Apple Inc. (AAPL) Ordered to Clarify ‘Apology’ to Samsung

Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) lost a patent-infringement claim against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., in a U.K. courtroom recently, and part of the court order was to force Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) to post an “apology” to Samsung on its Web site and in other media. Why did Apple Inc. (AAPL) lose the claim? A judge wrote that the Samsung devices that were in question were not as “cool” as the Apple devices. Coolness is certainly something that investors like billionaire fund manager David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital have embraced.

Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL)

So Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) was being forced to write an “apology,” essentially saying that it was sorry for assuming that Samsung devices were every bit as “cool” as its own devices. But now, Samsung is apparently taking umbrage with the “apology,” and took it back to the U.K. court to a re-do. The court has agreed, reviewing the “apology” and saying that Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) needs to be more clear in establishing that Samsung had not infringed on any Apple patents. Apple Inc. (AAPL) has asked for 14 days to re-do the statement and post it, but the judges gave the company only 48 hours to do so.

Lord Justice Longmore told the Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) chief counsel, “We are just amazed that you cannot put the right notice up at the same time as you take the other one down.” Sir Robin Jacob piled on, saying, “I would like to see the head of Apple [Tim Cook] make an affidavit about why that is such a technical difficulty for the Apple company.”

The main thrust of Samsung’s complaint is that the Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) produced “inaccurate and misleading” information because Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) mentioned in the statement that German and U.S. courts had found in Apple’s favor in similar cases. “This has received enormous publicity and has perpetuated confusion as to Samsung’s entitlement to market the Galaxy tablet computers in issue,” Samsung lawyers said in a statement. “It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts.” The U.K. decision applies to all of the European Union.