Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents The Courts Apple

Unredacted Documents In Apple/Samsung Case, No Evidence of 'Copy' Instruction 178

Posted by samzenpus
from the you-can-see-clearly-now dept.
another random user writes "Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case seem not to offer actual evidence that Samsung told its designers to copy the iPhone. Documents that have now been unredacted seem to show that there was never any 'copy apple' instruction. There was a push towards things that would be different, such as what is now seen in the Galaxy S3: 'Our biggest asset is our screen. It is very important that we make screen size bigger, and in the future mobile phones will absorb even the function of e-books.' Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unredacted Documents In Apple/Samsung Case, No Evidence of 'Copy' Instruction

Comments Filter:
  • Case Reset... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Monday October 08, 2012 @11:50AM (#41586089)

    Given that there was some serious misconduct with respect to the Jury Forman and his "creative" opinions about prior art and patent law, this case will be appealed and start all over.

    • Re:Case Reset... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08, 2012 @11:54AM (#41586147)

      Whilst I'm very much an Apple fanboy, I hate this kind of patent nonsense. The whole case seems to be a very odd affair especially since the companies are so closely tied. Reminds me of NetApp vs SUN and the whole COW patent issue with ZFS. Those two settled their differences to stop hurting their customers. Apple really doesn't need to do all this as they have the better (imho) product and let's face it if we got rid of patents like this we'd be all be much better off.

      • Everyone is at risk of becoming marginalized by none other than Android, and the risks associated in general here suggest to fight to not become marginalized. One way to do that is to slap your entire body on Android's business table and get in their way - which, basically, with trade blocks and so forth Apple has done in many cases across the globe with this.

        It caused a dent but didn't slow it down much (please remember that the presented figures are net average across quarters):
        http://www.businessinsider.
        • What effing world do you live in? If Android is actually taking over the world, it's doing so because it offers more choices. It's not like Apple, where fannies only get one or two new products every year and salivate between releases. If this plethora of choices is somehow evil, I am gobsmacked at having thought otherwise my whole life.

    • Given that there was some serious misconduct with respect to the Jury Forman and his "creative" opinions about prior art and patent law, this case will be appealed and start all over.

      Not necessarily. First, the "misconduct" appears to be regarding his disclosure of prior litigation. Whether that's enough for a full mistrial is questionable, and even moreso if Samsung knew about it prior to trial. Second, jurors are allowed to bring their life experiences into the jury room - that's why they have voir dire in the first place. He brought in his patent experience, the programmer on the jury brought in his experience, etc. If Samsung was so concerned about someone with patent knowledge bein

      • Re:Case Reset... (Score:5, Informative)

        by oxdas (2447598) on Monday October 08, 2012 @03:30PM (#41589335)

        Second, jurors are allowed to bring their life experiences into the jury room - that's why they have voir dire in the first place. He brought in his patent experience, the programmer on the jury brought in his experience, etc.

        From the voire dire, Judge Koh talking to Hogan:

          THE COURT: Okay. All right. Would that in any way -- you'll be instructed on what the law is and would you be able to follow the instructions I give you on the law, even if it may not completely correspond to what you may know about the patent system or the intellectual property laws?

        PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, I follow your instructions. ...

          THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Let's go, I think, to ms. Halim, Mr. Okamoto, and Mr. Hogan. You raised your hands. Okay. let's please start with Ms. Halim.

        PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Okay. I have two patents. One is issued when I was at weitek, also I.C. Design. Another one was at silicon graphics.

        THE COURT: And it was also on I.C. Design?

        PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, right.

        THE COURT: Okay. Were patents issued?

        PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

        THE COURT: And you were the inventor on both?

        PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

        THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anything from that experience -- basically you obviously will bring your life experience to your role as a juror, but would you be able to set that aside, your previous experience with patents, and decide this case based solely on the law as you're instructed and the evidence that's admitted during the trial?

        PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes. ...

          THE COURT: Now, same for Mr. Tepman, as well as to Mr. Hogan. You all have a lot of experience, but will you be able to decide this case based solely on the evidence that's admitted during the trial?

        PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

        THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hogan says yes. What about Mr. Tepman?

        PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I think so, too.

        It doesn't seem like the voire dire transcript entirely agrees with you. He was specifically instructed to not bring his patent experience into the jury room.

    • More likely, the Samsung lawyers who couldn't figure out how to counter the redacted documents will likely be sacked.
  • by laudunum (585188) on Monday October 08, 2012 @11:55AM (#41586149)
    Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers? That was their job after all. They seem better at managing public perception before, after, and outside the classroom and fairly incompetent in the courtroom itself. Yes, the patent system is highly dysfunctional. Yes, the law seems highly dysfunctional. But isn't the job of a high-powered attorney to factor all those vectors, and many more, into their presentation and execution?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers

      That's funny, I thought our legal system was "Innocent until proven guilty."

    • Exactly. its not Apple's lawyers job to make a case for samsung. It would be like the District attorney talking about the murder suspects charity work, how stupid the crime lab can be and how difficult it is to really know, like anything for certain.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08, 2012 @12:06PM (#41586317)

        Despite the reputation lawyers have, it's not their job to lie through their teeth and actively misrepresent the truth either.

        • I'm pretty sure it actually is to present the truth in the best light for their clients. A criminal lawyer may actually know for a fact that their client did actually commit the crime, but he still is required to represent him as best as possible even if his client is pleading not guilty. They really cannot do anything other than misrepresent the truth in that case.

          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by jedidiah (1196)

            "Redacting" a document is altering evidence.

            It's pretty blatant really.

            It's much like faking video evidence.

            • by Shagg (99693)

              Or photoshopping an image of their competitor's tablet to make it look more like an iPad. Oh wait...

              • Or photoshopping an image of their competitor's tablet to make it look more like an iPad. Oh wait...

                Or holding up two devices and asking the Samsung lawyer which one supposedly didn't look like the other.

                • At the time of that they did that, I could not have told you which one was the Iphone and which one was the Samsung. Heck, at the time if you had held up a Blackberry and an Iphone, I could not have told you which was which. I didn't know what either one looked like. The fact that Samsung's lawyer did not know which was which does not really tell us anything other than the fact that he did not know which was which
                  • by sjames (1099)

                    If I do it right, you cannot tell the difference between my bare thumb and a shiny chrome plated thimble. Magicians use that to their advantage all the time and it can be accomplished even when standing 3 feet away.

                  • by Shagg (99693)

                    Are you talking about when the Apple lawyer held up the two devices and asked the team of Samsung's lawyers to identify them? Where one member of the team couldn't because they couldn't see well, but the rest of the team correctly identified them?

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Actually a criminal defense attorney can not say anything they know is factually incorrect in court, if they do they a guilty of misconduct, and likely disbarred.

          • by n0ano (148272) <n0ano@arrl.net> on Monday October 08, 2012 @03:12PM (#41589111) Homepage

            In re: misrepresent the truth.

            You need to take a legal ethics class (go figure, lawyers are required to take an ethics class). A lawyer is not allowed to lie to the court, either in what they say or the documents they file. It makes it very hard for lawyers when they `know` that a client is guilty. Yes lawyers have to represent their clients as best they can but, at the same time, they cannot lie to the court. I believe that this is why there is an unwritten law that a lawyer never asks a client if he is guilty, there are some things it's just better not to know.

            PS: IANAL but my wife is and I still remember when she took her ethics class.

            • I believe that this is why there is an unwritten law that a lawyer never asks a client if he is guilty, there are some things it's just better not to know.

              It's not just that; if a lawyer knows (actually knows, for a fact, not just "is damn sure") that their client is guilty, they cannot represent their client's innocence to the court. They'd have to recuse themselves.

          • If a lawyer knows his client his guilty, he cannot present a not guilty plea.

            IANAL, but my close friend IS, as a brief.

          • by greenbird (859670)

            I'm pretty sure it actually is to present the truth in the best light for their clients.

            Hmmm...seems to me that taking a part of a quote out of context and presenting it such that it appears to say the exact opposite of what it actually meant in context is at best unethical and I would consider it an outright lie on the ethical scale I grade myself by. It seems to me in any profession other than advertising it would be considered so. Lawyers by definition of their trade are not supposed to act unethical. (I know. You can stop laughing now. I live in a fantasy world.)

    • by hguorbray (967940)
      great Who song, but it's actually 'It's a legal matter baby":

      http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/A-Legal-Matter-lyrics-The-Who/D566D519E4C1D6D5482569770028CEEC

      I told you why I changed my mind
      I got bored by playing with time
      I know you thought you had me nailed
      But I've freed my hand from your garden rails

      Now it's a legal matter, baby You got me on the run
      It's a legal matter, baby A legal matter from now on

      My mind's lost in a household fog
      Wedding gowns and catalogs
      Kitchen furnishings and houses
      Maternity clo
  • The irony... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Monday October 08, 2012 @11:58AM (#41586207)
    The irony of Apple suing people for patent infringement is how little work Apple actually put into developing the technologies in the iPhone and in iOS (compared too all the other companies and research labs that developed said technologies)...
  • Bad summary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Theaetetus (590071) <theaetetus DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Monday October 08, 2012 @12:07PM (#41586331) Homepage Journal

    Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance.

    ... except that the entire document was presented to the court and the jury. Apple made arguments presenting it in a light favorable to them, and I'm sure Samsung made counterarguments presenting it in a light favorable to them. That's how trials work. The jury gets to see the entire document, hear both interpretations, and figure out who they think is more credible.

    • Re:Bad summary (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08, 2012 @12:33PM (#41586677)

      LOL - you think the jury looked at *any* of the documents? They already had their biased leader who knew all about patents and such to interpret - why read? The jury didn't understand squat in this case - they just decided they liked Apple better and went with it. Wonder how they found 12 people without cell phones to be on a jury so as not to be influenced by what they had - or how the patent master was left as foreman. I can't understand how either side saw him as a plus.

      • by arbiter1 (1204146)
        Don't forget that some of the jury even made their decision on day 1 of the case who they sided with. which right there IMO is valid grounds for an appeal.
    • by Solandri (704621)

      except that the entire document was presented to the court and the jury. [...]. That's how trials work. The jury gets to see the entire document, hear both interpretations, and figure out who they think is more credible.

      Given how quickly the jury returned with a verdict, it's pretty clear the jury didn't actually look at the entire document, and based their judgment solely on the interpretations. So yeah, that's how trials are supposed to work. But obviously it wasn't how it actually worked in this case.

      • except that the entire document was presented to the court and the jury. [...]. That's how trials work. The jury gets to see the entire document, hear both interpretations, and figure out who they think is more credible.

        Given how quickly the jury returned with a verdict, it's pretty clear the jury didn't actually look at the entire document, and based their judgment solely on the interpretations. So yeah, that's how trials are supposed to work. But obviously it wasn't how it actually worked in this case.

        How quickly compared to what? The musings of media analysts in a vacuum on how long it "should" have taken? The jury in the previous-"biggest patent law case", Microsoft v. i4i, took only a couple days. Do you have any comparable trials to this one that you can point do with juries taking longer?

    • The jury gets to see the entire document, hear both interpretations, and figure out who they think is more credible.

      Who are then told what to think by a blatantly biased and arrogant fellow juror.

      Still; no doubt in my mind Samsung opted to keep him in the final jury selection as a poison pill to guarantee a succesful appeal if they lost.

    • You completely miss the point. This wasn't just a court battle, it was a PR war. It had to be because the legal side is bogus and courts around the world are waking up to that. The PR war will survive longer than the legal one.

      Yes, the jury saw the unredacted version. The court saw it. The lawyers saw it.

      We didn't. The tame journalists Apple fed a pack of lies to before, during and after, didn't.

      The jury didn't seem to fall for it, if rejecting Apples design patent claims means anything. Now we see the pack

  • Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance.

    Thats not at all shocking. The problem is that Judge Koh (pronounced "Doh") failed to do her job, and keep the trial fair. She was a walking disaster on this trial. She pushed the trail far faster than it should have been, she failed to keep her personal feelings out of it, and apparently didn't even take the time to read the un-redacted documents she was presented with. The whole thing is going to appeal (of course), and will be turned over just on the failure of process alone. If there's any justice at al

  • by Anonymous Coward

    They would claim they patented the wheel and demand payment for any conveyor that uses round objects to get around.

  • Is it just me or does it seem like Samsung is hard at work trying to sway public opinion with these stories of late? I mean seriously, where's are the Slashdot stories talking about the report that shows Samsung's labor violations in China [thedroidguy.com]?!?

    • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Monday October 08, 2012 @12:44PM (#41586867)

      I mean seriously, where's are the Slashdot stories talking about the report that shows Samsung's labor violations in China [thedroidguy.com]?!?

      The problem is that virtually all consumer technology has this issue, and since we would like to keep our toys, we conveniently ignore abuses like these. There's really no pleasent way around it.

      • by Aryden (1872756)
        Because it was reported on months ago, around the same time the stories came out about the iPhone production facilities and work loads on workers.
    • by quacking duck (607555) on Monday October 08, 2012 @01:32PM (#41587719)

      Note that Samsung owns and operates 6 of the 8 plants that China Labor Watch inspected and reported on. Samsung, unlike Apple, is directly responsible for working conditions at their respective supply/assembly plants.

      CLW also claimed in an earlier report that working conditions at Samsung (or supplier) plants were much worse than Foxconn.

      Samsung also ships far more phones than Apple does iPhones.

      Taken all together, Samsung is a far worse labour rights violator than Apple is. We'd better see grass-roots petitions and condemnations against Samsung pronto.

    • by dimeglio (456244)

      I'm also quite baffled. I'm seriously questionning the integrity of this site.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    IAAL.

    I must confess I enjoyed reading Groklaw during the SCO-vs-linux days (well technically those aren't over, but you get what I mean). But the whole echo chamber of support seems to have gone to PJ's head and she's gone full-on anti-Apple, and in so doing betrayed her lack of knowledge in quite a few legal matters - for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) <.ten.3dlrow. .ta. .ojom.> on Monday October 08, 2012 @12:45PM (#41586893) Homepage

      for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less than what Apple wants for its patents, exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how FRAND operates.

      I think you misunderstood the point. Samsung's patents have clear value and pretty much everyone who makes a smart phone has to license them, typically by cross licensing their own patents. Apple's patents are about design elements, may well be invalid or unenforceable and they are not interested in licensing them anyway. It's a problem for Apple because then they have to pay cash to license FRAND patents, and when looking at their net worth and assets such patents are generally worth very little if anything.

    • IAAL, too, and I completely agree.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      What's strange about it is that she did an excellent job when covering the Apple v. Psystar.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08, 2012 @01:32PM (#41587713)

      Hello pot, kettle here!

      I don't think you understand how FRAND operates. FRAND patents have to be put in a pool available to all for a set fee. They are essential in order to be able to operate in the space, things like communicating with cell towers... whereas a rounded rectangle patent isn't.

      What PJ has pointed out was the stupidity of the current patent system where Apple is able to argue a patent for tapping the screen is worth an order of magnitude more than a patent -- if removed -- would render a device unable to function in any way with any modification, such as its radio transmitter.

      Basically, you either have a strong bias for apple, are intentionally trying to slur groklaw, or are ignorant. There isn't anything wrong with being ignorant, but you shouldn't point firngers at others because of it.

    • What if I told you it really is one sided and Apple has really little to no ground to stand on?
    • by blind biker (1066130) on Monday October 08, 2012 @01:53PM (#41588083) Journal

      IAAL.

      I must confess I enjoyed reading Groklaw during the SCO-vs-linux days (well technically those aren't over, but you get what I mean). But the whole echo chamber of support seems to have gone to PJ's head and she's gone full-on anti-Apple, and in so doing betrayed her lack of knowledge in quite a few legal matters - for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less than what Apple wants for its patents, exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how FRAND operates.

      I guess it's true that eventually you live long enough to see all your heroes crumble, and reading Groklaw's extremely one-sided (and often inaccurate) coverage just makes me sad about the old days, when SCO was just this laughably bad adversary.

      (It's like how WWII was the "golden age" for war movies because the Nazis were such simple, no-need-to-think-too-hard enemies you could gun down by the thousands without restraint... SCO provided that when it went after Linux with it's incredibly futile attack).

      Groklaw is, I see now, no longer an unbiased cut-through-the-bullshit critique of what's going on on the legal side of tech. Groklaw has an agenda - understand this and you can read it safely.

      I bolded the part of your text that is actually relevant to the topic at hand.

  • Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."

    That is pretty much what each side is supposed to do in the US legal system. Each side presents the evidence in the way they think best favors their case and then the judge/jury decides between them. Samsung has access (or is supposed to have access) to the same information and can present it if they think Apple is leaving out important details. Neither side has any obligation to present the opposition's case in a favorable light. If Samsung's lawyers didn't do their job well then it isn't surprising th

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shentino (1139071)

      A car that is in good working order is still going to crash if it has a bad driver.

      Similiarly, if you get a jury foreman who lies through his teeth just to get a chance to get even with the defendant, you are going to have problems.

      There are decisions that can only be made by people, and people are also good at manipulating things. That is why no system will ever be perfect as long as people are involved.

  • It seems like it would have been in Samsung's interest to post the documents online from the get-go.
  • Yeah, right "unredacted" documents suddenly show they say the exact opposite of before - but why Samsung didn't show them in court remains a "mystery", it were originally theirs (just like the prior art they couldn't hand over in time - a looong time). Somehow nobody noticed that Apple had the "un" blacked in "We must make something more unlike the iPhone"

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    But hey, PJ proves it - by selectively only quoting what fits her agenda. And what has actually been in the "redacted" document

  • Lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jwthompson2 (749521) * <.moc.smargorpnialp. .ta. .semaj.> on Monday October 08, 2012 @12:33PM (#41586693) Homepage

    "Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."

    Lawyers presenting evidence in a way that is beneficial to their clients? Outrageous!

    Wait...Isn't that their job? And isn't the job of the other party's lawyer to do the same and, if possible, poke holes in their opponents line of argument?

  • When you take things outta context it can sound very bad. I mean look at sports announcers, listen to with a certain mind set and if you pick out little clips and phrases they can sound very dirty.
  • Nothing equivalent to
    COPY A to B
    ?

    Try something like this instead:
    STORE 0 to B
    ADD A to B

    Coming up with a proprietary implementation is left as an exercise for Samsung.

    • by jrumney (197329)
      galaxy-s3$ cp A B
      Unrecognized command
      galaxy-s3$ dd if=A of=B
      84+1 records in
      84+1 records out
      43219 bytes copied 0.083 seconds 5 MB/s
  • I hear the next Samsung phones will come with free large pizzas because the phones are shipped in similar sized boxes.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    A debate on whether or not Samsung actually copied Apple is not needed. Patent protection doesn't require the plaintiff to show the defendant actually copied their work. A patent protects against anything which infringes it no matter how it is derived. It is a much stronger protection than copyright.n Evidence of copying can help support a claim of infringement.

    A copyright holder has to show the infringer copied the work. Two artists which independently created nearly identical works inspired by some o

    • by jedidiah (1196)

      That's the real problem with patents.

      I can "re-invent" something trivial and violate a patent and not even be aware of it.

      Patents are supposed to ease the burden rather than make it greater. That is something lost on patent boosters that have this misguided idea that society should be more open to granting 20 year long monopolies (especially on trivial things).

      Patents are toxic waste treated like candy.

  • Evidence of Samsung copying Apple could have been useful to support a showing of intentional infringement, but is unnecessary to support a judgment of infringement of a patent. Patent protection is a strong IP protection. It protects against any infringement of the patent no matter how it is derived. Copyright gives the IP holder protection from copying, so it is relatively week. If copying can't be proved there isn't a case for copyright infringement.
  • that Samsung had shitty lawyers?

    Of course Apple's lawyers are going to slant the everything towards their argument, that is their job after all. They can't rip out the pages that goes against their case before they supply the evidence to the other side, but these are Samsung's documents so surely Samsung's lawyers had access to them anyway.

  • Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."

    The primary thing this tells us is that Groklaw is so biased on this matter that they aren't thinking straight. Let's apply just a bit of common sense:

    These are Samsung documents. Apple obviously does not have the power to hide the contents of Samsung's own documents. As is commonly the c

  • and.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) on Monday October 08, 2012 @03:02PM (#41588989)
    and since Apple is now coming out with bigger screens (iPhone 5), it appears that Apple is copying Samsung.
  • Or they can go to jail. Their call.

Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.

Working...