Following yet another Apple-Samsung court battle, this time over tablet infringement, a ruling out of the UK has the Judges ordering Apple to make a public online apology. One of the first references I came across this afternoon, and not yet having read the judgement, was a Gizmodo post that poked fun at the Judges' very specific directions, that Apple is Forced to Run their Public Apology in 14pt Arial font.
I thought it was pretty funny. That the judges would dictate the actual font and font size that must be used; and that Apple, of all companies, would be forced to use a font considered terribly 'uncool' among their legions of fans (and especially those designer types;). Insult to injury? Or maybe the Judges were having a little fun… Either way, it was a good chuckle.
But after looking at the actual decision, I'm thinking that Gizmodo has simply misread things. Here's the passage in question:
"Within seven days of the date of this Order [18th July 2012] [Apple] shall at its own expense (a) post in a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this order on the homepage of its UK website … as specified in Schedule 1 to this Order, together with a hyperlink to the Judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 9th July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on [Apple's] websites for a period of six months from the date of this order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no smaller than Arial 14pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine."
In both instances, the reference to Arial is used as a reference for sizing. Stating that the "font size" must be "no smaller than Arial xxpt"; and not specifically that the font used must be Arial. Given that fonts differ so greatly at varying pt sizes, the idea of using a common typeface as a frame of reference makes sense.
That's unfortunate. I was having way more fun when Gizmodo was in charge.