Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Patents Apple

Apple Asks Court To Sanction Samsung; Samsung Fires Back; More iPhone Prototypes 404

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the in-the-next-act-they-fall-in-love dept.
djl4570 writes "Samsung released to the press documents that had been excluded by Judge Lucy Koh. According to Samsung 'The judge's exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the full story...The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design,' An article at another site described judge Lucy Koh as 'Livid.' The defendant released exculpatory evidence that had been suppressed by the judge. This after many stories in the tech press portray the case as Samsung versus Lucy Koh instead of Samsung versus Apple." An anonymous reader sent in Groklaw's detailed take on the spat. Related to the trial, colinneagle sent in more info revealed about iPhone prototypes. One early design would have featured shaped glass, but materials weren't up to spec at the time.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Asks Court To Sanction Samsung; Samsung Fires Back; More iPhone Prototypes

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:00PM (#40857001)

    The judge's job is to judge the case in court.

    She has bugger all to say other than as a private citizen about Samsung's speech to the media.

    Inside the court, a different matter, but that's not what's got her livid. If she's emotionally involved then she is not an impartial judge any more.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Grishnakh (216268)

      But this is normal for judges; they think they're little demigods, in or out of court.

    • by jxander (2605655) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:10PM (#40857115)

      Bingo. Samsung already has a no-lose case going. Either they win, or they appeal the ruling based on the obvious biases of the judge.

      The cynic in me can't help but wonder if that's really the plan. She'll rule in favor of Apple, Samsung will appeal, this whole thing will drag on for years... meanwhile the lawyers and judges in the case are making $$$ and both Apple and Samsung get to keep their names in the headlines for a good long while.

      • by Andrio (2580551) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:49PM (#40857627)
        Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!
      • by Jeng (926980)

        The cynic in me can't help but wonder if that's really the plan. She'll rule in favor of Apple, Samsung will appeal, this whole thing will drag on for years... meanwhile the lawyers and judges in the case are making $$$

        Problem with that, Samsung can't sell some of their products until this case is won. It is in Samsung's best interest to have this case over and done with as soon as possible.

        • by milkmage (795746)

          judges are paid by the state. they do not get an hourly, they get a salary.
          judges don't make a dime off trials (at least not legally)

      • by Splab (574204)

        Wont be the same judge in an appeal, so no, definitely not her game plan.

        I think she just went with her ego and the Samsung lawyer is way out of her league (the judges that is). The Samsung lawyer knows what he is doing; not only is he making sure there will be an appeal should he lose, he has made Samsung look like the true hero and Apple like a villan. As the Groklaw article says, I want this guy as my lawyer!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says [allthingsd.com] the whole point is to influence the jury:

      The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.

      • by syngularyx (1070768) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:20PM (#40857233)
        so why the Samsung Lawyers were so late in presenting this "extra evidence"????
      • by tha_mink (518151) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:20PM (#40857243)

        I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says [allthingsd.com] the whole point is to influence the jury:

        I don't see how. That was their statement about being pissed that the evidence didn't get admitted. As the Groklaw article said, Samsung is fighting Apple in two courts now, and one of those is public opinion. I think this side of things requires they make their arguments in public. In addition, the judge denied sealing all the documents, so what else to do be release them yourself.

      • by geoskd (321194) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:21PM (#40857251)

        I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says [allthingsd.com] the whole point is to influence the jury:

        The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.

        There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest. The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality, but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist), and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded, and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business. Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.

        -=Geoskd

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Theaetetus (590071)

          There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.

          What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".

          The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality

          I don't know about that. She's made many rulings against Apple, too, so questioning her impartiality would require some specific evidence.

          but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist),

          As you note, Quinn was trying to "rile up" the judge. That's the very definition of contempt of court, and it's certainly within her authority to demand explanations in such cases.

          and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded,

          Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over. Why did Samsung withhold information on their own produc

          • by geoskd (321194)

            I think just about any bookee will give long odds on Samsungs evidence remaining excluded on appeal, and if it is allowed on appeal, it is essentially an admission that Koh shouldn't have excluded... They weren't so late as to justify exclusion, there is plenty of precedent for evidence being introduced later than this and being allowed.

            In any event, in a year or so, we can have a look back and have our answer, and you will be able to look back at your posting history and see that I was right.

            -=Geoskd

            • Perhaps the judge just didn't like intentionally late submissions of evidence, as compared to actually hard to discover evidence submitted late.

              If I was a judge I would also be pissed at such obvious attempts at gaming the system.
              • by micheas (231635)

                As one judge in San Francisco Superior Court said to an attorney that complained about the other side gaming the system. That's why people hire attorneys.

                I would think that a judge would just assume that all parties are trying to game the system after seeing that happen a few hundred times the first month on the job.

          • by geoskd (321194)

            There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.

            What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".

            Did you see what I did there? I never said there was any kind of conflict of interest, but somehow you came away with the impression that I did (which is why I included the original statement for reference). I made no false statements, nor did I Libel anyone, but to the general public it looks like I did in fact say that she was behaving unethically. That is exactly the same maneuver Quinn is using against Koh, and she is falling all over herself in rising to the bait. Quinn is damn good at what he does, an

          • by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @01:26PM (#40858181) Journal

            Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over.

            Apple included the F700 in their own presentation and said it was another example of Samsung copying them. I believe this is called "opening the door" [uslegal.com], which means the F700 is now admissable even if it is raised after discovery.

          • by BronsCon (927697) <social@bronstrup.com> on Thursday August 02, 2012 @01:38PM (#40858361) Journal

            Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.

            Neither can Apple, as they have used images of it in this trial. It's been allowed, already, as long as Apple is using it, but disallowed for Samsung; that's the crux of the problem here.

          • by sylvandb (308927) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @02:28PM (#40859057) Homepage Journal

            "rile up" the judge is NOT "the very definition of contempt of court." Some ways one might rile up the judge would be contempt but it is up to a good lawyer to push that as far as possible without being in contempt.

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      she's pissed off because it makes her look impartial.

      (the evidence wasn't _that_ late, not that much more late than evidence in some other like cases, and arguably apple had access to f700 docs so it shouldn't have been such a big deal)

      in a case like this isolating the jury from the real world doesn't serve much use anyhow.

      this round isn't even interesting because it will go to appeals no matter who wins.

    • by Richard_at_work (517087) * <richardprice&gmail,com> on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:19PM (#40857219)

      She has something to say if said speech can affect her case in a significant way - entire cases can go to mistrial for comments said out of the court room.

      Slashdot seems to lack a basic understanding of law and the court process these days...

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:49PM (#40857623)

        1) the jury has already been picked and instructed to not read any news reports on this material, so releasing it now can't affect the jury. If you can't rely on the jury to follow instructions, then the process is broken anyhow.

        2) the material itself was already public before Samsung released it. they just pointed out which publicly-available material the judge wouldn't let in

        3) the judge herself said that this trial should be as open as possible, hence the material being available to the public in the first place

        4) the judge did not instruct that this material could not be released so it's not like the lawyers were disobeying orders

        IANAL, but it seems that Samsung outmaneuvered the judge on this one.

      • by EveLibertine (847955) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @01:12PM (#40858009)
        PJ addressed this in her post at Groklaw, but very basically information that is already in the public domain can not effect the court, as the jury has already been instructed to avoid news and any other external information source containing information about the trial. Samsung's press release didn't contain anything that wasn't already in the public domain.
        From Groklaw:

        Remember in the SCO v. Novell trial, SCO's hair was on fire because it worried that the jury would visit Groklaw if an exhibit included the url and made Novell remove it after the judge refused to ban the exhibit itself? And why did he refuse? Because he said he relied on the jury to follow his instructions, adding that if you can't trust them to do that much, we might as well just quit.

        • PJ addressed this in her post at Groklaw, but very basically information that is already in the public domain can not effect the court, as the jury has already been instructed to avoid news and any other external information source containing information about the trial. Samsung's press release didn't contain anything that wasn't already in the public domain.

          Unfortunately, PJ and Groklaw stopped being an impartial source a while ago. Anyone who repeats the "rounded rectangle" nonsense cannot be considered impartial.

    • I don't know if Samsung is doing to push her buttons. As a judge, she has ruled on this particular subject numerous times and it has been appealed. Samsung's lawyers appear to be doing an end-around her orders. While technically she never ruled that Samsung couldn't release the information, they are getting close to breaking the spirit of her rulings. Most judges would not be happy.
      • by geoskd (321194) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:36PM (#40857461)

        I don't know if Samsung is doing to push her buttons. As a judge, she has ruled on this particular subject numerous times and it has been appealed. Samsung's lawyers appear to be doing an end-around her orders. While technically she never ruled that Samsung couldn't release the information, they are getting close to breaking the spirit of her rulings. Most judges would not be happy.

        You've missed a few important details: She specifically ordered the court documents unsealed That means that by HER orders, the very documents Samsung released are PUBLIC. The spirit of her rulings is being upheld by Samsung, and their lead counsel. She is mad because in the court of public opinion she is going to be crucified (and rightly so) With all her mis-steps and outright blunders, many people will be questioning her fitness to serve. Her only way out now is recuse herself because of her bias and declare a mistrial (start over). God forbid one of these judges should admit their mistakes and pony up. They're human, they make mistakes, but as my father always told me, its not whether you make mistakes that demonstrates your greatness, its how you handle your mistakes. Stepping aside is the only way for her to save any face, and if there were any real justice, it would be the only way to save her job.

        -=Geoskd

    • by Mabhatter (126906)

      You have the point.. What matters is what happens IN COURT. right or wrong, the materials were rejected as evidence because they were not filed on time. Therefore, the materials aren't part of the jury's decision.

      The issue is that the lawyers orginally didn't want to release these at all, then under seal... Judge got tired of the nonsense and called them on the deadline. To take that information to the media after you LOST your turn in court is the judge's problem.

      Is the lawyer trying to shame a judge into

  • Well damn. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Shivetya (243324) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:02PM (#40857007) Homepage Journal

    What is the world coming to when I find myself cheering on a lawyer, one whose actions and defense of such is just so damn much fun to read. Its like, okay Judge, two can play at this game and your out matched.

    As for Apple, why must a company with such great products because the new poster child for much of what is wrong with regards to Intellectual property. They seem hell bent to do what their competitors could not do, besmirch their name

    • Re:Well damn. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:16PM (#40857183)

      Because that was Steve Job's dying wish. Destroy Android at all costs, even if it takes every last penny. In fact the quote is...

      I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion [£25bn] in the bank, to right this wrong.

      • by BMOC (2478408)
        ...like Kahn Noonian Singh pushing down on the bizarrely non-intuitive user-interface to the genesis device, Jobs dying wish will ultimately fail. If only he had targeted his overcapitalization for good, like putting men on Mars, I might respect him. Instead he blew it all on childish ego.
      • Re:Well damn. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ColdWetDog (752185) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @01:15PM (#40858067) Homepage

        Because that was Steve Job's dying wish. Destroy Android at all costs, even if it takes every last penny. In fact the quote is...

        I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion [£25bn] in the bank, to right this wrong.

        But he's dead. Not pining for the fjords, just plain ol' dead. Not resting. Not stunned. Dead.

        So what Steve wants isn't really all that important anymore, is it?

  • by bongey (974911) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:02PM (#40857009)
    Judge Lucy Koh ordered all the legal documents be un-sealed, but then complains when Samsung sends the unsealed , public information to the press , of which the press requested. If Apple wins, Samsung will win on appeal because the judge is digging her own hole.
    • Judge Lucy Koh ordered all the legal documents be un-sealed, but then complains when Samsung sends the unsealed , public information to the press

      Actually, she complained about the press release that specifically called her out. That's a different issue.

  • by aristotle-dude (626586) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:04PM (#40857039)

    "The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone [wikipedia.org]

    "Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700 [wikipedia.org]

    The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700, it had a real smartphone OS, a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard. So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine because the iPhone was in development long before 2006 and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device.

    • by Gilandune (1266114) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:11PM (#40857121) Homepage

      are you suggesting the F700 wasnt in development before the iPhone was released? If you look at a SGS and the F700 they are almost identical. There is no wrong to be pursued here, it is clear that both the apple and the samsung designs have well established histories that dont involve copying from one another.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anubis IV (1279820)

        Regardless of which came first (personally, I think it was a case of parallel, concurrent development and that neither side copied the other for those two devices) I think Samsung is playing up the F700 a lot because they want to win in the court of public opinion, not because the F700 actually matters. This controversy is good for them, both in terms of PR and in terms of helping to establish cause for a mistrial, possibly.

        If you take an actual look at the F700 [theverge.com], you'll see that it's nothing like the iPhone

        • by anonymov (1768712) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @01:20PM (#40858121)

          You, and The Verge, miss the point so very hard.

          All of this would be relevant if someone was trying to argue iPhone is a copy of F700 or vice versa.

          But nobody says that. Well, besides Apple, who presented it as evidence Samsung copied their yet unpopular phone in measly one month (or four months, depending of if you take presentation dates or release dates). Them korean bastards!

          Didn't you read that? F700 was presented by Apple on one of the slides, and Samsung tried to enter prototypes of 2006 to show that was not a copy of Apple's design.

          Samsung presents F700 as supporting the idea that Samsung didn't have to copy Apple to come to this design.

          Show F700 and Galaxy S to someone who doesn't know about iPhone (however unlikely that is to find such a person) and ask them if they are a part of same lineage or line breaks between them at some point for some reason.

          • I'm not sure what point it is that I'm missing or what you're trying to say.

            If your point is that it's sleazy that Apple can introduce it as evidence and then use it against Samsung by claiming it's a copy, then yes, I agree with you. Wholeheartedly. The two phones share almost nothing in common, so allowing Apple to claim otherwise is unfair if Samsung is unable to respond with facts. But that wasn't the topic I was addressing.

            The topic I was addressing was whether or not the F700 would be effective in pro

        • by Compaqt (1758360)

          re: the interface, are you trying to say Apple is claiming the rights to unsorted grid of icons?

          Hmm, wonder where they could have gotten that idea. I wonder.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_Manager [wikipedia.org]

    • by jabelli (1144769) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:13PM (#40857155)

      Yes, I'm sure Samsung developed the F700 in four months.

      The point is that Samsung was developing the F700 before the iPhone was revealed, but were not allowed to mention that in court after Apple brought up the F700 as an example of copying.

      If you're on trial for something and the judge tells the prosecution that they're not allowed to bring up your previous conviction, that all goes out the window if you mention it while on the stand, and they can then question you on it. This is supposed to be the same thing.

    • by Baloroth (2370816)

      Not what Samsung is saying in the slightest (did you even read the second sentence of the summary, or did you just jump into the comments?). What Samsung is claiming is that they developed the F700 independently of Apple. Apple is claiming Samsung copied them (in fact, they specifically point to the F700 as an example). In other words, Samsung is the one who would have needed the time machine, to make an iPhone-like device before the iPhone was ever revealed and possibly before the iPhone design was even fi

    • by LodCrappo (705968)

      "The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700,"

      sure

      "it had a real smartphone OS,"

      means nothing, as Apple's claim is not about the OS

      "a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard."

      all meaningless, as far as your argument that Samsung copied Apple goes..

      "So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine"

      no, they have not said that anywhere

      "because the iPhone was in development long before 2006"

      maybe it was, but what is your proof? simply the assumption that these things take a whil

    • by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:29PM (#40857359) Homepage Journal

      ..are you suggesting that the first iphone which featured just web pages as "programs" had a real smartphone os? not by any definition used by anyone in the business in 2007..

      technically f700 due to having midp support wipes the floor with first gen iphone. it also had hsdpa during time when apple was trying to argue to people that edge-grps is just fine.

      maybe you're also suggesting that they built f700 in a month and they used a time machine for filing their design patent for it in 2006? just face the music, the form factor was on it's way from numerous manufacturers(others than samsung and lg too) during that time, due to tech for making such phones coming to favorable price range: that's the real reason for iphone surfacing when it did, they were in a hurry to get it out during that favorable time. that's why the first generation was half assed in many, many ways.

    • Incomplete timeline (Score:5, Informative)

      by kervin (64171) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:41PM (#40857523) Homepage

      Your own wikipedia link Samsung_SGH-F700 [wikipedia.org] states that Samsung got a design patent for the F700 in December, 2006. Before the announcement of the iPhone.

    • Still, there was a windows of oportunity to Samsung to copy the iPhone design since they are suppliers of Apple. Still, the F700 could and should be fairly safe of any claims by Apple, but not the following models, there is a clear imitation of Samsung of Apple designs even from the packaging style and the design of the interface.

    • The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,

      Yes, and Samsung internal documents show the F700 design going back to 2005, and a Korean design patent was filed in December 2006 - before the iPhone design was unveiled.

      So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine

      No, Samsung is not claiming that Apple copied the F700, Samsung is claiming independent invention. Apple is claiming that the F700 copied the iPhone.

  • This is obviously not a simple issue as evidenced by conflicting court decisions around the world.
    In such a case, you really need a thoughtful and unbiased judge who can interpret rather than react.

    I don't think Lucy Koh fits the bill, at least not at this point in time. This seems like the kind of thing that disintegrates into a fancy form of "I don't like you" instead of a rational process.

  • by gman003 (1693318) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:06PM (#40857073)

    A judge can "suppress" evidence within the courtroom. That's fine, that's even necessary. If evidence was illegally obtained, say through an illegal search and seizure, of course a judge should prevent it from being used in court. I may think it was wrongly suppressed in this case, but it's the law.

    But Samsung isn't trying to release this evidence in court. They're releasing it for public knowledge. They may be doing so in an attempt to overturn the inevitable ruling, but a judge cannot prevent a company from releasing its own property in a case like this (national defense, maybe, or if it was "stolen" information, but that's not this case).

    So it's logical to conclude that Samsung believes:
    a) The judge is completely biased, possibly bought off, perhaps just a rabid Apple fangirl
    b) That they cannot win this case, and will need to appeal, therefore:
    c) Pissing off the judge cannot hurt them, as this judge would never rule for them anyways, and
    d) Anything they can do to improve their odds on appeal is worthwhile

    So Samsung is playing the long game. They've given up on this battle, and are already preparing for the next one.

    In fact, if they can show that this judge ruled more harshly in retaliation for doing something that is completely legal, they improve their odds of getting it overturned on appeal. So they should actually be trying to anger this judge (through entirely legal means, of course).

    • by jeffmeden (135043) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:19PM (#40857215) Homepage Journal

      So Samsung is playing the long game. They've given up on this battle, and are already preparing for the next one.

      In fact, if they can show that this judge ruled more harshly in retaliation for doing something that is completely legal, they improve their odds of getting it overturned on appeal. So they should actually be trying to anger this judge (through entirely legal means, of course).

      They overlooked one thing, the IOC is going to get them thrown out for not "playing to the best of their ability" since they are not fighting in this case like it's life and death.

    • I think more people than Samsung believes this. And that Koh is probably on a power trip (like most judges) so that it makes her feel more powerful when she can bar the truth from being told over some technical matter of the law. Almost as bad as not allowing a smoking gun into a murder trial because of an illegal search and seizure... even if it proves guilt. Both circumstances suppress the truth. So why is one bad and not the other. No altruistic arguments now. We're strictly talking about suppressing tru
      • by JDG1980 (2438906)

        Almost as bad as not allowing a smoking gun into a murder trial because of an illegal search and seizure... even if it proves guilt. Both circumstances suppress the truth. So why is one bad and not the other.

        Because a murder trial features the full might of the State aligned against one defendant. Because of this, the Constitution and the legal process give criminal defendants additional procedural rights to help to level the playing field. The State is far more powerful than the defendant, so the State

      • by gman003 (1693318)

        You suppress evidence gathered from illegal searches because it is a huge discouragement to performing illegal searches.

        Let's say I'm a cop, and I suspect someone is responsible for the murder I'm investigating. I've got zero evidence besides a really good gut feeling. Can't get a warrant.

        If I break in and search the place anyway, I could find the evidence I need (or even plant the evidence I want found, because I'm a loose-cannon cop not playing by the rules). But it's illegal, and the judge will throw it

    • by tha_mink (518151)

      In fact, if they can show that this judge ruled more harshly in retaliation for doing something that is completely legal, they improve their odds of getting it overturned on appeal. So they should actually be trying to anger this judge (through entirely legal means, of course).

      Yes, that's why it's so interesting to see what the judge will do next.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by UnknowingFool (672806)

      First of all, you are confusing legal with court procedures. It's not illegal for a lawyer to show up in court wearing a bikini. I'm pretty sure all judges would issues orders of contempt if a lawyer did that.

      Here's why the judge is mad. She's ruled on this subject repeatedly. Samsung missed their deadlines. While it might have helped them, that's too bad. Now it seems they are doing an end-around her orders.

      As for not hurting them, I suppose that you've never gotten a judge angry at you. While they h

      • by DeadCatX2 (950953)

        How are they doing an end-run around her orders? Has the jury seen any of this evidence? I doubt it, considering that they're supposed to be sequestered now. So the "end-run" theory fails.

        Besides, all of the documents were already in the public. All Samsung did was say "here is what the judge is suppressing." Here's a NYT article which explicitly mentions the F700 evidence...and it's dated before the jury had even been chosen!

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/technology/apple-samsung-trial-highlights-p [nytimes.com]

  • Samsung was attempting to introduce evidence well past discovery. In other words, they were trying to "ambush" Apple. The honorable Judge wouldn't have any of such tricks.

    There are rules to follow in court proceedings. Samsung clearly did not.
    We saw this kind of behavior with SCO vs Novell and Oracle v. Google. It didn't work then and neither will it this time.

    • by jxander (2605655) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:35PM (#40857439)

      Incorrect. They were trying to submit evidence late in the discovery process.

      I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating: They were trying to submit evidence late in the discovery process

      As in, still part of the discovery process. To use a sports analogy, should we discount any late-game come-backs if the winning points were scored "late in the game"?

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      how do you ambush someone with publicly available vids and filed design patents?

      moreover.. what the fuck does have to do with samsung re-releasing that information to press since it's their own company history shouldn't they be able to release and broadcast it as widely as they want?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by slashmydots (2189826)
      And what did the judge so when Apple showed non-admissible evidence right there inside the court room? Not a damn thing. Just kidding, actually she did do something. She told Samsung to stop complaining about it.
  • by LodCrappo (705968) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @01:31PM (#40858257) Homepage

    What I really think needs investigation is why all of Lucy Koh's statements end with "Sent from my iPhone".

"Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

Working...