Apple has been ordered to pay Samsung's legal fees on an indemnity basis which is higher than the normal basis, according to an order published by the U.K. court.
Groklaw notes that this order was made since Apple did not correctly comply with the order to publicly acknowledge that Samsung did not copy the iPad.
-----
31. 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.
31. Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.
-----
Check out Groklaw for an overview of Apple's statements in the original notice and how the court determined they were false and misleading.
You can read the full order at the link below...
Read More [via Groklaw] [via Yousouf]
Groklaw notes that this order was made since Apple did not correctly comply with the order to publicly acknowledge that Samsung did not copy the iPad.
-----
31. 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.
31. Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.
-----
Check out Groklaw for an overview of Apple's statements in the original notice and how the court determined they were false and misleading.
You can read the full order at the link below...
Read More [via Groklaw] [via Yousouf]