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This discussion has been archived.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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:12PM (#40857133)

    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 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 Urza9814 (883915) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:18PM (#40857211)

    What, exactly, is ridiculous? I see nothing ridiculous about SAMSUNG'S behavior in this case, only Apple's. And the judge. The only 'ridiculous' thing Samsung is doing is having the balls to defend itself against a judge that is very clearly in the wrong, and a patent troll (Apple in this case). I'm DEFINITELY buying a Samsung as my next phone after this...

  • 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 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

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:22PM (#40857261)

    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 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.

  • 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

  • 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 product until the eve of trial when Apple wouldn't have a chance to respond, let alone investigate? Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.

    and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business.

    Yes and no. Factual statements, yes. Statements about the judge, no.

    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.

    I think not. She made the proper decision, Quinn screwed up by trying to fight this in public rather than saving it for his appeal, and Appeals Courts don't look kindly on litigants who try to go around judges. Even if they may have reversed on the excluded evidence, they're not going to say that his attempt to "rile her up" was reasonable.

  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:40PM (#40857503)

    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 have to be partial, it's never a good idea to test someone's patience.

  • by bongey (974911) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:43PM (#40857563)
    Judge order all court documents unsealed. Judge gave order Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open". So the media could have gone down to the court room and asked for a copy of the documents.Also Apple brought up the F700 first, which if you as you say are a lawyer allows defense to work through new evidence. Quinn isn't an idiot , he probably did it to push the judge to an emotional response and she fell for it.
  • 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 Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2012 @12:50PM (#40857635)

    So, Apple has the right to claim "Samsung slavishly copied us" before trial to determine this even begins, but Samsung isn't allowed to defend themselves?

    That's a good, correct Apple fanboy answer.

    BTW, shouldn't _jury_ be expressly prohibited from getting any information related to the case outside of the courtroom? Which means neither Samsung's press-release, nor Apple's statements, nor, for example, this your comment should be known and mean anything for them. So, how's non-existant for jurors information makes this trial UNFAIR and PARTIAL?

  • 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 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2012 @01:38PM (#40858357)

    No one is saying they couldn't have submitted it earlier. But they were not required to. They made the deadline. That it all that matters.

  • 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 Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2012 @02:01PM (#40858711)

    Yes, pretty sure stripping off that slide-out keyboard to come to the disputed design was beyond possibility. Samsung had to throw away all their earlier design (did you read actual design patent claims that are at the core of the suit? "black, rectangular, rounded corners, bezel, flat surface level with edges", the whole thing? Those are present in F700) to copy Apple's patented design.

  • by Deorus (811828) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @02:13PM (#40858903)

    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.

    Those images were used because it came out after the iPhone. The "problem" (Samsung's problem) is that somehow they found a way to forget to file key evidence in this case before the deadline. This was their fault, the exclusion of the evidence is perfectly justified.

  • 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.

    Its existence has been allowed. The additional materials relating to its conception and design are not, as Apple never used those.

  • by Deorus (811828) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @02:46PM (#40859295)

    Possibly waiting until jury selection/direction was finalized because then you cannot argue the point about "swaying the jury" with public material. The jurors are not allowed to research the case using any other material than what is presented in court. If they do, they are removed from the jury.

    Of course you can argue that, it's called a mistrial, the jurors aren't sequestered! Plus by going to the media Samsung is making it extremely hard for the jury to actually avoid learning about the subject, in contempt to court. This isn't going to end well for them.

  • by anonymov (1768712) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @02:52PM (#40859375)

    Why do you always link to things that contradict you?

    "Contrary to the representations Apple's counsel made to this Court, Samsung did not issue a general press release and more importantly, did not violate any Court Order or any legal or ethical standards," Quinn wrote. "These false representations by Apple's counsel publicly and unfairly called my personal reputation into question and have resulted in media reports likewise falsely impugning me personally."

    "Moreover, before jury selection, virtually all of the information and images in the excluded slides had already appeared in dozens of media reports, including by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, and CNET," Quinn's declaration said.

    So yeah, pointing which of long published images were not admitted into trial in a press release not meant to be read by jurors is "trying to influence jury", as Apple made sure everyone knows. I'm sorry, I think you've messed up your post somehow, whose bullshit propaganda was that again?

  • by Compaqt (1758360) on Thursday August 02, 2012 @03:42PM (#40860051) Homepage

    Do you get the feeling the guy you're responding to is a paid shill? He's on half the comments in this thread.

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Working...