28 Apple logoDo you think that we have this rebellious streak in us? If you have answered in the affirmative, then it certainly shows that a company like Apple, too, has such a trait – after all, companies are managed by humans. The UK court that oversaw Apple and Samsung’s legal tussle was not too pleased with Apple’s non-apology, and given a second chance to make amendments, Apple failed to live up to the court’s expectations, ticking off the UK judge in the process. Judge Robin Jacob said during Apple’s first “round” of apologies, “I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this. That is a plain breach of the order. What Apple added was false and misleading. There is a false innuendo that the U.K. court’s decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true.”

Asking Apple to resubmit the apology within 24 hours which Apple did (albeit amidst some verbal protest), the apology was stuck “below the fold” on its website, making it a whole lot difficult to find, and this obviously did not bring any smiles to the judge, either. The court said, “As to the costs (lawyers’ fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, ‘standard’ basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court’s disapproval of a party’s conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple’s conduct warranted such an order. … I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.”

What do you think of the entire way Apple approached this apology issue?

Filed in Apple . Tags: Apple Inc and legal.
User Comments