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.'"

2 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. Oooh an apple fanboy by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 0, Troll

    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.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  2. Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? by Deorus · · Score: 0, Troll

    The iPhone had not yet been released in 2006, it came out in 2007. Did Apple tell Samsung to avoid designing a similar phone before Apple announced it?

    Samsung fucked up any possibility to claim plausible denial the moment they accused Apple of copying SONY based on a design mockup from 2006 featuring a device similar to the iPhone with the letters JONY written on it in a similar fashion to SONY's logo. Not only are they gonna lose this trial because they're simply wrong but there's overwhelming evidence supporting the theory that they copied Apple, but also because their lawyers are simply incompetent.