Here's what I think Apple should post as an "apology":

[SIZE=4]"No, Samsung did not copy iPad. But really, who could?"[/SIZE]

Forcing the losing party to advertise for the opposing company makes a mockery of an already farcical legal system. The court claimed that consumers were unlikely confuse the two products by their design. If the court's decision is true (i.e. consumers will not confuse the two products), why would someone wanting a Samsung tablet need an advertisement to say they were different?

Instead, it seems something more sinister is afoot. The court is hoping when someone wanting an iPad will be persuaded to buy a Samsung instead. And the world will never know the truth behind such a sinister decision as offshore banks will never report whether Samsung sent funds to the judge in an off-shore account. :lol:

Originally Posted by Zanziboy

Forcing the losing party to advertise for the opposing company makes a mockery of an already farcical legal system. The court claimed that consumers were unlikely confuse the two products by their design. If the court's decision is true (i.e. consumers will not confuse the two products), why would someone wanting a Samsung tablet need an advertisement to say they were different?
Instead, it seems something more sinister is afoot. The court is hoping when someone wanting an iPad will be persuaded to buy a Samsung instead. And the world will never know the truth behind such a sinister decision as offshore banks will never report whether Samsung sent funds to the judge in an off-shore account. :lol:

I beg to differ.

I have a very strong feeling that this "farcical ruling" would never have seen the light of day had Apple Inc been a company that originated from the British Isles.

The bizarre judgment, with its curious references to "coolness" rather than aesthetic design, smacks of shades of envy and a sense of inferiority that seem to reach beyond just being the legal opinions of a single middle-class Briton, albeit a member of the Bench.

As a former British Prime Minister of the Victorian Age (Gladstone, I think) once remarked in a sarcastic rhyme:

Now there is no way you can bribe or twist (thank God)
The British journalist
But seeing what the hack would do (un-bribed)
There's no occasion to!

Substitute journalist for jurist (pretty close!) and it starts to sound quite fitting, and still rhymes, to boot!

A very good point and well said! :thumbsup: