If you visit Apple's UK splash-page and look really close, you might be able to spot a link at the bottom labeled Samsung/Apple UK Judgment.
Clicking on it will take to you the latest in a series of Apple's apologies - this one mandated by a UK judge, to punish Apple for publicly alleging that Samsung infringed Apple patents the UK court later ruled it hadn't.
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
Now, we should note that the press trend of referring to Apple's court-mandated disclosure as an "apology" may have been a bit misleading (guilty). The above paragraph and its link to the court's ruling brings Apple into compliance with the letter of the law. Additional apologetic language would just be extra.
As the statement continues, though, it becomes clear that an apology is the farthest thing from Apple's mind:
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."
"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following: From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."
Judge Birss's "not as cool" line is a knee-slapper, but it's also central to his ruling that the Galaxy Tab line isn't engaging in unfair competitive practices. So no foul play in citing it.
Apple's statement still isn't quite finished though:
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
Kind of a parting shot, right? Like, "Sorry your country's silly judicial system was blinded by the iPad's dazzling coolness, but whatever."