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?
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
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.
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?
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