and causing yourself confusion on the judges intent which is clear when read in whole.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
People outside the UK visiting the UK site are not the court's concern.
Tell that to the EU.
The UK judges want their cake and want to eat it too?
Didn't they say it is an EU wide ruling?
Hard to see how stating the truth could be contempt of court.
You have to hand it to Apple's copywriters %u2013 they've managed to turn the Judge's ruling into a powerful condemnation of Samsung. The reader will go away thinking that Samsung offer a crappy, "uncool" derivative product, yet Apple haven't broken any rules.
I've been looking forward to see how Apple would spin this, and they haven't disappointed. What I would give to see the look on Samsung's Publicity Director's face when s/he reads this...
Sorry to be pedantic but this is not a UK judgement. It was made in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. It does not apply in Scotland or any other part of the UK.
Remember what the the letters UK stand for, it's NOT one country, and it certainly doesn't have a single legal system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omegazeta
Sorry to be pedantic but this is not a UK judgement. It was made in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. It does not apply in Scotland or any other part of the UK.
Remember what the the letters UK stand for, it's NOT one country, and it certainly doesn't have a single legal system.
So Apple could write "The judge is a tosser" in Gaelic an post it if they wanted to?
Is é an breitheamh tosser.
I think the correct phrase would be "Is é an breitheamh onórach a tosser"
Originally Posted by Omegazeta
I think the correct phrase would be "Is é an breitheamh onórach a tosser"
I knew teaching myself some Irish would come in handy one day.
Funny how haters try to make this seem like a big deal, but when Samsung lawyers publicized documents that Judge Koh had dis-allowed the same people were defending them.
Maybe I'm stupid, but IMO releasing documents that could taint a jury is far worse than having a little fun with your "apology".
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
. . .
While myself and others here may appreciate the humor in this, this is really going to piss off some UK judges....
I don't think there is a law that says "Thou shall not piss off a UK judge". You can't slander one or put words in a judge's mouth. But you sure can quote what a judge says. And if it pisses him off, too bad. Ain't a thing he can do about it. I hope his neighbours know all about it.
No idea if this might be connected to how Apple's fulfilled its posting requirements, but there's a hearing scheduled for tomorrow morning with regard to the case.
Appeals Court Schedule:
COURT 70
Before LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN and
SIR ROBIN JACOB
Thursday, 1st November, 2012
At 9.15am
APPLICATION
A3/2012/1845(E) Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited -v- Apple INC (a company incorporated under the laws of the State of California, USA). Application of Claimant for direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
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.