Apple Asks Court To Sanction Samsung; Samsung Fires Back; More iPhone Prototypes 404
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.
Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (Score:3, Informative)
But this is normal for judges; they think they're little demigods, in or out of court.
Re:Let's look at the dates (Score:1, Informative)
No moron, they're just arguing that they couldn't have copied apple because they were already working on what is alleged to be a copy.
But the judge is saying "No, you can't show us that evidence." And making it so samsung cannot defend itself.
Re:Well damn. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:situation deteriorating (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Judge contridicted herself. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg (Score:5, Informative)
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"?
No, the information was the F700 (Score:3, Informative)
Which isn't a Sony mock-up, it's Samsung's design.
Along with 9 other samsung designs.
Incomplete timeline (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Judge contridicted herself. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (Score:5, Informative)
No, I disagree. What the litigants go the court of public opinion (should) have nothing to do with what the jurors hears in the court room. Jurors are instructed to not seek outside information about cases, they are told not to discuss the case with anyone (not even among one another after the trial concluded and jury deliberation starts. The jurors are supposed to avoid anything outside to the courtroom which might sway their opinions of the case
But in the case in particular, Apple has been talking with the media about the case with zeal. Samsung from my view of the trial has been relatively quiet about it. Samsung has been taking a beating in the court of public opinion. So the lawyer hit back in a very precise and calculated statements to the press. As I said before, the jury won't be affected, because they are supposed to avoid it. If the courts can't trusts jurors, they might as well go home or sequester the jury.
Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (Score:4, Informative)
"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.
Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (Score:4, Informative)
They missed the deadline. If the evidence was that important, how come Samsung, a company that has already been found guilty of destroying evidence even against court order telling them to retain it, forgot about it for so long?
Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (Score:5, Informative)
It seems they filed the evidence, but it was disallowed by the judge.
Then Apple talked about Samsung's designs (such as F700).
Normally, that would mean Apple had "opened the door", and Samsung could present its own evidence in reply.
But then the judge disallowed that, too.