justify what Apple had done. His primary point was that the earlier order had not prohibited Apple from making additional statements and, indeed, in the course of the earlier hearing Mr Carr had said that Apple could "say what they like".  However the Court clearly thought that that was intended to mean, and was understood as meaning, "say what they like ELSEWHERE". As Lord Justice Kitchin LJ: what if there had been three pages in between the two paragraphs which they had ordered, or a book?  At this juncture the smoke signals were coming thick and fast from the general direction of the judiciary and the heat was rising. The Court was particularly unimpressed with the fact that, in its view, the paragraphs which had been added were clearly wrong. In particular it will be noted that, in the final paragraph, Apple had said "in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design" [Emphasis added]. The Court took exception to the use of the words "the same patent" since the British action did not involve any patent, being solely concerned with registered design. Similarly, the Court did not like the statement that the Judge Birss had "made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung product " [Emphasis added]. As the Court pointed out, Judge Birss made no findings in relation to the Apple PRODUCT -- his findings were in relation to