Well - first we’re talking about English courts, so don’t apply our rules, cause they don’t apply. Second, the court found that Apple’s claims of copying weren’t true under English law, and they had substantially harmed Samsung. This was the corrective measure the court cooked up.
Then Apple got snarky!
So the court got equally snarky, and not only forced them to implement the order as it originally was issued, but has fined them through awarding maximum court costs to Samsung, which is all they can do under English law.
Full coverage of the blow-by-blow available on groklaw.net
And there's my problem. Courts aren't supposed to get snarky. Fees should have been awarded according to proper procedure in such cases, not according to whether Apple pissed off the judge by posting more accurate information than the judge ordered. If Apple owes because they sued and lost, then so be it, pay up. Otherwise, Apple shouldn't owe a dime.
In fact, I still haven't seen what of Apple's posting was inaccurate. Everything looks absolutely factual to me. Apple should sue the judge for libel for claiming it was inaccurate. And the UK's libel laws are pretty stacked against the defendant.