So, you're saying YOU can determine the spirit of the ruling better than the lawyers that were in the courtroom?
The spirit of the ruling was to reverse PR damage against Samsung by apologising to them. Nobody is saying that the lawyers in the courtroom failed to DETERMINE the spirit, but what it looks like (to me and others) is that they are deliberately failing to COMPLY with the spirit of the ruling.
Or is there the chance that he said those things, but felt he to rule the other way, and will give Apple leeway to show his words?
He did say those things, but in using them so selectively in their statement Apple have not apologised at all, and therefore not complied with the spirit of the ruling.
As an aside I find it interesting that a lot of people are struggling with this concept of 'spirit'. This is something that has featured prevalently in the law training I've had over the years so it seems natural to me: breaking the spirit of the law is punishable as well as breaking the letter; more of a principles based approach to enforcement. However it seems that some (USA?) people regard the law as a set of rules that can be scrutinised for loopholes and ambiguities that when found are fair game.
Is law genuinely taught differently in the USA? Or is this just an example of a bad Apple (sic) acting accordingly?