After Apple was ordered by UK courts to display a message stating that Samsung did not infringe upon it's patents, they have now been ordered to change their message and remove parts of the statement which were untrue.
It's been less than a month since the Apple vs Samsung verdict in the UK ended with a loss for Apple. Samsung was not infringing upon Apple's patents, and as a result of the lawsuit, Apple was ordered to put up a notice on their website, stating this fact clearly. However, Apple felt the need to embellish and add things to the statement, and as a result, the courts are forcing them to change the statement. Apple asked for two weeks to make the changes, but the court shot down their request, stating it had to be altered within 24 hours.
The statement was originally a very specific, 56-word paragraph laid out by UK High Court Judge Colin Birss:
"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html."
However, Apple then decided to add a further four paragraphs to justify the statement and put Apple in a good light. Among these paragraphs was a reference to a judge in the original Apple vs. Samsung case stating that one of the differences between Apple and Samsung was that Samsung's devices "are not as cool." Apple then went on to describe how, despite the verdict, Apple had won in other cases around the world.
The statement was concluded with "So while the UK 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."
UK Appeals judge Robin Jacob responded with saying, "I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this". Indeed, this seems like a particularly irresponsible way for a multi billion dollar corporation to handle a loss.