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.'"
WTF? The summary should have made it more clear that these are pre-iPhone *Samsung* designs, showing pretty clearly that they were considering very iPhone-like designs before the iPhone had even released. It's the cornerstone of Samsung's case that Apple didn't invent the idea of a rectangular phone with a touchscreen and that they had been developing the same design idea at the time.
Not sure how a judge can prohibit someone from releasing their own designs. But, then, gag orders have a long history of infringing on areas that would clearly otherwise be considered free speech, and judges have a long history of abusing them.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
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?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I don't really care that much how the trial pans out... But I do care about the fact that it seems like this trial is hurting my choices as a consumer. I like choice. From what I can see Apple is trying reeeeally hard to show that they should own a bunch of really nice UI ideas. Or that a touchscreen filling most of the user facing side of the phone is their idea? Frankly, the whole thing seems ridiculous.
Recently I've been looking at buying an IP67-grade Android phone. AFAIK Apple has no plans to make the iPhone waterproof and dustproof. So if Apple has it's way either I buy a UI-crippled phone, or an iPhone which doesn't fit my requirements?
Legislation should exist to benefit society, not to maximize profits for a select few corporate entities.
.: Max Romantschuk
Or, you know, the judge is tied by the rules about submitting evidence?
You are confusing what was disallowed by the judge and the images that Samsung actually leaked. The information released by Samsung that pissed off the judge was showing a prototype that Apple created.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57483967-37/judge-chides-samsung-for-handing-nixed-evidence-to-media/
The F700 is being discussed because Apple was allowed to argue that the F700 was a copy of the iPhone design. Samsung said they intended to release information which would 'prove they did not copy the iPhone design' but the judge had disallowed it. Instead, Samsung went to the media with the image you see in the link above. The image shown is actually an Apple design.
It should not matter which was first. The fact that Samsung had this design before they had seen the iPhone design means that they clearly came up with it independently. Patents are broken. They currently serve to do the exact opposite of what they were intended for.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
From the very article you linked to (emphasis mine):
In response, the South Korean manufacturer has decided to release its evidence to the media: two slides showing Samsung phone designs and an excerpt from the deposition of former Apple designer Shin Nishibori, who said previously that he would not testify in court.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
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?
Not that I care* since the full face touch screen phone is clearlhy obvious, but Apple must be really tricky if they can keep evidence of Samsung's own designs from Samsung.
* Heck I wrote the code for a "phone" running on an iPAQ (oh look a non-apple i* name) PDA in 2001 or so. Not a useful thing, a prototype that used SIP/RTP for making actual calls over wifi (the device itself actually did the RTP part with yet another layer hiding the SIP stuff since the phone portion was a minor part of the overall setup). It was obvious then, and it's obvious now - just back then the touch screen hardware wasn't good enough, at the price points we were dealing with anyway.
Of course most of the draw backs from back then still apply now, the joys of trying to use an on screen dialer UI in direct sunlight for example.
The summary missed what is probably the most important line of the article:
"The Apple vs. Samsung trial was always destined to be a circus, "
It's clear that neither Apple nor Samsung is going to look good PR wise after all is said and done.
So the question becomes, who will get screwed over the hardest? Right now I'm betting on Samsung, simply because Apple has way more... um... "thermonuclear" experience.
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?
Samsung's attorneys failed to produce the evidence about the design of the F700 during the discovery period. This is in spite of it being around for several years before the lawsuit was even filed by Apple. By holding it back until just before the trial, Apple's counsel didn't get the time to investigate the evidence and prepare their responses. Because we have an adversarial legal system, one in which two parties fighting over the truth before an independent jury, it's important that the rules guarantee both parties a fair fight.
Judge Koh decided that holding back that evidence until after discovery broke the rules required for a fair fight, especially considering that 1) Samsung had the evidence available for years, and 2) if the evidence is actually the smoking gun that they claim, it should have been presented during discovery to give Apple the right to examine it and prepare a response. I think this was a reasonable decision by the judge. To be fair, consider how you would have reacted if the roles had been reversed and Apple had tried to introduce such important evidence so late.
All that said, and knowing how some lawyers can be, I suspect the evidence is being overblown by the Samsung attorney because he wants a path to appeal. Improperly denied evidence could give rise to an entire retrial. But I suspect:
Combined with the evidence destruction by Samsung, they've really been screwing this one up.
Boom Shanka