The point of the order was the court felt that Apple should dispel their previous public accusation that Samsung copied their design.
So when Apple issues a statement that says "Court X ordered us to tell you that Samsung didn't copy us, but Court Y did say they copied us." then it's not really following the intent of dispelling their claim
So when Apple issues a statement that says "Court X ordered us to tell you that Samsung didn't copy us, but Court Y did say they copied us." then it's not really following the intent of dispelling their claim