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This discussion has been archived.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 crazyjj (2598719) * on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:06AM (#40841227)

    WTF? The summary should have made it more clear that these are pre-iPhone *Samsung* designs, showing pretty clearly that they were considering very iPhone-like designs before the iPhone had even released. It's the cornerstone of Samsung's case that Apple didn't invent the idea of a rectangular phone with a touchscreen and that they had been developing the same design idea at the time.

    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.

    • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:11AM (#40841267)

      And before you anal-retentive grammar Nazi's pile on, yes I know the difference between its and it's.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        And before you anal-retentive grammar Nazi's pile on, yes I know the difference between its and it's.

        Of course. The difference is the apo'strophe.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:42AM (#40841581)

        That'd be "Nazis" - no apostrophe for the plural form.

        Sorry, but you were basically asking for it.

        • by tobiasly (524456)

          That'd be "Nazis" - no apostrophe for the plural form.

          Sorry, but you were basically asking for it.

          Uh, "grammar Nazi's" has been standard grammar Nazi troll bait for as long as I can remember. I'm sure he typed that with tongue firmly in cheek.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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).

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Lumpy (12016)

        Then they need to put their PR machine on it. Smear the judge in the media, smear the whole damn thing. make it exceedingly embarrassing for the judge to do anything but be fair.

        A dirty bought off judge needs to have their character attacked in the public eye, They deserve nothing but contempt.

        • by Xest (935314) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:02AM (#40841803)

          How do you think Apple's marketing department will respond? Marketing is far and away Apple's strongest department, so it'll simply be spun as Samsung being sore losers. I'm not sure why the judge would necessarily care either, some just simply don't. Look at The Pirate Bay trial for example, the judge was part of a music industry lobby group, was exposed as such, but simply didn't give a shit and carried on.

          Unless it stops her getting her paycheck, which it wont, then she has no reason to care or change course.

        • by MrMickS (568778) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:15AM (#40841977) Homepage Journal

          Then they need to put their PR machine on it. Smear the judge in the media, smear the whole damn thing. make it exceedingly embarrassing for the judge to do anything but be fair.

          A dirty bought off judge needs to have their character attacked in the public eye, They deserve nothing but contempt.

          Ah, that's it. The judge has been bought off. There's no point in a having a trial, the result is forgone.

          Why does this stuff get modded as insightful on slashdot? Have we all become a bunch of in-grained idiots cheering for our favourites, without paying even lip service to the facts? How about, rather than pre-judging everything, and accusing judges of being crooked, we wait a little while and examine the facts that are revealed? I know its a lot to ask, but aren't we supposed to be geeks? Aren't facts and logic what we deal with?

          There is a misconception here that this is a trail before the court of public opinion. This is not the case. This is a trial before the law. It doesn't matter what we believe is fair and just, frequently the law isn't to all parties, it matters what can be proven in law. Of course if you're backing Samsung, because Apple is evil, none of this matters. They are guilty and should just cease trading and give all of their IP to Google for the benefit of mankind.

          Call me old fashioned but I'd like to hear the evidence before making a judgement.

          • by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:22AM (#40842057)

            I would like to hear how apple can show an pre-iPhone device and not let Samsung present the fact that this is a pre-iPhone device.

            That seems like Samsung must allow a lie to go unchallenged.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by DJRumpy (1345787)

              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'. Unless Samsung can submit certified designs pre-dating those from Apple, then they are just attempting to push meaningless evidence at the jury in hopes that it will confuse, which is probably why the judge didn't allow these images.

              If someone here can show a link to some sort of evidence where Samsung has submitted direct

              • by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @11:01AM (#40842569)

                The iPhone had not yet been released in 2006, it came out in 2007. Did Apple tell Samsung to avoid designing a similar phone before Apple announced it?

                Simultaneous independent development suggest that this design should fail the obviousness test for patentability.

                Did Samsung actually do any machining? I thought they only supplied parts.

              • 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.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:25AM (#40842125)

            >Call me old fashioned but I'd like to hear the evidence before making a judgement.

            Call me old fashioned but I'd like the jury to hear all of the evidence before they make a judgement.

          • Yes, I agree completely on the first part of your argument, stating that we should wait for actual facts.

            However, you do have a statement that I do not completely agree with.

            It doesn't matter what we believe is fair and just, frequently the law isn't to all parties, it matters what can be proven in law.

            Maybe I am interpreting this incorrectly, but that sounds like you are a person that makes their judgements completely on the letter of the law and does not consider the spirit of the law. I do not completely agree with that. Most times, the letter of the law and the spirit of the law can work together in a trial. However, laws cannot b

        • by s73v3r (963317) <[s73v3r] [at] [gmail.com]> on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @01:16PM (#40844639)

          Yes, clearly because she's not ruled the way YOU want, she must be dirty and bought off.

      • 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).

        here's actually short: "Samsung can't and likely doesn't expect a fair trial."

      • by Surt (22457) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @11:33AM (#40842961) Homepage Journal

        I'm pretty sure to anyone who has a legal background the strategy is pure grounds-for-appeal bait at this point. They are forcing the judge to issue ruling after ruling revealing her bias.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by DJRumpy (1345787)

      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 Jonat

      • 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 DJRumpy (1345787)

          Here's a story directly related to TFA.

          http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407919,00.asp [pcmag.com]

          Samsung is also not allowed to bring up a reference that Shin Nishibori, an Apple design inventor, made regarding Sony's influence on the iPhone. In a deposition, Nishibori referred to a conversation he had with Apple's design chief, Jonathan Ive, in which Ive reportedly asked Nishibori what a Sony-made iPhone would look like.

          Perhaps you should get your news from more than one source?

          • 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.
            • by DJRumpy (1345787)

              Unfortunately Samsung they failed to convince the judge that their evidence was relevant, which is why it wasn't allowed. The article and image, linked in the summary are from 2006. Apple had already submitted design prototype images into evidence for the iPhone dating back to 2005, and iPad prototypes dating back to 2003.

              Remember that Samsung would have already been involved in producing iPhone components by 2006 since the iPhone was released in June of 2007. They would have engaged Samsung long before the

              • 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 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.
      • From TFA:

        One of these phones (the bottom-right one) became the Samsung F700 - a product Apple once included as an infringing product, but later withdrew once it learned Samsung created it and brought it to market before the iPhone

        It seems the F700 was a Samsung design. Is the article incorrect in this claim?

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

        From the article again:

        This is what Samsung was considering putting to market in the summer of 2006, six months before the unveiling of the iPhone.

        It would seem reasonable to assume that if

        • by DJRumpy (1345787)

          You are confusing what was disallowed by the judge and the images that Samsung actually leaked. The information released by Samsung that pissed off the judge was showing a prototype that Apple created.

          http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57483967-37/judge-chides-samsung-for-handing-nixed-evidence-to-media/ [cnet.com]

          The F700 is being discussed because Apple was allowed to argue that the F700 was a copy of the iPhone design. Samsung said they intended to release information which would 'prove they did not copy the iPhone

          • by crazyjj (2598719) *

            From the very article you linked to (emphasis mine):

            In response, the South Korean manufacturer has decided to release its evidence to the media: two slides showing Samsung phone designs and an excerpt from the deposition of former Apple designer Shin Nishibori, who said previously that he would not testify in court.

        • by Dishevel (1105119) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:00AM (#40841777)

          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.

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

        The prototypes from Samsung could still be relevant if Apples design where not released by that time. In that case Samsungs designs could show that two parties where having the same ideas independently.

    • by jkrise (535370)

      The judge ought to be charge-sheeted and sentenced for prejudicial misconduct. Sadly, it appears she has already decided in favour of Apple. So looks like this is headed for the Appeals court, all over again.

    • by Joce640k (829181) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:37AM (#40841543) Homepage

      Not sure how a judge can prohibit someone from releasing their own designs.

      Even more unsure how this evidence can be dismissed by a judge. It's important.

      Seems to me like we need a better judge.

      • by poetmatt (793785)

        this is a: the same judge that filed the injunction against samsung and b: says things need to be public. Samsung releasing one of it's own designs? Questionable that there can be any judicial influence on the topic.

      • by gnasher719 (869701) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @01:40PM (#40845083)

        Even more unsure how this evidence can be dismissed by a judge. It's important.

        If it is important, then please explain why Samsung produced it after the deadline. There are three logical explanations: 1. This evidence was good evidence, but Samsung's lawyers are morons who didn't submit that evidence until it was too late. 2. This was evidence that Apple could have refuted if they did a careful search, so Samsung's lawyers tried to get the evidence in as late as possible so that Apple wouldn't have time to find out what's wrong with it. 3. This is evidence that Samsung always knew was rubbish, so they intentionally submitted it after the deadline, hoping that people would think that Samsung is treated unfairly when it is refused, and again not giving Apple a chance to refute it.

      • by s73v3r (963317) <[s73v3r] [at] [gmail.com]> on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @01:43PM (#40845129)

        Even more unsure how this evidence can be dismissed by a judge. It's important.

        Why? It doesn't actually change anything or mean anything.

        Seems to me like we need a better judge.

        By that you mean, "One who will be biased in favor of what I want"?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Danathar (267989)

      Although I agree that Samsung might have been considering iphone like designes before the iphone came out, one has to consider if Samsung's designs were based on what they saw when Apple came to them for manufacturing as opposed to when it was released.

      Samsung would have known the design of the iphone FAR before the release date due to the fact that they had to manufacture it.

      • by Xest (935314)

        I don't think Samsung manufactured any of the iPhones, they just sold Apple the constituent parts.

        • by Danathar (267989)

          yea, but a good set of engineers could see what Apple was building if Samsung had the parts even prior to full assembly at a place like FOXCONN

    • WTF? The summary should have made it more clear that these are pre-iPhone *Samsung* designs, showing pretty clearly that they were considering very iPhone-like designs before the iPhone had even released. It's the cornerstone of Samsung's case that Apple didn't invent the idea of a rectangular phone with a touchscreen and that they had been developing the same design idea at the time.

      Not sure how a judge can prohibit someone from releasing their own designs.

      Because that shows the "obviousness" of certain design elements. Just compare pictures of a (switched-off) HP TouchPad and an Apple iPad, they are freakishly similar up to the one button at the bottom center (though it's shaped differently).

      LUCKILY these designs are all over the net, so everyone knows that the general appearance is not a Revelation Given To Humanity by Apple.

  • by Shivetya (243324) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:14AM (#40841303) Homepage Journal

    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?

    • 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.
    • by Theaetetus (590071) <theaetetus,slashdot&gmail,com> on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:25AM (#40841419) Homepage Journal

      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 poetmatt (793785)

        I don't know enough about the situation, but why wasn't it raised earlier? I understand they said deadline was passed, but when was apple's complaint raised prior to samsung introducing this evidence? Would they know that prior to apple raising a complaint, for example?

      • by chrb (1083577)

        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?

        If Samsung is not allowed to introduce relevant evidence, then what is the point of this trial? The courts judgement is going to be based on a partial view of the available evidence. If Samsung lose, they will instantly appeal and submit the relevant evidence that they weren't allowed to introduce the first time. Seems like a waste of time and money to allow this to happen.

        • 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?

          If Samsung is not allowed to introduce relevant evidence, then what is the point of this trial?

          They had months to introduce it. There was a very clear date, set well in advance, at which point all evidence had to have been introduced or it would be excluded. Why should Samsung get a pass on the rules?

          The courts judgement is going to be based on a partial view of the available evidence. If Samsung lose, they will instantly appeal and submit the relevant evidence that they weren't allowed to introduce the first time. Seems like a waste of time and money to allow this to happen.

          There's nothing that says that the appeals court will let them introduce it either. They had months to do so and kept it secret, hoping to spring it out right before trial. That's not allowed.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:26AM (#40841427)

      Sounds like you have already predetermined that Samsung is right. Have you considered that the judge actually reviewed the "evidence", and you have not?

      • In the US, it is up to the jury to decide who is right. Not the judge.

        • by thefinite (563510)

          In the US, it is up to the jury to decide who is right. Not the judge.

          I think it would help for you to understand the law better. In jury trials, judges determine issues of law and juries determine issues of fact. Whether or not evidence should be barred because Samsung failed to produce it (their own design they had for years) during a months-long discovery period is an issue of law determined soley by the judge.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Joce640k (829181)

      I suspect the real reason the judge is "furious" is because now the entire world knows she's in Apple's pocket.

      Disallowing these pre-iPhone designs as evidence proves it.

      • If you had been following the case, Samsung made an appeal to have this evidence added past deadline. This was their designs which they could have submitted earlier. The judge said no. Samsung filed appeals. Now they are asking again to submit it even though they've been told repeatedly no. If you were the judge, you'd be pissed too.
  • by Max Romantschuk (132276) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @09:22AM (#40841391) Homepage

    I don't really care that much how the trial pans out... But I do care about the fact that it seems like this trial is hurting my choices as a consumer. I like choice. From what I can see Apple is trying reeeeally hard to show that they should own a bunch of really nice UI ideas. Or that a touchscreen filling most of the user facing side of the phone is their idea? Frankly, the whole thing seems ridiculous.

    Recently I've been looking at buying an IP67-grade Android phone. AFAIK Apple has no plans to make the iPhone waterproof and dustproof. So if Apple has it's way either I buy a UI-crippled phone, or an iPhone which doesn't fit my requirements?

    Legislation should exist to benefit society, not to maximize profits for a select few corporate entities.

    • by cyfer2000 (548592)
      Someone is going to make some really good designs, designs that are way better than Apple's. That's the benefits we are going to get if Apple wins.
    • by bgat (123664)

      So if Apple has it's way either I buy a UI-crippled phone, or an iPhone which doesn't fit my requirements?

      Correct, and correct. Hint: the Apple phone is both UI-crippled and not IP67.

    • "How do we, as consumers, benefit from all this?"

      With patent litigation, the direct answer is that we almost never do, and the system isn't really intended to provide an immediate benefit: it's explicitly a temporary monopoly granted to an inventor, and monopolies (even temporary) generally raise prices and reduce options.

      The theoretical long-term justification is that a patent system incentivizes both innovation and public disclosure of innovations (vs. keeping them as trade secrets), thereby making us all better off in general, with better, cheaper, technology and more options if you view it over a longer timeframe than the timeframe of any one patent.

      I suspect that it often fails to work out that way, though.

      • by Rich0 (548339)

        I think this depends greatly on the industry.

        If an idea is MUCH easier to get out to market than it is to come up with, then it is a good candidate for a patent. The same applies if coming up with an idea requires some huge investment in capital.

        If not, patents get in the way.

        Getting a phone out to market seems to cost about the same as designing it - we're not talking about orders of magnitude in cost. So, patents tend to get in the way.

        If you take something like a drug the situation is the opposite. Yo

    • by jbolden (176878)

      Legislation should exist to benefit society, not to maximize profits for a select few corporate entities.

      The problem here is not the legislation so much as the regulation. Different parts of the American economy need different patent policies and quite a bit of judgement needs to be applied to achieve that. That is we need an expensive, well staffed powerful patent office with strong congressional support.

    • But you see, Apple is aware of this, and has given you choice: getting an iPhone now, or wait a few months for the next one!

    • by wfolta (603698) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @12:52PM (#40844191)

      Consumers benefit in the short run when anyone can copy anyone else. That triggers price wars, which make things cheap.

      Consumers benefit in the long run when companies that make big bets are able to benefit from them. Look at tablets before Apple: decades of stagnation. Look at "smartphones" before Apple: a decade of what we'd now call "feature phones". Apple made enormous bets on these devices and all the pundits predicted they'd flop. If they had, Apple might not have survived as a company. If another company can simply make their phone or tablet look and act like Apple's, exactly how will companies like Apple believe it is in their best interest to take huge gambles for consumer benefits?

      Even if Apple continues on its name brand, what about other innovative companies? Samsung is HUGE, and if a company like that can use its integrated manufacturing, marketing, etc, against any innovator -- sucking the profit out of innovation -- other markets will stagnate as tablets and phones did prior to Apple.

      So, while the patent system is broken and patents things it should not, the anyone-can-copy market doesn't actually lead to innovation. (If it did lead to innovation, Linux would surely be the desktop of choice today, right?)

      • the anyone-can-copy market doesn't actually lead to innovation. (If it did lead to innovation, Linux would surely be the desktop of choice today, right?)

        There's plenty of evidence to support thinking otherwise. See for example Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine

  • by ilsaloving (1534307) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:32AM (#40842209)

    The summary missed what is probably the most important line of the article:

    "The Apple vs. Samsung trial was always destined to be a circus, "

    It's clear that neither Apple nor Samsung is going to look good PR wise after all is said and done.

    So the question becomes, who will get screwed over the hardest? Right now I'm betting on Samsung, simply because Apple has way more... um... "thermonuclear" experience.

  • by dell623 (2021586) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @10:45AM (#40842369)

    I don't understand. The trial isn't about whether Samsung copied Apple. It's not about the morals or ethics of copying. It's about whether Samsung violated Apple's utility and design patents. While the focus on copying is relevant to the design patents, even then, this shouldn't be about moral questions. If Samsung decided to copy Apple, it doesn't matter. IANAL but I saw this with the iPad design patent trial in Germany too and I couldn't understand. The trial should be about the patent. And the iPad design patent shows a fat tablet that looks nothing like any iPad. So I never understood how Samsung could have been found to have violated that patent. Similarly, for Apple's utility patents, the software patents, the trial should be focused on the validity and violation of the patents, namely prior art and the 'obviousness' and patentability of the patents, and whether Samsung actually infringes on them.

    If it turns out that Samsung has to pay a few million even a few hundred million to Apple to Apple for the iPhone design patent violated by the Galaxy S, it won't affect things much. While I still feel that would be a case of the legal system going overboard, Samsung clearly did copy many aspects of the iPhone design. But as the Galaxy S 2 and S 3 look nothing like any iPhone, it shouldn't affect any current products. Samsung can afford to pay that much and Apple has more money than it knows what to do with. Whereas if Apple win on one of the software patents that would be a terrifying outcome that would be followed by preliminary injunctions blocking virtually all Android phones in the U.S. This isn't a moral crusade. If Samsung copied Apple and Apple still lose, well boohoo, it wouldn't make the list of the top one million horrible things that happened in the world that day.

    It's not about being morally right or wrong. Not just the coverage, but so much of the testimony and evidence and court proceedings seem to focus on that. And this judge is an ignorant nutcase, who ordered a preliminary injunction before a trial to ban the Galaxy Nexus from the United Status. Yes, she decided that having a common search for local and web items is a valid patent, is clearly violated, and having that violated harms Apple's business much more than having the GN banned would harm consumers. I would love to see Apple get that reasoning past Posner. At least make them win in a goddam trial, does she even understand she will be fundamentally undermining the market dynamics of the fastest growing, emerging area of technology in the world and handing the market to Apple on a platter with bans like those, and if that is really justified by a dubious patent?

  • Maybe that should judge should learn how court cases work before she presides over this case. If they say XXXXX cannot be administered as evidence and then you show it anyway, you instantly land somewhere between a mistrial and losing the case. I can think of several criminal cases that were instantly done and over with because the prosecution mentioned something about the defendant that was specifically not allowed as evidence. Like if someone was on trial for being a serial killer and they deemed it no
    • by jkflying (2190798)

      Yeah, but what if the defendant mentions that they were a butcher? Do they suddenly go free? Because Samsung is the defendant here...

    • by Dynedain (141758)

      The inadmissible evidence was revealed to the general public, not the court room.
      This is a civil trial, not a criminal one. There is far more leeway before the hammer of a mistrial comes down.

  • by thefinite (563510) on Wednesday August 01, 2012 @11:25AM (#40842903)
    In civil trials, you have a pre-trial period called discovery. In big, complex trials like these, discovery lasts for many months. During the discovery process, each side is entitled to ask for, and required to provide, evidence from the other side. In addition to this, each side is required to provide to the opposing counsel all of the evidence they might bring up at trial. This is intended to allow both sides plenty of time to investigate the opposing evidence and prepare their responses.

    Samsung's attorneys failed to produce the evidence about the design of the F700 during the discovery period. This is in spite of it being around for several years before the lawsuit was even filed by Apple. By holding it back until just before the trial, Apple's counsel didn't get the time to investigate the evidence and prepare their responses. Because we have an adversarial legal system, one in which two parties fighting over the truth before an independent jury, it's important that the rules guarantee both parties a fair fight.

    Judge Koh decided that holding back that evidence until after discovery broke the rules required for a fair fight, especially considering that 1) Samsung had the evidence available for years, and 2) if the evidence is actually the smoking gun that they claim, it should have been presented during discovery to give Apple the right to examine it and prepare a response. I think this was a reasonable decision by the judge. To be fair, consider how you would have reacted if the roles had been reversed and Apple had tried to introduce such important evidence so late.

    All that said, and knowing how some lawyers can be, I suspect the evidence is being overblown by the Samsung attorney because he wants a path to appeal. Improperly denied evidence could give rise to an entire retrial. But I suspect:
    1. someone on Samsung's legal team screwed up and didn't include the evidence in discovery
    2. the Samsung attorneys realized the screw up and are now trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear
    3. the evidence is actually quite weak (See this excellent takedown [theverge.com] of how the F700 is not much like the iPhone at all.)
    4. by releasing the evidence in a press release, the attorney is trying to manipulate the judge, not get a fair outcome.

    Combined with the evidence destruction [bloomberg.com] by Samsung, they've really been screwing this one up.

    • Yes, but my understanding is Apple discussed it during the case. this opens it up regardless of the pretrial issues. And releasing the information outside the court should have no effect on the case. The jury should not be looking at press releases on these companies anyways.

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.

Working...