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.'"
Sounds like you have already predetermined that Samsung is right. Have you considered that the judge actually reviewed the "evidence", and you have not?
How do you think Apple's marketing department will respond? Marketing is far and away Apple's strongest department, so it'll simply be spun as Samsung being sore losers. I'm not sure why the judge would necessarily care either, some just simply don't. Look at The Pirate Bay trial for example, the judge was part of a music industry lobby group, was exposed as such, but simply didn't give a shit and carried on.
Unless it stops her getting her paycheck, which it wont, then she has no reason to care or change course.
I don't understand. The trial isn't about whether Samsung copied Apple. It's not about the morals or ethics of copying. It's about whether Samsung violated Apple's utility and design patents. While the focus on copying is relevant to the design patents, even then, this shouldn't be about moral questions. If Samsung decided to copy Apple, it doesn't matter. IANAL but I saw this with the iPad design patent trial in Germany too and I couldn't understand. The trial should be about the patent. And the iPad design patent shows a fat tablet that looks nothing like any iPad. So I never understood how Samsung could have been found to have violated that patent. Similarly, for Apple's utility patents, the software patents, the trial should be focused on the validity and violation of the patents, namely prior art and the 'obviousness' and patentability of the patents, and whether Samsung actually infringes on them.
If it turns out that Samsung has to pay a few million even a few hundred million to Apple to Apple for the iPhone design patent violated by the Galaxy S, it won't affect things much. While I still feel that would be a case of the legal system going overboard, Samsung clearly did copy many aspects of the iPhone design. But as the Galaxy S 2 and S 3 look nothing like any iPhone, it shouldn't affect any current products. Samsung can afford to pay that much and Apple has more money than it knows what to do with. Whereas if Apple win on one of the software patents that would be a terrifying outcome that would be followed by preliminary injunctions blocking virtually all Android phones in the U.S. This isn't a moral crusade. If Samsung copied Apple and Apple still lose, well boohoo, it wouldn't make the list of the top one million horrible things that happened in the world that day.
It's not about being morally right or wrong. Not just the coverage, but so much of the testimony and evidence and court proceedings seem to focus on that. And this judge is an ignorant nutcase, who ordered a preliminary injunction before a trial to ban the Galaxy Nexus from the United Status. Yes, she decided that having a common search for local and web items is a valid patent, is clearly violated, and having that violated harms Apple's business much more than having the GN banned would harm consumers. I would love to see Apple get that reasoning past Posner. At least make them win in a goddam trial, does she even understand she will be fundamentally undermining the market dynamics of the fastest growing, emerging area of technology in the world and handing the market to Apple on a platter with bans like those, and if that is really justified by a dubious patent?