Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android The Courts Apple

Samsung Admonished For Releasing Rejected Evidence 354

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the we-control-the-horizontal dept.
New submitter zaphod777 writes with an update on Samsung's release of info on pre-iPhone designs. It seems the additional information released relating to the F700 was actually rejected from the trial, and the judge isn't too happy: "Samsung has already appealed the rulings denying the evidence, but that didn't stop the company's lawyers from trying again today after Apple briefly showed the F700 on a slide during its opening statements. Claiming that Apple had 'opened the door' to discussion of the F700, Samsung asked the court to reconsider. That didn't go so well with Judge Koh, who noted that 'Samsung has filed like 10 motions for reconsideration,' and asked Samsung lead attorney John Quinn to sit back down. At one point in the exchange Quinn told Koh that he was 'begging the court,' and desperately asked 'what's the point in having a trial?' — but Koh simply wasn't buying it. 'Don't make me sanction you,' she said. 'Please.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Admonished For Releasing Rejected Evidence

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:14AM (#40841301)

    Not sure how a judge can prohibit someone from releasing their own designs. But, then, gag orders have a long history of infringing on areas that would clearly otherwise be considered free speech, and judges have a long history of abusing them.

    The judge is known to be a pro-Apple shill. She's made illogical rulings favorable to Apple before.

    In short, Samsung is in trouble if they expect a fair trial (given the history, they probably expect the trial to be anything but fair).

  • by DJRumpy (1345787) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:24AM (#40841407)

    This design was created by Apple by an Apple designer aiming at what an iPhone would look like if Sony made it. It was excluded from evidence because it isn't relevant to the case, and it was designed by Apple. This is not a Samsung design, it is an Apple design created by Apple designer Shin Nishibori. Apple has already shown court documents with prototypes from 2005, predating any F700 designs from Samsung by a year.

    This design was created by Nishibori as a personal project when he was speaking with Jonathan Ive. Ive basically said

    "Well, Shin, I have something to talk to you about." He said, "You can do this as an aside of your job and enjoy - I want you to enjoy doing this. But if Sony were to make a iPhone, what would it be like? Would you make it for me?"

    Apple had already established it's iPhone design and has images of such from 2005. This unfulfilled prototype was from 2006.

  • by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:24AM (#40841409) Journal
    IIRC, the evidence was rejected because it was submitted after the deadline has passed. That may sound petty, but the other side in this case should have a chance to examine the evidence and prepare a response. That's how these things work, and should work.
  • for showing what a mockery the courts make of the law so they can arrive at their predetermined ruling.

    If evidence that supports the defense is excluded then I have to agree with the attorney for Samsung as to what point is there for a trial?

    If Samsung can spring surprise evidence on the other side on the eve of trial, having withheld it during months and months of required disclosure and discovery, then what point is there for due process? The federal courts don't actually work the way you see in Boston Legal.

  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:34AM (#40841523)

    You need to RTFA. The designs that they released were 10 pre-iPhone *Samsung* designs. The Apple design is part of the case too, of course, but they were releasing their own designs in this instance.

  • by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:43AM (#40841593)
    You're conflating issues. I believe you're thinking of this [allthingsd.com] phone, but what samsung wants the Jury to see is this [allthingsd.com], and this [allthingsd.com], which are Samsung designs for a clearly iPhone-like phone, predating the iPhone.
  • by SaroDarksbane (1784314) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:00AM (#40841781)

    the girl clearly violated a Court Order and also well-established law

    Not as clear cut, actually. Here's Eugene Volokh's take: [volokh.com]

    An order barring a victim from revealing the names of her assailants is, I think, clearly unconstitutional, even when the assailants are juveniles. Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court (1977) expressly rejected the notion that courts or legislatures may bar the publication of the names of juvenile offenders; that case involved a newspaper's publishing the name of the juvenile offender, which it learned from a court hearing, but the rationale applies at least as strongly to a person's publishing a name that she learned from the attack itself. Likewise, even when it comes to grand jury proceedings - probably the most historically secret part of the criminal justice system - Butterworth v. Smith (1990) held that, while a grand jury witness could be barred from revealing what he learned as part of the grand jury proceedings, the witness could not be generally barred from revealing information that he had learned on his own (even if that was the subject of his testimony).

  • by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:12AM (#40841943)
    You're both confused because there are two separate issues here (notice the word "also" in the quote you pasted)

    Issue 1) Samsung wants to show it had designs of iPhone-like phones predating the iPhone. In particular the designs predating the F700, which is a Samsung Phone
    Issue 2) Samsung wants to show that Apple looked toward others, i.e. Sony for inspiration on the iPhone. This would be what you quoted.

    Samsung wasn't allowed to do this in trial, so they sent out a bunch of slides (linked here [allthingsd.com]) to the press which do the same, and the Judge is mad at that.
  • Oooh, a troll (Score:4, Informative)

    by Theaetetus (590071) <theaetetus DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:18AM (#40842003) Homepage Journal
    And yes, you are a troll, when you jump to calling someone a fanboy for pointing out how federal rules of procedure work.

    But, troll, for others in the audience, let's examine your alleged point:

    Typical Apple fanboy, the one who kept evidence hidden for months was Apple in this case, making it impossible for Samsung to get this evidence any earlier. As can be read clearly in Samsungs appeal. Mind you, facts never get in the way of an Apple fanboy.

    Last I checked, the F700 was a Samsung phone. You're claiming that Apple hid Samsung's own product history from them, making it impossible for Samsung to get it any earlier. Why exactly should we find you credible about anything?

  • by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @11:02AM (#40842587)

    Unfortunately Samsung they failed to convince the judge that their evidence was relevant, which is why it wasn't allowed.

    No, they weren't allowed because they were late in producing the evidence. Apple then proceeded to talk about the F700m which Samsung is now arguing is Apple opening the door for the evidence to be allowed.

    hey would have engaged Samsung long before the release date (obviously in order to have the phones for sale in 2007), meaning sometime predaiting the 2006 timeframe. That also happens to correspond to the timeframes that Samsung's designs morphed from their older pre-iPhone designs, to designs that were decidedly very similar to the iPhone design.

    Then it's up to Apple to prove such, i.e. they gave Samsung iPhone designs in the same period Samsung sketched its own phone designs. That seems like something much more serious than simple trade dress violation, and I don't think Apple alleging such a thing.

    When you have a company producing the handsets you are going to sell

    Samsung doesn't produce iPhones, they produced iPhone components. Most of Apple's claims against Samsung relate to trade dress infringement and trade dress dilution. I don't see why a component supplier would have any prior knowledge of how the final product will look. The most they could know is how big the screen is (if they supplied the screen, I don't know).

    products suddenly take change in design direction and begin to look very similar to the designs it is currently manufacturing

    Yes, this is Apple's stance, but what Samsung is trying to show is that they didn't suddenly change course and that it was a logical design progression that started before the iPhone was ever shown to the public.

  • by Deorus (811828) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @12:08PM (#40843471)

    It should not matter which was first. The fact that Samsung had this design before they had seen the iPhone design means that they clearly came up with it independently. Patents are broken. They currently serve to do the exact opposite of what they were intended for.

    Except that is not a fact. Samsung shot themselves in the feet when they claimed that Apple copied SONY using a pre-iPhone Apple design as evidence and demonstrating that they knew what the iPhone would look like before its release. Since that claim had no validity as Apple produced evidence by demonstrating designs dating back to 2005, Samsung lost both their claim and their plausible denial.

  • by Deorus (811828) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @12:58PM (#40844313)

    For starters it's their fault for missing the deadline. They have no plausible reason to miss a deadline for key evidence like this unless they were quickly creating the evidence (it has already been established that Samsung destroyed evidence even following a court order to retain it, so this wouldn't be too unlikely).

    Secondly, that evidence isn't even evidence considering the existence of iPhone designs from 2005 as well as Samsung's demonstration of knowledge of what the iPhone would look like (by accusing Apple of copying SONY using a design from 2006).

    Conclusion: there is absolutely no reason to accept that as evidence. The only purpose it would serve would be to confuse the jury and idiots from the public (which they evidently succeeded, otherwise I wouldn't have to reply to this).

  • by gnasher719 (869701) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @01:50PM (#40845235)

    That mockup is based on something SONY told them. So it sure sounds like someone at sony had this idea as well.

    Well, no. Jony Ive asked a fellow designer "what would the iPhone look like if Sony designed it"? There was no input from Sony on the design. The result was a combination of the iPhone design, as it existed at that time, plus what the designer believed would be typical for a Sony design.

  • by mk1004 (2488060) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @02:42PM (#40846161)

    Because Apple already submitted images into evidence dating back to 2003 for the iPad and from 2005 for the iPhone. The images linked above are from 2006, making them irrelevant 'noise'.

    According to the link from TFA, the only reason the judge is not allowing Samsung's image from 2006 is because it was submitted too late in the discovery process. It has nothing to do with any earlier images for the iPhone/iPad. Sucks for Samsung, but that's the way the law works. At any rate, is the trial over Samsung's designs looking too much like early iPhone/iPad prototypes, which IIRC, differ significantly from the final product? Earlier images only count if they incorporate the same features that are being contested now.

    Everyone seems to forget that Samsung was machining these phones for Apple, so of course they knew exactly what they looked like and operated long before they hit the public.

    So Samsung, not Foxconn, "machines" the phones for Apple? Samsung supplies some of the ICs. I doubt that Apple would give them any more information than absolutely necessary on what the phone was going to look like.

What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.

Working...