Again, monetary damages. Sufficient for Samsung to publicize their point of view.
Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction?
The loser in a case like this may not necessarily agree with the judge's conclusion. The judge forcing them to say something, is tantamount to forcing them to tell a lie.
Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.
I'm not saying that Apple has a free speech right to make false claims. I'm saying that they have a free speech right to not be forced to make claims by others that they may not agree with. That's a novel way of looking at free speech.
People should not be forced to say things. That's wrong. Regardless of jurisdiction.
But by doing business in that jurisdiction, you agreed to the laws. And part of that agreement is to abide by the rulings of the judges in the land they choose to do business with.
Having an opinion doesn't inherently make you right, and because what they were discussing were purely legal incarnations, believing anything other than a legal ruling with regard to a legal status is a bit crazy.
While Apple might believe they were in the right, the facts of the case are founded on legal rulings. It's one thing to be forced to change your opinion, but to be asked to state fact?
Regardless, it comes down to this: People should not be forced to say things.
I still think it's an important distinction that people did not say things, Apple did. And corporations are not people. And I really think that is an important distinction.
Hmm, OK, I see what you're saying. That sounds like a reasonable point.
Americans fetishise free speech beyond all reason. Yes, freedom of speech is important, but it's one right amongst many. Does Apple's right to free speech trump Samsung's right to pursue their legitimate business without being harassed?