Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Admonished For Releasing Rejected Evidence
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.'"
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.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
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.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
You're conflating issues. I believe you're thinking of this phone, but what samsung wants the Jury to see is this, and this, which are Samsung designs for a clearly iPhone-like phone, predating the iPhone.
Not as clear cut, actually. Here's Eugene Volokh's take:
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) to the press which do the same, and the Judge is mad at that.
But, troll, for others in the audience, let's examine your alleged point:
Typical Apple fanboy, the one who kept evidence hidden for months was Apple in this case, making it impossible for Samsung to get this evidence any earlier. As can be read clearly in Samsungs appeal. Mind you, facts never get in the way of an Apple fanboy.
Last I checked, the F700 was a Samsung phone. You're claiming that Apple hid Samsung's own product history from them, making it impossible for Samsung to get it any earlier. Why exactly should we find you credible about anything?
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.
That mockup is based on something SONY told them. So it sure sounds like someone at sony had this idea as well.
Well, no. Jony Ive asked a fellow designer "what would the iPhone look like if Sony designed it"? There was no input from Sony on the design. The result was a combination of the iPhone design, as it existed at that time, plus what the designer believed would be typical for a Sony design.
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.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.