Ok, well I'm in the states, so I'm in no position to assume what the UK public wants, but it seems little strange to prioritize payback over progress, which is my interpretation of what is happening here.
Define "progress". I don't understand what you think will happen. The courts have more time to look at other people not following the law? So the one yet are currently dealing with that isn't following the law can skip away?
All I'm saying is that the apology is an inefficient punishment. It's meant to sting Apple which eventually means they lose money. All I'm saying is skip the drama and just take the money.
The best argument I've heard against this is that it would be difficult to determine the dollar value equivalent of the apology, which is certainly true.
The intent of the apology (from the Court's viewpoint) is to clarify to those considering the purchase of a Samsung device that there is no judgement in force that might suggest that Samsung devices won't be supported for long. A fine (or jail term) is however quite appropriate for contempt of court, which Apple has clearly shown.
But how much do you fine them, if their misrepresentation causes a chilling effect that scares people away from not just Samsung's current product, but anything deemed Apple-like? The result of this sort of misinformation campaign, if left unchecked, could be that Apple monopolizes the entire industry for several years. If you're the judge, what do you do, fine them $500 billion? How do you know that's not excessive?
It seems to be that it would be much easier to serve justice by compelling Apple to correct the misinformation, rather than trying to compute a price for this behavior.
It's about not establishing the wrong precedent. If a corporation is seen to get away with behaving badly towards the court, the court is only setting itself up for worse trouble later on. The legal system depends on the law being respected - as others in this thread have said, this is why contempt of court is a Very Serious Offence.
