Originally Posted by Andrew H.
No, it's quite different.
In the Australian case, Apple was brought to trial for making misleading statements to consumers. The result was that they had to correct the misleading statements they had made.
In the UK case, Apple sued Samsung for patent infringement. Apple lost and was required to notify consumers of this fact. The suit wasn't about misleading statements at all.
It's *unusual* for a corporation who sues another corporation and loses to have to put a notice on their website informing consumers that they were wrong. When Apple lost a similar case in the NL, they weren't required to notify consumers of their loss; when Apple won a similar case in Germany, Samsung wasn't required to notify people that they had been found liable.
AFAIK, this isn't typical for cases in the UK. I don't think think it's wrong at all, but it is different, and I'm curious about *why* this particular remedy was ordered in this particular case. There has to be more to it than Company X brought a suit and lost.
Add Australia to the list of countries where Samsung beat Apple re sale of Galaxy tablet:
Federal Court of Australia, 30 November 2011
(205) 'The Court will grant leave to Samsung to appeal from the orders made by the primary judge on 14 October 2011. The appeal will be allowed. The injunctions which her Honour granted will be discharged. Samsung will be permitted to launch the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia provided it keeps accounts of all transactions involving that device in Australia or originating from Australia. Samsung should have its costs of its Application for Leave to Appeal and the Appeal.'