Apple Asks Court To Sanction Samsung; Samsung Fires Back; More iPhone Prototypes

djl4570 writes "Samsung released to the press documents that had been excluded by Judge Lucy Koh. According to Samsung 'The judge's exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the full story...The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design,' An article at another site described judge Lucy Koh as 'Livid.' The defendant released exculpatory evidence that had been suppressed by the judge. This after many stories in the tech press portray the case as Samsung versus Lucy Koh instead of Samsung versus Apple." An anonymous reader sent in Groklaw's detailed take on the spat. Related to the trial, colinneagle sent in more info revealed about iPhone prototypes. One early design would have featured shaped glass, but materials weren't up to spec at the time.

Comments

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a feeling this story will eat up all my mod points today...

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's not fashionable to RTFA, but even /. mentioned that rejected and the press-released evidence in this case refers to Samsung's own 2006 design prototypes.

Do try better.

Re:Hmm

[Rosyna]

Did you look at the PDFs? The first PDF is all about the JONY design.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a FONY.

The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge's job is to judge the case in court.

She has bugger all to say other than as a private citizen about Samsung's speech to the media.

Inside the court, a different matter, but that's not what's got her livid. If she's emotionally involved then she is not an impartial judge any more.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Grishnakh]

But this is normal for judges; they think they're little demigods, in or out of court.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jxander]

Bingo. Samsung already has a no-lose case going. Either they win, or they appeal the ruling based on the obvious biases of the judge.

The cynic in me can't help but wonder if that's really the plan. She'll rule in favor of Apple, Samsung will appeal, this whole thing will drag on for years... meanwhile the lawyers and judges in the case are making $$$ and both Apple and Samsung get to keep their names in the headlines for a good long while.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says the whole point is to influence the jury:

The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[gl4ss]

she's pissed off because it makes her look impartial.

(the evidence wasn't _that_ late, not that much more late than evidence in some other like cases, and arguably apple had access to f700 docs so it shouldn't have been such a big deal)

in a case like this isolating the jury from the real world doesn't serve much use anyhow.

this round isn't even interesting because it will go to appeals no matter who wins.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Richard_at_work]

She has something to say if said speech can affect her case in a significant way - entire cases can go to mistrial for comments said out of the court room.

Slashdot seems to lack a basic understanding of law and the court process these days...

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[syngularyx]

so why the Samsung Lawyers were so late in presenting this "extra evidence"????

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[tha_mink]

I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says [allthingsd.com] the whole point is to influence the jury:

I don't see how. That was their statement about being pissed that the evidence didn't get admitted. As the Groklaw article said, Samsung is fighting Apple in two courts now, and one of those is public opinion. I think this side of things requires they make their arguments in public. In addition, the judge denied sealing all the documents, so what else to do be release them yourself.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[geoskd]

I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says the whole point is to influence the jury:

The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.

There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest. The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality, but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist), and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded, and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business. Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.

-=Geoskd

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[UnknowingFool]

I don't know if Samsung is doing to push her buttons. As a judge, she has ruled on this particular subject numerous times and it has been appealed. Samsung's lawyers appear to be doing an end-around her orders. While technically she never ruled that Samsung couldn't release the information, they are getting close to breaking the spirit of her rulings. Most judges would not be happy.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[YesDinosaursDidExist]

No - the judge's job is to ensure a FAIR and IMPARTIAL trial -- and releasing excluded evidence to the press completely undermines that. Jurors aren't allowed to talk about a trial outside the courtroom -- Samsung has an even higher duty to NOT discuss the case with the media, as does Apple. The attorney, if he did release the information, should be sanctioned not only for the leak but also for making the courtroom into a theater. Its hard as shit to get evidence excluded -- if it was, there was good reason for doing so. --Yeah--I'm a lawyer.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[bongey]

Mr. Quinn(Samsung lawyer) is one of the best. He is setting this up to have very easy appeal if Apple were to win. Mr. Quinn response to the Judge Lucy Koh on groklaw , he basically made Judge Koh look like emotional fool.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[geoskd]

I don't know if Samsung is doing to push her buttons. As a judge, she has ruled on this particular subject numerous times and it has been appealed. Samsung's lawyers appear to be doing an end-around her orders. While technically she never ruled that Samsung couldn't release the information, they are getting close to breaking the spirit of her rulings. Most judges would not be happy.

You've missed a few important details: She specifically ordered the court documents unsealed That means that by HER orders, the very documents Samsung released are PUBLIC. The spirit of her rulings is being upheld by Samsung, and their lead counsel. She is mad because in the court of public opinion she is going to be crucified (and rightly so) With all her mis-steps and outright blunders, many people will be questioning her fitness to serve. Her only way out now is recuse herself because of her bias and declare a mistrial (start over). God forbid one of these judges should admit their mistakes and pony up. They're human, they make mistakes, but as my father always told me, its not whether you make mistakes that demonstrates your greatness, its how you handle your mistakes. Stepping aside is the only way for her to save any face, and if there were any real justice, it would be the only way to save her job.

-=Geoskd

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.

What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".

The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality

I don't know about that. She's made many rulings against Apple, too, so questioning her impartiality would require some specific evidence.

but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist),

As you note, Quinn was trying to "rile up" the judge. That's the very definition of contempt of court, and it's certainly within her authority to demand explanations in such cases.

and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded,

Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over. Why did Samsung withhold information on their own product until the eve of trial when Apple wouldn't have a chance to respond, let alone investigate? Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.

and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business.

Yes and no. Factual statements, yes. Statements about the judge, no.

Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.

I think not. She made the proper decision, Quinn screwed up by trying to fight this in public rather than saving it for his appeal, and Appeals Courts don't look kindly on litigants who try to go around judges. Even if they may have reversed on the excluded evidence, they're not going to say that his attempt to "rile her up" was reasonable.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Mabhatter]

You have the point.. What matters is what happens IN COURT. right or wrong, the materials were rejected as evidence because they were not filed on time. Therefore, the materials aren't part of the jury's decision.

The issue is that the lawyers orginally didn't want to release these at all, then under seal... Judge got tired of the nonsense and called them on the deadline. To take that information to the media after you LOST your turn in court is the judge's problem.

Is the lawyer trying to shame a judge into changing her lawful decision? You'll lose that one every time.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[bongey]

Judge order all court documents unsealed. Judge gave order Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open". So the media could have gone down to the court room and asked for a copy of the documents.Also Apple brought up the F700 first, which if you as you say are a lawyer allows defense to work through new evidence. Quinn isn't an idiot , he probably did it to push the judge to an emotional response and she fell for it.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[slashmydots]

The judge's job is to judge the case in court.

And yet when Apple illegally showed the F700 which was equally non-admissible she did...what? Oh yeah, nothing. She's one crooked bitch.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[gl4ss]

maybe they didn't think they'd need it until apple used f700 as an example of how they copy.. despite it being an example of the designs obviousness in fitting to pocket.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[geoskd]

I think just about any bookee will give long odds on Samsungs evidence remaining excluded on appeal, and if it is allowed on appeal, it is essentially an admission that Koh shouldn't have excluded... They weren't so late as to justify exclusion, there is plenty of precedent for evidence being introduced later than this and being allowed.

In any event, in a year or so, we can have a look back and have our answer, and you will be able to look back at your posting history and see that I was right.

-=Geoskd

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) the jury has already been picked and instructed to not read any news reports on this material, so releasing it now can't affect the jury. If you can't rely on the jury to follow instructions, then the process is broken anyhow.

2) the material itself was already public before Samsung released it. they just pointed out which publicly-available material the judge wouldn't let in

3) the judge herself said that this trial should be as open as possible, hence the material being available to the public in the first place

4) the judge did not instruct that this material could not be released so it's not like the lawyers were disobeying orders

IANAL, but it seems that Samsung outmaneuvered the judge on this one.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Andrio]

Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Apple has the right to claim "Samsung slavishly copied us" before trial to determine this even begins, but Samsung isn't allowed to defend themselves?

That's a good, correct Apple fanboy answer.

BTW, shouldn't _jury_ be expressly prohibited from getting any information related to the case outside of the courtroom? Which means neither Samsung's press-release, nor Apple's statements, nor, for example, this your comment should be known and mean anything for them. So, how's non-existant for jurors information makes this trial UNFAIR and PARTIAL?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[UnknowingFool]

You missed important details. She's ordered some of the documents unsealed. Not all. Just the other day she was going to rule whether royalty rates of third parties to be unsealed. She's chided both parties for trying to seal documents that are already public like SEC filings. But not all the documents and exhibits have been unsealed.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[sgrover]

Your argument doesn't make sense. If the Jury isn't supposed talk about the trial outside the courtroom, or even look up any news about the trial or the participants, then what does it matter what was said to the media? The Jury won't see that information until AFTER the trial. Therefore the Samsung's comments to the press have no bearing on the case.

Additionally, the only reason the subject evidence has been "surpressed" is because it was not revealed within the discovery phase of the trial. Either Samsung messed up on that, or Apple shifted their reasoning late in the process which made this evidence relevant, but late. So the evidence did not go through the proper procedure of counter examination. THIS is what the judge's position is - Samsung should not be allowed to reveal evidence that Apple has not had the opportunity to examine. HOWEVER, the evidence seems to clearly show that Samsung was designing iPhone like cases for their phones before the iPhone was released. Contrary to what Apple is saying.

The real issue is that Apple is trying hard to drag Samsung's name/reputation through the mud, and Samsung is trying to counter the assertions. Apple is doing this in the courtroom AND in the court of public opinion. So Samsung is only playing the game that Apple started, according to some.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[geoskd]

There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.

What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".

Did you see what I did there? I never said there was any kind of conflict of interest, but somehow you came away with the impression that I did (which is why I included the original statement for reference). I made no false statements, nor did I Libel anyone, but to the general public it looks like I did in fact say that she was behaving unethically. That is exactly the same maneuver Quinn is using against Koh, and she is falling all over herself in rising to the bait. Quinn is damn good at what he does, and she has badly underestimated him, and badly overestimated herself. She's in over her head, and needs to get out of the pool before she drowns.

-=Geoskd

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

lets understand what the F700 is

Article from the Verge (Good Read)

http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

the F700 was announced in Feburary 2007 at Mobile World Congress, after the iPhone was announced in January at MacWorld, and it’s actually a chunky 16.4mm-thick slider QWERTY that looks appreciably different than the iPhone. It also has a homescreen that’s quite different than iOS — what you’re seeing above is the function menu. (Remember, it was a dumbphone: no apps!) But that’s been hashed out all over the place. I want to point out something else. Let’s look at the F700 in a different context. Instead of looking at the similarities, let’s try to highlight the differences.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[bongey]

You are incorrect about the submitting after discovery, it was late in the discovery process, not after.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Rakshasa-sensei]

Perhaps the judge just didn't like intentionally late submissions of evidence, as compared to actually hard to discover evidence submitted late.

If I was a judge I would also be pissed at such obvious attempts at gaming the system.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention evidence as substantial as this warrants being in the case, even if it was late. That's why there is a judge, to make informed decisions based on the current situation that general laws/rules apply to.

I still can't get my head around the fact that this judge blocked Samsung from using evidence that completed negated the point of Apple's case. Its absurd.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[EveLibertine]

PJ addressed this in her post at Groklaw, but very basically information that is already in the public domain can not effect the court, as the jury has already been instructed to avoid news and any other external information source containing information about the trial. Samsung's press release didn't contain anything that wasn't already in the public domain.
From Groklaw:

Remember in the SCO v. Novell trial, SCO's hair was on fire because it worried that the jury would visit Groklaw if an exhibit included the url and made Novell remove it after the judge refused to ban the exhibit itself? And why did he refuse? Because he said he relied on the jury to follow his instructions, adding that if you can't trust them to do that much, we might as well just quit.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[micheas]

As one judge in San Francisco Superior Court said to an attorney that complained about the other side gaming the system. That's why people hire attorneys.

I would think that a judge would just assume that all parties are trying to game the system after seeing that happen a few hundred times the first month on the job.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[icebike]

. If she's emotionally involved then she is not an impartial judge any more.

Exactly. She needs to step aside, because she's hopelessly compromised in this fight. The announced well before the trial began that Samsung couldn't prevail. Someone needs to follow the money here, (and maybe look inside here purse to see what she's carrying in there as her phone.)

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to know what Judge Koh uses as her cell phone. I'm sure during the jury selection the jury was asked what phones they use at work & home, but the same question should be posed to the judge.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[DeadCatX2]

Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over.

Apple included the F700 in their own presentation and said it was another example of Samsung copying them. I believe this is called "opening the door", which means the F700 is now admissable even if it is raised after discovery.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[DeadCatX2]

A little hard to influence a jury that's already been sequestered, isn't it?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[DeadCatX2]

She has bugger all to say other than as a private citizen about Samsung's speech to the media.

What's more, wasn't this initially released only to the BBC?

In other words, a newspaper in the United Kingdom?

In other words...media that are outside her jurisdiction?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[squiggleslash]

These documents were already unsealed. Samsung was pointing at information already in the public domain. By her orders. Read the Groklaw link if you need more information on this.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.

Neither can Apple, as they have used images of it in this trial. It's been allowed, already, as long as Apple is using it, but disallowed for Samsung; that's the crux of the problem here.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[urulokion]

No, I disagree. What the litigants go the court of public opinion (should) have nothing to do with what the jurors hears in the court room. Jurors are instructed to not seek outside information about cases, they are told not to discuss the case with anyone (not even among one another after the trial concluded and jury deliberation starts. The jurors are supposed to avoid anything outside to the courtroom which might sway their opinions of the case

But in the case in particular, Apple has been talking with the media about the case with zeal. Samsung from my view of the trial has been relatively quiet about it. Samsung has been taking a beating in the court of public opinion. So the lawyer hit back in a very precise and calculated statements to the press. As I said before, the jury won't be affected, because they are supposed to avoid it. If the courts can't trusts jurors, they might as well go home or sequester the jury.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[urulokion]

And another point I forgot to made. If Samsung shouldn't be talking about the trial, neither should Apple. especially Apple.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to know nothing about the law. Discovery responses are not court documents. Also the prejudicial value of the evidence outweighs its relevancy. You obviously do not understand patent law generally, the legal standard for prior art or the relevant significant dates. As far as the rest of your flame bate I don't even know where you are coming from with that stuff.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

Bingo. Samsung already has a no-lose case going. Either they win, or they appeal the ruling based on the obvious biases of the judge.

What bias? No decisions were made yet, and the decision to suppress that "evidence" is perfectly justified!

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[makomk]

If I'm following this correctly, Samsung aren't the ones who are claiming that the F700 is in any way like the iPhone. Apple are accusing Samsung in court of copying the iPhone when creating the F700 - even though it is, as you way "actually a chunky 16.4mm-thick slider QWERTY that looks appreciably different than the iPhone" - and Samsung are being blocked from presenting evidence showing that they designed it before the iPhone came out.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[gnasher719]

PJ addressed this in her post at Groklaw, but very basically information that is already in the public domain can not effect the court, as the jury has already been instructed to avoid news and any other external information source containing information about the trial. Samsung's press release didn't contain anything that wasn't already in the public domain.

Unfortunately, PJ and Groklaw stopped being an impartial source a while ago. Anyone who repeats the "rounded rectangle" nonsense cannot be considered impartial.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[anonymov]

That's not how it actually began, and you really should RTFA. Quinn's declaration is a nice read.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Jeng]

The cynic in me can't help but wonder if that's really the plan. She'll rule in favor of Apple, Samsung will appeal, this whole thing will drag on for years... meanwhile the lawyers and judges in the case are making $$$

Problem with that, Samsung can't sell some of their products until this case is won. It is in Samsung's best interest to have this case over and done with as soon as possible.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[narcc]

Sorry, I've got to go with the other guy here. I can't see any other way to interpret your post other than you mean the Judge has a conflict-of-interest. Why would you use the term in that sort of rhetorical construct otherwise?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

Neither can Apple, as they have used images of it in this trial. It's been allowed, already, as long as Apple is using it, but disallowed for Samsung; that's the crux of the problem here.

Those images were used because it came out after the iPhone. The "problem" (Samsung's problem) is that somehow they found a way to forget to file key evidence in this case before the deadline. This was their fault, the exclusion of the evidence is perfectly justified.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[sl4shd0rk]

so why the Samsung Lawyers were so late in presenting this "extra evidence"????

Possibly waiting until jury selection/direction was finalized because then you cannot argue the point about "swaying the jury" with public material. The jurors are not allowed to research the case using any other material than what is presented in court. If they do, they are removed from the jury.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

A little hard to influence a jury that's already been sequestered, isn't it?

They haven't been sequestered, only selected and ordered to avoid consulting the media regarding this issue, an order that Samsung is making extremely hard to comply with, in contempt to court. Secondly, Quinn brought up the excluded evidence in the court room, which got him reprimanded by the Judge with a sanction threat, and that's what started the whole thing.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

your first point is really the only important one. basically, the instructions of the judge only go so far, and the process takes that into consideration. that's what mistrials are for. the system knows that people have a threshold for following a judge's order to disregard something they heard. usually when there's the danger of information outside the court prejudicing jurors, they get sequestered, because, again, the system knows that information is going to leak if it can. usually, if a jury is not sequestered in a big trial, the judge will issue injunctions against both parties from discussing the pre-trial motion phase of the case publicly, to keep shit like this from happening. So really, the process isnt broken, but this judge hasn't handled things very well.

My take on this though, is that its not setting up for an appeal, but for avoiding one where they are appealing the decision to exclude the earlier phones evidence (which was pretty much rightfully excluded because they fucked up regarding the discovery period). Appeals are easier when the basis is that the lower made a mistake of law. So, wrongfully excluded evidence would be a good basis, but they have to know that that was their own fault. So they find a way to do something potentially prejudicial to the jury that isnt technically violating any of the court's instructions - complaining about excluded evidence and publishing it (which is more likely to be seen inadvertently by the jurors even if it was already public). samsung can't really move for a mistrial based on their own actions, which would prejudice, if at all, the jury towards their side. Basically what Samsung has done is created a situation where if they can make apple think that the case *might* not go their way, they'll have an easy out moving for a mistrial, which would result in a retrial - and a retrial would reset the discovery time period, and samsung would get all the excluded evidence in.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly what is the reason for choosing to suppress the evidence? I've been trying to figure that out since this started, but there is no explanation (that I could find, anyway) of why something as seemingly germane to the case as original design documents that predate what you are accused of copying would not be allowed.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[DeadCatX2]

So you're saying the F700 is admissable evidence?

Or are you saying that it's inadmissable for Samsung but admissable for Apple?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

I think just about any bookee will give long odds on Samsungs evidence remaining excluded on appeal, and if it is allowed on appeal, it is essentially an admission that Koh shouldn't have excluded... They weren't so late as to justify exclusion, there is plenty of precedent for evidence being introduced later than this and being allowed.

They missed the deadline which was set months earlier. That's "so late as to justify exclusion," by definition. The only argument is whether they shouldn't have gotten a delay. The precedent there - and the rule, Rule 37 - says:

If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.

Clearly, since it's an issue, the failure wasn't "harmless". The only question is whether it was "substantially justified". That usually comes up when a party didn't know or have reason to know about a piece of evidence until it's too late. What is Samsung's "substantial justification" for not revealing it's own product history? They certainly knew about it.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[sylvandb]

"rile up" the judge is NOT "the very definition of contempt of court." Some ways one might rile up the judge would be contempt but it is up to a good lawyer to push that as far as possible without being in contempt.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over.

Apple included the F700 in their own presentation and said it was another example of Samsung copying them. I believe this is called "opening the door", which means the F700 is now admissable even if it is raised after discovery.

Sure, the existence of it is admissible. The additional evidence related to its conception? Inadmissible, and Apple never opened the door to that.
If Samsung wanted those documents in, they had months to provide them.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.

Neither can Apple, as they have used images of it in this trial. It's been allowed, already, as long as Apple is using it, but disallowed for Samsung; that's the crux of the problem here.

Its existence has been allowed. The additional materials relating to its conception and design are not, as Apple never used those.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

The exclusion of the evidence is justified, you are correct. However, that applies to both parties, equally. Once one party has presented the evidence and it has been allowed, both parties can use it. Samsung presented it, it was not allowed. Apple presented it, it was allowed. Samsung made reference to it after Apple presented it and it was allowed, and Samsung was told it was not allowed; it had already been allowed at this point, Koh is just on crack.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

And that is grounds for appeal. No sense watching this trial, no matter who wins it's getting appealed.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[DeadCatX2]

Apple did not merely mention the existence of the F700, they are alleging that the F700 is yet another example of Samsung copying them. You're arguing that Samsung being able to disprove this false allegation is inadmissable?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[X.25]

She has something to say if said speech can affect her case in a significant way - entire cases can go to mistrial for comments said out of the court room.

Slashdot seems to lack a basic understanding of law and the court process these days...

Or maybe the "law and court process" these days go against logic and common sense, and are utterly retarded?

People aren't asked a thing about 99% of laws that are introduced these days anyway.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fun thing is those who oppose vehemently to "rounded rectangle" can't give coherent answer what it is about, then, and proceed with "it's about copying the combination of design features" handwave maneuver without ever saying any concrete detail about what else this suit is about.

Last time I asked one of those to be more specific, I was given a link which really drives the point home. iPad claims, for example:

The mark consists of the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with rounded corners.[2]The color(s) gray, silver and black is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the configuration of a handheld mobile digital electronic device. The color gray appears as a rectangle at the front, center of the device. [the screen]The color black appears on the front of the deviceabove and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners of the device. The color silver appears as the outer border and sides of the device. [3]

IOW, it's not only about rounded rectangle with flat front and screen, it's also about "color(s) gray, silver and black" and "16 icons arranged in 4 by 4 grid".

Hell, here's from actual complaint (it's page 13):

a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
                    as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and
below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the
screen having roughly equal width;
                    as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in
width;
                    a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface;
                    a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and
                    a bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and
that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.

Scroll on to page 24 to have a good laugh at "Samsung copied numerous trademarked icons" showing pixel perfect copies next to each other, like messages icon or photo album icon.

So yeah, those who take "rounded rectangles" as literal are dumb, but those who don't see the figurative sense of "rounded corners" (it's also about "a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners", y'all) are dumb as well.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

As one judge in San Francisco Superior Court said to an attorney that complained about the other side gaming the system. That's why people hire attorneys.

Gaming the system is also what just got Korean badminton players thrown out of the Olympics. It wasn't put up with there and shouldn't be in court either.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

Exactly what is the reason for choosing to suppress the evidence? I've been trying to figure that out since this started, but there is no explanation (that I could find, anyway) of why something as seemingly germane to the case as original design documents that predate what you are accused of copying would not be allowed.

They missed the deadline. If the evidence was that important, how come Samsung, a company that has already been found guilty of destroying evidence even against court order telling them to retain it, forgot about it for so long?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

Apple did not merely mention the existence of the F700, they are alleging that the F700 is yet another example of Samsung copying them.

Yes, using the existence of it after the original design of the iPhone.

You're arguing that Samsung being able to disprove this false allegation is inadmissable?

(i) who says it's false, other than you and Samsung? The fact that you need to assume a conclusion to support your argument implies that you've got a hole in it.
(ii) You're arguing that Samsung should be able to introduce evidence that they didn't bother introducing previously, and that Apple hasn't opened the door to by discussing. There are no legal grounds for them to introduce that evidence, and it's their own fault for missing the deadline. They can certainly argue about the allegation being false, as well as ask questions of witnesses, but the specific documents? Those documents are inadmissible unless Apple brings them up.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

"1) the jury has already been picked and instructed to not read any news reports on this material, so releasing it now can't affect the jury. If you can't rely on the jury to follow instructions, then the process is broken anyhow."
You really believe the jury's going to shut themselves out of the internet and stop speaking to their friends ?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

Possibly waiting until jury selection/direction was finalized because then you cannot argue the point about "swaying the jury" with public material. The jurors are not allowed to research the case using any other material than what is presented in court. If they do, they are removed from the jury.

Of course you can argue that, it's called a mistrial, the jurors aren't sequestered! Plus by going to the media Samsung is making it extremely hard for the jury to actually avoid learning about the subject, in contempt to court. This isn't going to end well for them.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jkflying]

So hang on. Apple is allowed to bring, after discovery, the existence of the F700 into evidence but Samsung is NOT allowed to bring the conception and design?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the copycat claims were correctet in UK. Where Apple must publish that Samsung didn't copy their design.
In the US, this is becoming anotjer O.J. Simpson case. Courts lost it, flaws of US judicial system are once again surfacing.
Judge? I find it hard to believe she is impartial, or at least technically knowledgeable to be able to lead the case (unlike Alsupp for example).
Outside, this looks as if Apple relies on the US protecting their economical interests with the courts (and biased judges).
Yes, it was late evidence and a gamble for Samsung, but the importance of the new information is, IMO, enough to allow it, common sense always matters.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

The exclusion of the evidence is justified, you are correct. However, that applies to both parties, equally. Once one party has presented the evidence and it has been allowed, both parties can use it. Samsung presented it, it was not allowed. Apple presented it, it was allowed. Samsung made reference to it after Apple presented it and it was allowed, and Samsung was told it was not allowed; it had already been allowed at this point, Koh is just on crack.

Inadmissible evidence is only accepted in a trial when an opposing party presents the trial with inadmissible evidence themselves. Apple did not present the trial with inadmissible evidence, so the "opening the door" doctrine does not apply.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[anonymov]

Why do you always link to things that contradict you?

"Contrary to the representations Apple's counsel made to this Court, Samsung did not issue a general press release and more importantly, did not violate any Court Order or any legal or ethical standards," Quinn wrote. "These false representations by Apple's counsel publicly and unfairly called my personal reputation into question and have resulted in media reports likewise falsely impugning me personally."

"Moreover, before jury selection, virtually all of the information and images in the excluded slides had already appeared in dozens of media reports, including by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, and CNET," Quinn's declaration said.

So yeah, pointing which of long published images were not admitted into trial in a press release not meant to be read by jurors is "trying to influence jury", as Apple made sure everyone knows. I'm sorry, I think you've messed up your post somehow, whose bullshit propaganda was that again?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

And that is grounds for appeal. No sense watching this trial, no matter who wins it's getting appealed.

Please elaborate. How is perfectly justified evidence exclusion grounds to an appeal?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

The design of the F700 is precisely what Samsung is not being allowed to enter into evidence, slong with the facts regarding when that design was created. Meanwhile, Apple is being allowed to enter that very design into evidence *against* Samsing. What don't you understand about that? The moment Apple was allowed to use a photo of the design, Samsung should have been allowed to fill in the missing pieces.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

It's perfectly justified to exclude it for both parties. Once it's allowed for one, but not the other, it's a display of judicial bias, grounds for appeal.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[anonymov]

Well, they should. You never know where you'll hear about "frivolously abusing patents on basic shapes" or "slavishly copying in attempt to confuse the consumer" which could give you preconceptions about trial.

How do they even choose a fair jury with all this trollfest in media going for a year already?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. Samsung already has a no-lose case going. Either they win, or they appeal the ruling based on the obvious biases of the judge.

The cynic in me can't help but wonder if that's really the plan. She'll rule in favor of Apple, Samsung will appeal, this whole thing will drag on for years... meanwhile the lawyers and judges in the case are making $$$ and both Apple and Samsung get to keep their names in the headlines for a good long while.

The judge may be "livid" at Samsung, but neither she nor any judges involved in an appeal (should Samsung lose, then appeal) will make anymore "$$$" as a result of any appeal as judges are almost always paid in salary, not billable hours/commission as lawyers are. Unless your subtext is she is being bribed (and if so lets hope equally by both Apple and Samsung!).

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

And that is grounds for appeal. No sense watching this trial, no matter who wins it's getting appealed.

Yes, but not very good grounds. And while this is certainly getting appealed, the factual record is established at trial, so the jury's decision will still have a strong influence on what happens on appeal, unless the entire judgement is vacated and remanded for a new trial.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

The fun thing is those who oppose vehemently to "rounded rectangle" can't give coherent answer what it is about, then, and proceed with "it's about copying the combination of design features" handwave maneuver without ever saying any concrete detail about what else this suit is about.

That's because there really is no concrete detail about it. Trade dress is extremely subjective and based on what the average person may confuse.

So yeah, those who take "rounded rectangles" as literal are dumb, but those who don't see the figurative sense of "rounded corners" (it's also about "a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners", y'all) are dumb as well.

The latter group recognizes the legal validity of design patents and trade dress, the former does not. Dumb or not, the latter group at least has some logical ground.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[sjames]

No, they specifically said they believe it would influence the jury *IF* introduced in court. They didn't introduce it in court because it wasn't allowed (though it likely should have been).

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[sjames]

Why would you use the term in that sort of rhetorical construct otherwise?

To leave you with exactly the impression you have without having actually said it. He could have said "faster than a bunny on meth" and you wouldn't likely think he was saying that the court was overrun with drug abusing rabbits.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

Judge order all court documents unsealed.

No, she didn't.

So the media could have gone down to the court room and asked for a copy of the documents.

No, they can't. An open trial only means that they can assist the trial, nothing else.

Also Apple brought up the F700 first, which if you as you say are a lawyer allows defense to work through new evidence.

No, it doesn't. The "opening the door" doctrine only allows inadmissible evidence to be presented in response to an opposing party's presentation of inadmissible evidence. Apple did not present inadmissible evidence, so Samsung can't do that either. Samsung's evidence was considered inadmissible because they failed to meet the deadline -- their fault, they fucked up.

Quinn isn't an idiot , he probably did it to push the judge to an emotional response and she fell for it.

How did she fall for it?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

So, Apple has the right to claim "Samsung slavishly copied us" before trial to determine this even begins, but Samsung isn't allowed to defend themselves?

Correct, Apple's claim is based on admissible evidence; Samsung's is not.

BTW, shouldn't _jury_ be expressly prohibited from getting any information related to the case outside of the courtroom? Which means neither Samsung's press-release, nor Apple's statements, nor, for example, this your comment should be known and mean anything for them. So, how's non-existant for jurors information makes this trial UNFAIR and PARTIAL?

Samsung's contempt of court is making sure that the jurors can't reasonably avoid being informed about the subject, and Quinn actually brought up the subject in the courtroom (that's actually how all this started).

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jkflying]

I think Apple actually surprised Samsung by referring to the F700 as a copy of the iPhone after discovery, and Samsung hadn't expected to have to draw from it. This entire bunfight has to do with Koh allowing Apple to keep their references to the F700 as a copy while not allowing Samsung to add their own evidence.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Compaqt]

It seems they filed the evidence, but it was disallowed by the judge.

Then Apple talked about Samsung's designs (such as F700).

Normally, that would mean Apple had "opened the door", and Samsung could present its own evidence in reply.

But then the judge disallowed that, too.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

Your argument doesn't make sense. If the Jury isn't supposed talk about the trial outside the courtroom, or even look up any news about the trial or the participants, then what does it matter what was said to the media? The Jury won't see that information until AFTER the trial. Therefore the Samsung's comments to the press have no bearing on the case.

The jury isn't sequestered, they were only ordered to avoid it, but Samsung's contempt of court will make that information hard to avoid. They are essentially forcing the information on the jurors. Quinn mentioned it in the courtroom himself and was promptly reprimanded and threatened with sanctions, so his intent is perfectly clear, and the Judge can still sanction him.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[serbanp]

Would you please stop this sh*t? In every single f*cking discussion regarding Apple vs Samsung, here comes Deorus droning ad nauseam in favor of his beloved Apple! No matter what argument was made by the one you're replying to, you keep spouting the same canned responses over and over.

Hint: this behavior does not make you look informed, it just pollutes the discussion and shows what a rabid fanboi you truly are.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[narcc]

(i) who says it's false, other than you and Samsung? The fact that you need to assume a conclusion to support your argument implies that you've got a hole in it.

That's called "begging the question". The parent, however, isn't doing that at all.

See, he's not arguing that the allegation is false. (That's assumed as, he suggests, the falsity of Apple's claims about the F700 have already been established.) He's arguing that the evidence that establishes the falsity of Apple's claims should be admissible. A fun bit -- that the allegations are false is completely irrelevant to his argument. He included it, it seems, for some rhetorical punch -- likely because he's not actually making a formal argument.

He would only be begging the question if the truth of one of the premises of his argument depended on the truth of the conclusion: that evidence is admissible.

You'd think that Slashdotters would have a basic understanding of formal logic.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

The design of the F700 is precisely what Samsung is not being allowed to enter into evidence, slong with the facts regarding when that design was created. Meanwhile, Apple is being allowed to enter that very design into evidence *against* Samsing. What don't you understand about that? The moment Apple was allowed to use a photo of the design, Samsung should have been allowed to fill in the missing pieces.

Samsung missed the deadline, Apple didn't. What don't you understand about that?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Compaqt]

Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying. It's the RDF at work.

Blindingly obvious that Apple opened the door.

How is Samsung supposed to know what Apple 's going to talk about before they talk about it? And also pre-introduce evidence to refute what Apple's going to say before they say it?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, broken by Samsung's contempt of court...

Contempt requires an order. There was no order NOT to release the information, which was publicly available anyway.

The rest of your rebuttals are moot since you failed to read any of TFAs

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Compaqt]

Do you get the feeling the guy you're responding to is a paid shill? He's on half the comments in this thread.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

Why do you always link to things that contradict you?

I only did that once on Slashdot.

So yeah, pointing which of long published images were not admitted into trial in a press release not meant to be read by jurors is "trying to influence jury", as Apple made sure everyone knows. I'm sorry, I think you've messed up your post somehow, whose bullshit propaganda was that again?

You missed the point, what started it all were these events in the courtroom:

Here's a recap of what went down in court earlier in the day: Before opening statements, Quinn approached the bench and asked Koh to reconsider her earlier decision that Samsung not be allowed to present evidence showing that Apple's iPhone was inspired by "Sony style."

Koh had previously denied the request and quickly did so again, saying the court needed to move forward. But Quinn didn't go easily.

Your honor, I've been practicing law for 36 years and I've never begged the court. I'm begging the court now," Quinn said.

As the tiff became more heated, Koh warned: "Mr. Quinn, don't make me sanction you." After that didn't work, she snapped: "I want you to sit down, please."

Opening statements then began. Then, in the early afternoon, I (as well as other reporters in the courtroom) received an email containing two links to the blocked evidence, as well as a short statement that read in full:

So, as you can see (and you probably saw, just decided to ignore because it wasn't convenient to you), the initial issue was not related to the media leak but rather to how Quinn tried to force inadmissible evidence in the courtroom/b.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

Maybe I shoyld pay more atention to usernames.... now that you point it out, I'm gonna go with yeah...

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Jeng]

They can certainly argue about the allegation being false, as well as ask questions of witnesses, but the specific documents? Those documents are inadmissible unless Apple brings them up

Ok, just so I have this straight.

Apple brought up the charge that the F700 is a copy of the iPhone.

Samsung knows this is not true and has the documentation to prove it.

What you are saying though is that yes, Samsung can claim that Apple is full of shit, but Samsung cannot present evidence of Apple being full of shit unless Apple specifically brings up the evidence of them being full of shit?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

It's either allowed or disallowed. Once it's in, it's fair game for both sides. If Samsung enters something into evidence, Apple cna play on it; why does the same not apply for Samsung regarding Apple's exhibits? That's how the system works. Samsung was barred from *introducing* it because they were late in submitting it; Apple introduced it, it's fair game for both sides, now. Have you ever even set foot in a courtroom?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

Contempt requires an order. There was no order NOT to release the information, which was publicly available anyway.

Since when?

A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial.

Source.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

The rest of your rebuttals are moot since you failed to read any of TFAs

Then I'm sure you can demonstrate how I failed and I will provide you with counter evidence to refute both you and TFA. ;)

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

It's excellend grounds. Once something is introduced as evidence, it's fair game for both sides to do with it what they will. Samsung missed a deadline and was barred from introducing the F700, and rightly so; however, once Apple introduced it, it became fair game for Samsung to discuss. They're not being allowed due process with reegard to the evidence presented by their opponent. That's clear judicial bias, the strongest grounds an appeal can stand on.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[anonymov]

And now you go from "tried to influence the jury with inadmissible evidence" to "tried to force inadmissible evidence".

Did he present the said evidence to the jury against orders? Are reporters on the jury now?

Your definition of "Samsung explicitly tried to influence the jury in the courtroom using excluded evidence" is rather stretched.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

Would you please stop this sh*t? In every single f*cking discussion regarding Apple vs Samsung, here comes Deorus droning ad nauseam in favor of his beloved Apple! No matter what argument was made by the one you're replying to, you keep spouting the same canned responses over and over.

Hint: this behavior does not make you look informed, it just pollutes the discussion and shows what a rabid fanboi you truly are.

I'm sure you can refute me, then...

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

So you're saying the F700 is admissable evidence?

Or are you saying that it's inadmissable for Samsung but admissable for Apple?

Neither, the F700 is a phone. The references to the F700, however, are admissible in the case of Apple (because they were submitted before the deadline) but inadmissible in the case of Samsung (because they were not submitted before the deadline). If, after this, you can still not understand what I'm talking about without resorting to even more straw man fallacies (what you did here), I have no option but to consider you a troll.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

How is Samsung supposed to know what Apple 's going to talk about before they talk about it? And also pre-introduce evidence to refute what Apple's going to say before they say it?

That's what the pretrial was for... Samsung was probably counting on the Judge accepting their "evidence" after the deadline so that Apple wouldn't have a chance to file counter-evidence, a strategy that has obviously failed.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

Samsing wasn't allowed to introduce it because they missed the deadline. Apple introduced it. Grab a law book.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

And now you go from "tried to influence the jury with inadmissible evidence" to "tried to force inadmissible evidence".

What's the problem with that?

Did he present the said evidence to the jury against orders? Are reporters on the jury now?

Yes, by explicitly stating that the evidence was about Apple copying SONY in the courtroom.

Your definition of "Samsung explicitly tried to influence the jury in the courtroom using excluded evidence" is rather stretched.

I am yet to see how...

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

So hang on. Apple is allowed to bring, after discovery, the existence of the F700 into evidence but Samsung is NOT allowed to bring the conception and design?

Yes, because Samsung had documents about the conception and design in their possession and never brought them up.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[chrb]

Yes it is, it's called contempt to court, and in this case can be taken as an attempt to influence the jury

Read the Groklaw article:

3. The materials were already publicly released, some by Apple and the rest because this very court forced the parties to unseal documents. (See Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open." Also the order, docket 1269: "Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.”)

In harmony with those orders, Samsung released the materials, attached to Joby Martin's Declaration, Exhibits 5, 6, and 8 [PDFs].

4. Apple released some of the information itself, in Docket Numbers 1428-1, 1438-2 (Tucher Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion to Enforce), 1429-13 (Walker Declaration in support of Samsungs Opposition to Motion to Enforce), and 1451 (Cashman Declaration in Support of Motion for Leave).

5. There were, as a result multiple articles about the materials already in the media, *before* the jury was even chosen, in the New York Times, the L.A. Times, Huffington Post and CNET. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/technology/apple-samsung-trial-highlights-patent-wars.html

7. It can't influence the jury in any way now, because they are not allowed to read any coverage of this litigation. "Moreover, Apple's baseless and public assertions that Samsungs transmission to the media of public information constituted contempt of court and that these actions were intended to pollute the jury were themselves glaring falsehoods, highlighting why Samsung has every right to defend itself in the public domain from unfair and malicious attacks."

8. Attorneys have a First Amendment right to speak. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already so ruled, in Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995), where the court held that "truth is an absolute defense" and a "statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning."

Which of those arguments do you think is incorrect? What law do you think can be used to punish Quinn for exercising his First Amendment right to republish information that is already in the public domain?

you can't appeal a jury's decision without being able to claim mistrial

A mistrial and an appeal are two completely different legal concepts. Mistrial is when the court is disbanded before concluding its business. Appeal is something that happens after the original trial is concluded.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

Burden of proof? The burden of making me truly care enough to educate you is on your side. You're being willfuly ignorant, so that's quite some burden you've got, there. I can waste my time quoting law to you, or I can let the trial play out, as it will do regardless of my actions, and let you see for yourself.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

They can certainly argue about the allegation being false, as well as ask questions of witnesses, but the specific documents? Those documents are inadmissible unless Apple brings them up

Ok, just so I have this straight.

Apple brought up the charge that the F700 is a copy of the iPhone.

Samsung knows this is not true and has the documentation to prove it.

What you are saying though is that yes, Samsung can claim that Apple is full of shit, but Samsung cannot present evidence of Apple being full of shit unless Apple specifically brings up the evidence of them being full of shit?

Yes, with one addition:
Samsung had these documents in their hands the entire time, knowing that time was ticking down for them to produce them. They decided not to. They waived any opportunity to raise it.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[chrb]

ordered to avoid consulting the media regarding this issue, an order Samsung is making extremely hard to comply with

Is Samsung holding a gun to the jurors collective heads? On the contrary, it is extremely easy for the jurors to comply - they just have to avoid reading articles on this particular case. As Groklaw said of the SCO vs Novell judge, "he said he relied on the jury to follow his instructions, adding that if you can't trust them to do that much, we might as well just quit.".

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

It's excellend grounds. Once something is introduced as evidence, it's fair game for both sides to do with it what they will. Samsung missed a deadline to introduce documents relating to the conception of the F700 and was barred from introducing the documents relating to the conception of the F700, and rightly so;

FTFY. If Apple introduces those documents, then it's fair game for Samsung to discuss them.

however, once Apple introduced it, it became fair game for Samsung to discuss. They're not being allowed due process with reegard to the evidence presented by their opponent. That's clear judicial bias, the strongest grounds an appeal can stand on.

Nope, there's no evidence of bias here, as the judge is following Rule 37 exactly:

If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Solandri]

The exclusion of the evidence is justified, you are correct.

Actually, I think this has pointed out a flaw in the legal process. We're not talking about Joe's dog peeing on his neighbor's freshly painted picket fence causing $100 in damages. We're talking about a decision which will impact billions if not tens of billions of dollars in sales. The whole point of having a court system is to determine the truth. The whole point of having deadlines is to make sure that determination happens in timely manner, so the cost of the delays do not exceed the cost of the judgment.

Here we clearly have a case where the potential cost of the judgement will far, far exceed the cost of a delay. So as unusual or unorthodox as it may have been, an extension should have been granted and the evidence allowed. Otherwise you're using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law. If things proceed as they look like they are, Apple will win in court and get Samsung products banned, but the public (with access to evidence the court disallowed) will know that it's a bogus decision and a failure of the legal system. Like the guy who gets locked up for life for murder even though a videotape later surfaced clearly showing someone else killing the victim.

Don't blindly insist that we have to follow the rules. As any programmer knows, rules are only made to cover the situations you've thought of. It's always possible for new situations you haven't thought of to pop up which make the rules not work anymore. And in those cases you have to bend or modify those rules to make the system work better in the future. That's the whole point of having judges - they're human and are supposed to recognize these exceptional situations when they happen. Otherwise we could just get rid of all judges and have trials moderated by a computer determining whether or not rules and procedures are being followed.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

You're missingthe same detail that I was, until recently, also missing. Apparently, Apple introduced the F700 late in discover and Samsung countered by attempting to introduce the barred documents shortly after, still within the required timeframe. Samsung was working under the confines of rule 26(a), Koh is not following 37.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jbolden]

There is a doctrine called subornation of perjury. Lawyers cannot present a case they know to be false. Once they have indicated that F700 came after the iPad if that is false that's a perjury. They cannot make filings that the F700 came after, if thats false. There is no such thing as a one sided exclusion. There are a series of true statements about the F700 that can be entered into evidence or not entered. Apple has control there. Samsung having missed a deadline does not entitle Apple to enter false statements about the F700 into evidence.

And that is what Koh is permitting in Samsung's view.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

Moreso, I will admit that I spoke before fully researching this matter. The evidence certainly should have been allowed, as it was submitted, albeit late in the process, during the allotted discover timeframe. As for why it was submitted late, it was in response to Apple's own late submission.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial.

none of this took place in court so it was not disruptive, and none of the material was "DEEMED" (by order) likely to jeopardize a fair trial

From the Judge's finding: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2011cv01846/239768/1269/0.pdf?ts=1342862765

Regarding the motion to seal potential evidence at trial, the Court has made clear to the parties that all evidence introduced at trial will be open to the public, with the narrow exception of "exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserves protection." Order at 2, ECF No. 1256 (citing Oracle Am. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-CV-03561-WHA, at ECF No. 540). With a July 30, 2012 trial date, this case has reached a stage of the proceedings where "the presumption of openness will apply to all documents[,] and only documents of exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserve protection will be allowed to be redacted or kept from the public." ECF No. 1256 at 3.

and from your previous comment:

An open trial only means that the public can assist it, not the public can have access to all the information related to it.

This is where you're wrong. See the quote above.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[chrb]

Samsung has an even higher duty to NOT discuss the case with the media, as does Apple.

There is no such legal duty - lawyers have a First Amendment right to speak to the press - a right that has been upheld by the courts. Lawyers are not allowed to release attorney-client privileged documents, but they can release documents that were filed in public records. But both sides are allowed to respond to press inquiries, which is all the Samsung lawyer says he did.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[vakuona]

Sigh!

Apple introduced the F700 as evidence of Samsung copying them. Samsung, if it thought it had evidence proving otherwise, had a deadline to introduce the evidence, and they didn't. They knew the rules. How hard could it have been for them. They developed the F700, they had the evidence that they designed it prior to the iPhone. They were solely responsible for the production of this evidence in the time that had been set to do so. it's not like they needed to create the evidence. Just take it from where it was, and bring it during discovery.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[vakuona]

You think? So you are guessing?

What is /. coming to?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[chrb]

it’s actually a chunky 16.4mm-thick slider QWERTY that looks appreciably different than the iPhone. It also has a homescreen that’s quite different than iOS

And yet Apple have claimed that it is a copy of the iPhone...

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Splab]

Wont be the same judge in an appeal, so no, definitely not her game plan.

I think she just went with her ego and the Samsung lawyer is way out of her league (the judges that is). The Samsung lawyer knows what he is doing; not only is he making sure there will be an appeal should he lose, he has made Samsung look like the true hero and Apple like a villan. As the Groklaw article says, I want this guy as my lawyer!

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

What imaginary deadline are you pandering about good sir? Last I had read, the evidence was submitted late IN the discovery period. I thought the deadline would be at the end of the discovery period? Is there some intermediate deadline in the discovery period past when evidence can no longer be submitted before the actual end of the discovery period? Please enlighten me.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

Samsung countered by attempting to introduce the barred documents shortly after, still within the required timeframe.

Got a citation?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

There's a point that I'll admit I didn't fully research. Neither did you, or you would have mentioned it in your response to my post.

That point is: Samsung *did* submit the evidence in time, but it was rejected for being submitted late in discovery. It was only submitted late in discovery because it was in response to Apple's own late submission.

Evidence submitted within the allotted timeframe for discover and still rejected, read up, that's what actually happened, and that is grounds for an appeal, if not a mistrial.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

There is a doctrine called subornation of perjury. Lawyers cannot present a case they know to be false. Once they have indicated that F700 came after the iPad if that is false that's a perjury. They cannot make filings that the F700 came after, if thats false. There is no such thing as a one sided exclusion. There are a series of true statements about the F700 that can be entered into evidence or not entered. Apple has control there. Samsung having missed a deadline does not entitle Apple to enter false statements about the F700 into evidence.

And that is what Koh is permitting in Samsung's view.

(iPhone, btw, not iPad)
There's no intimation that any perjury is going on or false statements are being entered, so I don't know where you're getting that. The F700 came after Apple's original designs for the iPhone (it even post-dates their original patent applications that go back to 2006, I believe), so it's not false to say that it did.

What Samsung is trying to claim is that they independently designed the F700 without copying Apple's design... but they can't use their documentary evidence, because they withheld it from discovery.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jbolden]

I disagree with you. I think the public's right to judicial oversight is more important than smooth judicial functioning. Getting evidence excluded from the court should not in the slightest have any bearing on getting it excluded from the public sphere. The standards for excluding from the public should be essentially substantial danger to the military / security interests of the United States and that's about it.

I understand judges may not like that. No one likes public scrutiny of their actions. But in so far as the United States still has a functioning democracy, if judges don't like it, too bad.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Jeng]

Yes, with one addition:
Samsung had these documents in their hands the entire time, knowing that time was ticking down for them to produce them. They decided not to. They waived any opportunity to raise it

Had Apple prior to this claimed that the F700 was a copy of the iPhone?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Compaqt]

Now, I've responded to about 3 or 4 comments, but this guy is all over the page. I'm sure you remember the couple of stories on "reputation management" and paid bulletin board responders that was on Slashdot a while back. He (and a couple others) are either jobless fanboys or part of Apple's farm team.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jbolden]

Come on. She made a perfectly reasonable ruling against a company trying to game the system. She's getting ticked at Samsung and maybe overstepped a bit. She hasn't even actually sanctioned Quinn. She's not hopelessly compromised until she at least actually does something.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

/me looks at address bar

Hmm, so this isn't Wikipedia, then? But, I digress, here's your citation and a quote.

The presiding judge of the case, Lucy Koh, rejected Samsung’s multiple motions on the matter, because they were filed too late in the discovery stage (the stage when the two parties in a trial submit their evidence).

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[anonymov]

And now you go from "tried to influence the jury with inadmissible evidence" to "tried to force inadmissible evidence".

What's the problem with that?

You don't see any difference in the meanings? One involves, well, direct attempts to influence jury, other one:

Did he present the said evidence to the jury against orders? Are reporters on the jury now?

Yes, by explicitly stating that the evidence was about Apple copying SONY in the courtroom.

Really? Just hearing description of evidence is enough to influence jury? You're quite dismissive of legal system here, assuming jury's not only gonna break obligation not to read media coverage of process, but also going to be influenced solely by description of evidence explicitly dismissed by the judge and not even meant for consideration by jurors. Seriously, read the fucking article, I see you still didn't do that. Even Apple's lawyers refer only to publication as attempts to influence jury, not about jury hearing his description.

Your definition of "Samsung explicitly tried to influence the jury in the courtroom using excluded evidence" is rather stretched.

I am yet to see how...

Explicit (adj.) Very specific, clear, or detailed.

So, "reconsider her earlier decision that Samsung not be allowed to present evidence showing that Apple's iPhone was inspired by "Sony style."" is very specific, clear and detailed influence?

Also, you're again doing your thing with renaming "inspired by "Sony style"" to "Apple copied SONY". Hyperboles much?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

It was submitted in response to Apple's late submission. Had the late Apple submission not included the F700, or not been accepted, Samsung would not have made their submission.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the human brain was the shape of an apple. The Apple logo would illustrate the shape of your brain perfectly. Someone in here is one bite too much shy of a full apple.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[icebike]

By excluding evidence she has already done something.
She's done something in a way that supports her prior public pronouncements that Samsung would not prevail.
A self fulfilling prophecy.

She didn't do this to the company trying to game the system (Apple) she did it to the company trying to offer its own defense.

What does she have to do in your mind to qualify as "doing something"? Pull out a gun and shoot the Samsung attorney?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BlackSnake112]

The design of the F700 is precisely what Samsung is not being allowed to enter into evidence, slong with the facts regarding when that design was created. Meanwhile, Apple is being allowed to enter that very design into evidence *against* Samsing. What don't you understand about that? The moment Apple was allowed to use a photo of the design, Samsung should have been allowed to fill in the missing pieces.

Samsung missed the deadline, Apple didn't. What don't you understand about that?

Let us try this example: You Deorus are on trial for stealing a blue ray player. The judge does not allow you to enter into evidence a tape showing that you paid for said blue ray player in cash. Then mall security shows a tape of you walking out of a store with the blue ray player. You are still not allowed by the judge to enter into evidence the tape showing you paying for the blue ray player. See the point now?

The point is even after the deadline, if one side brings something into evidence the other side can bring the details of that evidence. That happens all the time. This case is prime for an appeal.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

I know! Let's frame Deorus for murder! It's a slam dunk! I'll get the prosecutor to enter their analysis of the murder weapon into evidence at the end of the discover period, so that Deorus' lawyers don't have time to enter their own analysis. Then, when his lawyers try to argue that there's no way he ever touched that weapon, the judge can tell them to go take a leap. Hell, they won't even be able to counter when the prosecution presents their own analysis of the weapon.

Wait, that's not how it works? You mean to tell me that once the prosecution makes reference to the weapon, the defense is allowed to do the same? Wait, does civil court work the same way? It does? Then Deorus is either ignorant, trolling, or both?

Interesting.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

flame bate

I wished you would have typed this earlier in your comments so I could have stopped reading earlier.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

Apple introduced it late in discovery. Samsung countered by introducing their documents, later in discover (but still during discovery) only due to Apple's own late submission. Lucy Koh threw it out because it was submitted at the last minute, despite the fact that it was submitted the moment it became relevant.

Apple didn't bring this in after discovery; of course, neither did Samsung, but it was still not allowed.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

You don't see any difference in the meanings? One involves, well, direct attempts to influence jury, other one:

Of course I see the difference, what I don't see is the relevance in this case...

Really? Just hearing description of evidence is enough to influence jury? You're quite dismissive of legal system here, assuming jury's not only gonna break obligation not to read media coverage of process, but also going to be influenced solely by description of evidence explicitly dismissed by the judge and not even meant for consideration by juror.

Yes, really. Whether it influences the jury or not doesn't really matter, what matters is the fact that Quinn brought it up in the courtroom thus showing intent, with the communication to the press after being repeatedly told that the evidence wouldn't be considered demonstrating his contempt of court.

Seriously, read the fucking article, I see you still didn't do that. Even Apple's lawyers refer only to publication as attempts to influence jury, not about jury hearing his description.

Since when is my opinion required to be in agreement with Apple's or anyone else's?

Explicit (adj.) Very specific, clear, or detailed.

They were clear about the subject of the evidence...

So, "reconsider her earlier decision that Samsung not be allowed to present evidence showing that Apple's iPhone was inspired by "Sony style."" is very specific, clear and detailed influence?

It is not required to be all of those, only any of those. Notice the OR. Are you so desperate for an argument that arguing (incorrectly) about semantics is the only way you can reply? It's OK to admit you're wrong!

Also, you're again doing your thing with renaming "inspired by "Sony style"" to "Apple copied SONY". Hyperboles much?

Why is this relevant?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[YesDinosaursDidExist]

Yeah -- An "Order to Seal" and an "Order to Close Proceedings" are two separate things --- although, in your defense, they are usually contained in one document....but to reiterate again........even if a trial is "completely open" or a county or municipality has an "open file policy" that doesn't mean that all the evidence and the black glove are sitting in a fucking file for everyone to go and see -- sorry, the law doesn't work that way -- nor does the Constitution. Releasing suppressed evidence may not be "illegal" in that the attorney won't go to jail -- but it flies in the face of the judicial system and he has ruined any respectable career prospects he has. Additionally, a lawyer not only fights for the rights of his or her client but also the integrity of the system WE ALL live under -- the Samsung lawyer obviously didn't get the memo in this case. At any rate, Samsung just fucked themselves because not only will Apple move for sanctions but also could potentially move for a mistrial and start all over.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

An open trial only means that they can assist the trial

What does this even mean? I've never heard of the public being able to assist in a court case in any way. I don't think "open" means what you think it means.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

Their late-submitted evidence is counter-evidence to Apple's own late submission. It was actually submitted on time, but close enough to the deadline that Koh was allowed to declare it inadmissable.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

According to the rules of discovery, you must present your evidence *before* the trial. So, let's have it.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

By excluding evidence she has already done something.

Uh, no. Evidence gets excluded on procedural grounds all the time. If you file stuff late, the judge often will choose to disallow it. There are pretty good reasons for having deadlines in discovery and you have to have a very good excuse when asking for an exception.

She didn't do this to the company trying to game the system (Apple) she did it to the company trying to offer its own defense.

It's funny how you seem to be completely oblivious to the possibility that Apple isn't the only party gaming the system here...

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jbolden]

iPhone, btw, not iPad)

Thanks for the correction.
What Samsung is trying to claim is that they independently designed the F700 without copying Apple's design... but they can't use their documentary evidence, because they withheld it from discovery.

Its not what Apple is trying to claim. Apple is trying to claim that Samsun dependently designed the F700 they are alleging copying. Now they know that to be false because of the dates. As far as I understand it the dates make Apple's claim impossible and Samsung's evidence shows this. Once Apple claims something they know to be false based on the excluded evidence that opens the door. Apple cannot freely perjure because Samsung got sanctioned. I think at this point, Apple has opened the door. Because of Samsung's late filling Apple had the right to ignore the F700 entirely. They don't have the right to lie about the dates various events occurred.

Now if you are right and the F700 were in fact late enough that it could have been after the images of the iPhone then this whole gets tricky but I suspect the result is the same. Because Apple is still alleging events that occurred inside of Samsung i.e. they are making positive claims that Samsung employees committed torts which evidence shows they did not commit. I think they have to make a positive case for copying and that's going to be impossible not to trip over Samsung's internal documents. So again I don't see how to have the kind of one sided sanction you are pushing for without holding Apple to a very high standard.

There is two ways to look at this. F700 is either fundamental or not. If Quinn is telling the truth and the entire defense is going to based on that both Apple and Samsung were copying Sony, I'm sorry Koh cannot exclude the core of entire defense that's simply too harsh a sanction. We do not sanction defendants for minor errors without automatically losing cases. Similarly if the F700 is key to Apple's case that Samsung was copying then everything related to it is important. If it is a side issue than Apple should have the right to decide whether to just avoid it, or lose the sanction.

So I disagree pretty strongly. Once Apple makes claims about anything that happened inside Samsung the evidence of what really happened comes in. Regardless of what Samsung did during discovery. Samsung's misbehavior at discovery never gives Apple license to perjure or mislead the court.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Published accounts are not evidence until introduced at trial where their accuracy and truthfulness can be questioned. Just because something appears in the NY Times does not make it so.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jbolden]

The exclusion was based on Samsung misbehavior. If Apple's case is going to make positive claims about what happened inside Samsung which are false she has to let in the evidence. At that point if she fails to let in the evidence then its going beyond an exclusion.

Samsung did wrong and the penalty may be too harsh. But so far she hasn't done anything totally out of bounds. It could go there but it hasn't. You are intermixing speculation, you belief that her belief that Samsung's case is weak with a willingness to force Samsung to lose, with her actual actions.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to be unaware of your unbridled bias in favor of Apple here, and you have a remarkably cavalier attitude to justice and fair balance in court, and you also seem unable to distinguish actual innovation from fiction. You're not too good at historical facts either.

Tentatively I name thee Florian, although in this new context my first observation was clearly overgenerous. Florian would only be unaware of something that is obvious to everyone else through being paid to be unaware, which of course is his exact M.O..

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Imazalil]

Yes, but generally that means that Sammy would get to present their evidence in reply, not have a press kit ready to roll to the media. Sammy missed the deadline, and then proceeded to piss the judge off by trying to get it in 10 times (or so, don't recall article exactly, maybe 11) with which the Judge (in my mind kind of understandably) started getting pissy with Sammy.

No car analogy, but it's something like a student handing in a term paper late, prof says no, student keeps badgering prof to accept it, after a few tries the prof tells student to fuck off and threatens to call campus security.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[narcc]

Indeed. Though if the goal of writing is to communicate an idea, and that intention was carried out successfully, I'm still forced to agree with the parent. It's pretty obvious that he meant "conflict-of-interest" and not "bias". Why else would he intentionally leave us with that impression? Some kind of strange trap?

It seems much more likely to me that it's just a simple mistake, and not some super-grammar-troll-fu. After all, people do make mistakes. Hell, I've even seen people admit mistakes on the internet. Even I, as arrogant as I am, acknowledged a mistake I made a couple days ago. A mistake, even on Slashdot, is not the end of the world. Fighting over it just distracts from the conversation.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[noh8rz6]

I'm really busy with important matters and don't have time to respond to yr post, so let me just say, you're an idiot.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

/me looks at address bar

Hmm, so this isn't Wikipedia, then?

You said that, "until recently," you were missing this detail. I haven't heard anything about it, so isn't it reasonable to ask for a link?

But, I digress, here's your citation and a quote.

The presiding judge of the case, Lucy Koh, rejected Samsung’s multiple motions on the matter, because they were filed too late in the discovery stage (the stage when the two parties in a trial submit their evidence).

You said "Samsung countered by attempting to introduce the barred documents shortly after, still within the required timeframe.."
Your citation here is that Samsung filed motions to introduce the barred documents "too late."
Does "too late" mean something different to you?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

Read: "in the discovery stage", the discovery stage being the time during which both parties can enter exhibits into evidence. The only real "too late" in discover is when it's over, though a judge can, as Koh did in this case, disallow evidence if it is brought in near the end of discovery. However, this is only supposed to be done if it is wholely new evidence, completely unknown to the other party, which the other party would require time to investigate. Since Samsung's filing was in response to Apple's filing regarding the F700, Apple was clearly aware of the F700 and this was not wholely new evidence, therefore it should not have been barred.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Deorus]

That would never stick and would most likely backfire horribly for several reasons:

1 - I'm a nomad, so you'd have to track me down, and chances are you'd not find me where you think I am because I rent PO Boxes -- This would complicate your life attempting to find a plausible location for the murder.

2 - I make sure to find roommates to live with wherever I go for personal protection -- This means it would be extremely hard to find me in a situation in which I wouldn't have an alibi.

3 - I take note of all strange occurrences (I would be taking note of your post if I felt like there was a chance of you tracking me down) with timestamps and have those notes signed at and authenticated by a notary, because I never know what my roommates (who are usually people I don't know from anywhere) may do and don't wish to be involved in it -- This would make it extremely hard for you to frame me without me recording strange events.

4 - I resort to electronic transactions as much as I can -- This means that even when I am not with others I can still be traced by the places where I use my cards.

5 - I carry an iPhone and am permanently logged in to location-tracking apps -- This means that even when I'm not making transactions there is still information about my location being submitted to some place.

6 - My record is sparkling clean, at 30 I am yet to receive a single fine -- This would greatly reduce the plausibility of successfully accusing me of murder.

7 - I have no enemies and no conflicts of interest with anyone, in addition to having already opted myself out of inheritance (my sister kept the goods) -- This would make it extremely hard to find a motive for me to kill.

I would never go to court knowing that I was being accused of murder without gathering as much evidence as I could to demonstrate, without a shadow of doubt, that it could never possibly have happened, regardless of your own evidence. This is where Samsung failed.

PS: I know you all want answers, but I've hit my post limit or whatever (apparently one can't post more than 30 times within 4 hours) and thus won't be responding to any more posts for a while (if at all).

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

iPhone, btw, not iPad)

Thanks for the correction. What Samsung is trying to claim is that they independently designed the F700 without copying Apple's design... but they can't use their documentary evidence, because they withheld it from discovery.

Its not what Apple is trying to claim. Apple is trying to claim that Samsun dependently designed the F700 they are alleging copying.

Actually, no... Here's the trial motions. The most recent is Apple's response to Quinn's declaration and motion for sanctions. Apparently, the only thing they claimed about the F700 was that it was a slide phone.

Now they know that to be false because of the dates. As far as I understand it the dates make Apple's claim impossible and Samsung's evidence shows this. Once Apple claims something they know to be false based on the excluded evidence that opens the door. Apple cannot freely perjure because Samsung got sanctioned. I think at this point, Apple has opened the door. Because of Samsung's late filling Apple had the right to ignore the F700 entirely. They don't have the right to lie about the dates various events occurred.

However, they can certainly describe the F700 factually, without discussing any of the design dates.

Now if you are right and the F700 were in fact late enough that it could have been after the images of the iPhone then this whole gets tricky but I suspect the result is the same. Because Apple is still alleging events that occurred inside of Samsung i.e. they are making positive claims that Samsung employees committed torts which evidence shows they did not commit. I think they have to make a positive case for copying and that's going to be impossible not to trip over Samsung's internal documents. So again I don't see how to have the kind of one sided sanction you are pushing for without holding Apple to a very high standard.

There is two ways to look at this. F700 is either fundamental or not. If Quinn is telling the truth and the entire defense is going to based on that both Apple and Samsung were copying Sony, I'm sorry Koh cannot exclude the core of entire defense that's simply too harsh a sanction. We do not sanction defendants for minor errors without automatically losing cases.

Well, except that if their entire defense is based on that, then they shouldn't have withheld it during discovery. The rules are impartial and require both parties to disclose evidence in a timely manner... Samsung doesn't get a pass just because they'd lose.

Similarly if the F700 is key to Apple's case that Samsung was copying then everything related to it is important. If it is a side issue than Apple should have the right to decide whether to just avoid it, or lose the sanction.

So I disagree pretty strongly. Once Apple makes claims about anything that happened inside Samsung the evidence of what really happened comes in. Regardless of what Samsung did during discovery. Samsung's misbehavior at discovery never gives Apple license to perjure or mislead the court.

No, I agree, Apple can't make any misleading or factually incorrect statements... But they don't have to ignore the existence of the F700 completely, particularly when it was disclosed during discovery. It was only the design documents that were withheld, so it's only those documents that are excluded.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been refuted many times in many discussions, but there's no point trying to explain anything to you.

You're unable to see past the RDF to any sensible discussion.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

You missed the point. I wasn't seriously saying we (or anyone) should fram you for anything, I was applying your own logic to you. Samsung did not fail in this regard, the judge did; Samsung got their submission in as quickly as reasonably possible after Apple's late submission, still during discovery but close enough that the judge was able to deny them. There was no failing on Samsung's part, the judge is screwing them.

If you weren't allowed to examine the murder weapon until the end of the discovery period, there's no way you could submit your own evidence early enough that the judge could not also throw it out, as Koh did. Likewise, you would be just as entitled (and justified in doing so) to appeal any jury decision as Samsung is.

That said, given items 4 and 5, item 1 should be trivial; if item 2 were the target of the crime, 3, 6, and 7 are meaningless.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

I've just noticed that, in the majority of the posts where I meant to use the term "discovery", I typo'd "discover". I'd like to blame the "y" key on my keyboard, but it appears to be working just fine. Damn.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

Read: "in the discovery stage", the discovery stage being the time during which both parties can enter exhibits into evidence. The only real "too late" in discover is when it's over, though a judge can, as Koh did in this case, disallow evidence if it is brought in near the end of discovery.

I believe you're reading poor journalism as if it's factual. First, it wasn't actually Koh that disallowed the evidence, but Judge Grewal, the magistrate judge who presided over the discovery phase. Second, the discovery period was over... It wasn't merely "near the end", but expired. All of the documents are available here.

However, this is only supposed to be done if it is wholely new evidence, completely unknown to the other party, which the other party would require time to investigate. Since Samsung's filing was in response to Apple's filing regarding the F700, Apple was clearly aware of the F700 and this was not wholely new evidence, therefore it should not have been barred.

Nope, the internal documents regarding the design of the F700 were entirely new. That Apple was aware of the existence of the phone is irrelevant, if they were unaware of the internal documents. Plus, it still fails to answer the question of why didn't Samsung release these during the discovery phase?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[sjames]

That's the point he is making. That in court, and in marketing, sometimes they will say things meant to leave you with an 'impression' without having to take responsibility for it later.

Sure, they MEANT for you to get that idea, but they cannot be nailed to the wall for it because they literally never said it and you can't prove intent without a clear action.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[thegarbz]

New evidence in a court case is admissible if required to use as a rebuttal to the opposition's claims. As Apple raised the issue of the F700 Samsung should have been allowed to present documents about it regardless if they were in the discovery period or not.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

I'm sorry, but how long did Apple think it took Samsung to design and manufacture the F700 they demoed in February of 2007?

Let's attack this from a different angle, then... Unless Apple is positing that the F700 was slammed together in under a month, they are fully aware that the phone was designed and in production long before anyone outside of Apple ever saw an iPhone. At that point, Apple must have been aware of the 2006 design patent and, so sure of their case, have already been prepared for those facts to come up in open court. The internal documents obviously existed, whether they were presented at discovery or not, and Apple was certainly aware of them, as they were certainly aware of the 2006 design patent, and this obvious awareness of the documents covers them for use in the trial once Apple opens the door for discussion of the F700, which they did.

Thank you for that additional link, however; I'm sure I'll find the content most enlightening.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jbolden]

I read Apple's motion thanks for the links. They seem to be arguing (page 3) that the F700 was copied from the iPhone. I think this really does come down to Quinn's claim "what's the point of having a trial". If Quinn is correct that the exclusion amounted to terminating sanction then it was too high a sanction. I disagree can create a sanction so great as to deliberately cause a jury to wrongly decide fact. The rules of evidence exist to assist in the determination of fact, they don't get to override it.

If somebody during a murder trial lies about their alibi, but in fact has an alternate valid alibi the judge can't order that excluded. They should get convicted of perjury not murder. Samsung has engaged in misconduct during the trial, but it is not clear they engaged in patent theft. If the F700 proves they are innocent, that's a very big deal. I would agree that if Quinn is telling the truth it makes Sansung's withholding during discovery far worse. And the court should sanction them strongly. But I don't think they can sanction them by excluding what Quinn consider their key defense.

A fair way to resolve this might be something like offering Quinn full access to the F700 material but in exchange if it turns out the the dates turn out like Apple alleges then the judge makes a summary judgement and Samsung doesn't get to offer any alternate defense on the patent issue since by Quinn's own admission the case hinges on these dates.

Apple might very well like Samsung having to fight a "one strike and your out". And Quinn puts up or shuts up about it being key.

IANAL just a concerned citizen but I don't like the idea of people not being able to defend themselves at trial. Quinn is right that a trial in which you are not offered the chance to defend yourself is a mockery of the very notion of trial. The way Stalin ran "show trials" was the defendant was informed that if they presented evidence in their defense they would be taken out behind the court and shot, so that while the jury might decide in their favor it wouldn't mean much. We just don't do that in America. And we shouldn't do that. I'm glad we have never consider those Stalin era trials to be real trials and used the term "show trials" to describe them.

If Koh thinks that Samsung deserved terminal sanction she should have done it and gone on record with a terminal sanction and defended that on appeal if that would be even legal. We should not be having a show trial. Quinn is absolutely 100% right that a trial designed to cause the jury to decide a case wrongly is a mockery of justice.

But they don't have to ignore the existence of the F700 completely

I agree. But the problem is (at least according to Samsung) they are making false claims about dates when things occurred. Assuming that's true, I don't think that's permissible behavior on Apple's part. And I don't think Koh has the right to permit it, regardless of how upset she is with Samsung.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[BronsCon]

You know it, I know it, a handful of other people here know it, but some people just won't get it until it happens. I'm giving up, for now; for your sanity, you should do the same.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

Alternately, Samsung will win, and Apple will appeal based on .... something lawyerly that I don't understand. and both Apple and Samsung get their names in the headlines for a good long while.

Bonus points from Samsung if they can prevent the release of the iPhone 5 in the USA.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

no, they didn't file it on time, which if allowed, would have given Apple ZERO time, unlike them, who had Apple's long enough to help build their own case. Its typical lawyer tactics to try and get an edge, and the judge played by the rules, and didn't allow it. No different than any other case, you have to give both sides time to look at what you have, if you don't then its not allowed. They then cried like a baby and sent it out on a media storm, even if it was in the public domain, it dind't get the attention until they did this, they know exactly what they are doing (playing dirty) and got caught twice now, they should be punished.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[narcc]

Ah, it would appear it was lost on me!

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Mabhatter]

But that model of phone is public knowledge. You can google a spec sheet fairly quickly. Samsung is trying to add PRIVATE design and engineering docs to the case. Notes and dates of ideas are not common knowledge.

In reality,Apple probably did bait them. Apple can leave the door open for "phones before iPhone" and pull out pictures of anything they want publicly available. Samsung has to guess which devices Apple is going to question. If they offer the information too soon, Apple gest to look at might lead them further down the path. If they wait too long, the evidence gets locked out by the buzzer.

With the Olympics going on, I'd point out how many "winners" have got their ass handed to them at the last minute this week. Phelps lost some "guaranteed" gold metals because he wasn't giving EVERY OUNCE, EVERY TIME.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[milkmage]

bugger? you must be british.

actually, judges CAN tell you what to do outside a courtroom.

they can actually lock you in a hotel and make sure you don't get TV, magazines or newspapers. You will be escorted from your hotel to the courtroom by the police every day until the trial ends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_sequestration

it's so jurors aren't tainted by the media. Samsung releasing info to the press could be construed as an attempt to sway the jury.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[milkmage]

it's called discovery. you have to provide your evidence to opposing counsel by law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

judge says you must turnover docs by X time for them to be entered as evidence. Samsung missed the deadline.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[milkmage]

judges are paid by the state. they do not get an hourly, they get a salary.
judges don't make a dime off trials (at least not legally)

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jbolden]

I thought of a way to argue this a bit better. These are two very large international companies. The trial is successful if the broad public (especially the publics in South Korea and America) comes to believe that either:

a) Samsung clearly copies from Apple
b) Apple cannot prove what happened with any clarity

What is a disaster is something like
c1) Apple was able to prove Samsung copied but there was substantial credible evidence excluded.
c2) Apple wins but the case is broadly seen as reflecting bias

And the reason it is a disaster is that the people of South Korea will not enforce a judgement they see as unjust. And moreover the US government won't enforce a judgement where they can't honestly state that Samsung unquestionably received a fair trial. The fine here could and should be in the tens of billions. This needs to be better than a death penalty case.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jrumney]

What bias?

The pre-trial blockade of Samsung devices based on a few flimsy patents that might be worth a few cents at most (though Apple wants to claim $24 + 100% of Samsung's mobile division profit). The fact that that Samsung has been sanctioned for failing to issue orders to its staff to retain evidence before August 28 2010 (6 months before the case was filed) with the jury informed that they should assume this equates to willful destruction of evidence, while Apple did not issue such orders until April 2011, after they had filed suit, with no consequence.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Sancho]

I'm not sure what "harmless" means here--IANAL--but the harm from failure to disclose could have to do with the other party not knowing about the evidence. Since Apple introduced the evidence in open court, it's hard to imagine that they don't know about said evidence.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[strength_of_10_men]

An open trial only means that the public can assist it

I'm curious. You've used this line in a number of replies. Can you further elaborate on what you actually mean? Do you mean that Joe Public can actually assist in the trial? Because I've never, EVER heard of that.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says the whole point is to influence the jury:

I'm going to go ahead and assume English isn't your first language. The statement clearly says Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence., which is absolutely true, without any additional context it says nothing about their intention wrt the jury on releasing the exhibits, much more likely it was to give some clarity to the public. Not to mention the jury is already banned from reading media reports about the case or researching it.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

And now you go from "tried to influence the jury with inadmissible evidence" to "tried to force inadmissible evidence".

What's the problem with that?

Nothing, but obviously your original argument was proven to be bullshit so now you've changed it.

Did he present the said evidence to the jury against orders? Are reporters on the jury now?

Yes, by explicitly stating that the evidence was about Apple copying SONY in the courtroom.

Yes to which question? That explanation doesn't satisfy an affirmative answer to either question.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

Assuming this trial goes forward the most likely outcome is that Samsung will lose. The judge is doing everything in her power to make this a kangaroo court. This is obvious from her pattern of actions from barring the sale of Samsung's products to asking for the jury to act like Samsung had willingly destroyed its own records to hinder the proceedings.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

Funny how the "evidence" that Samsung obviously copied the design because Apple designed it first behind closed doors (which is a fallacy) showed up in the news (remember all those Apple prototype screenshots leaked to the press?) and the judge wasn't angry or displeased at the time.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

So what? The evidence isn't accepted in court and he did not present it. Great. Done. Doesn't mean squat about him not being able to discuss it with the media which is not part of the proceedings at all. Wouldn't you feel chaffed if you had submitted proof that Samsung had been designing the F700 before the iPhone was released, the proof was rejected, then Apple in its opening procedure displays the F700 as proof that Samsung "copied" the iPhone on purpose? He tried to dispute it after a clear challenge and the judge didn't allow it (which was something out of bizarro world but he still complied). The media inquires about it because they want to know and you show them the information you have.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Antarius]

Exactly. Regardless of whether Koh was right to disallow Samsung's attempt to use the F700 in evidence, Apple introducing it is a textbook case of "opening the door."

Otherwise Apple is making an accusation ('See? The F700 is a copy!') and Samsung isn't allowed to mention the F700 in defending themselves. It's akin to saying "John Doe fucks pigs" and then disallowing John Doe to use the word "pig" and thus defend himself by saying he'd never seen a pig before, let alone fucked one.


I can understand Apple being upset at opening the door, but that's the incompetence of their lawyer, not Samsung's fault.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, tell that to Carl Lewis.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great circular logic followed by hand waving bucko.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[kyrio]

You fucked up and made a fool of yourself. Stop trying so hard to recover from your failure - it's just having the opposite effect. Get over it.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

Patents applications are only made public by the patent office after they are granted which may take years to happen. Never heard of submarine patents?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe they didn't think they'd need it until apple used f700 as an example of how they copy.. despite it being an example of the designs obviousness in fitting to pocket.

Yeah, makes all the sense to go into a trial knowing that you'll be accused of copying designs without overwhelming evidence that you didn't... Or maybe the overwhelming evidence isn't that overwhelming... Or maybe the overwhelming evidence was fabricated...

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

Sheesh! Who would confuse the Galaxy S with an iPhone or the Galaxy Tab with the iPad? Besides having the word SAMSUNG in the front they are clearly distinguishable. First time I saw a Galaxy S I was flabbergasted at how beautiful it looked despite owning an iPhone 3GS and having used an iPhone 4. The Galaxy Tab is completely different than the iPad. Clearly you never had any of these devices in your hand and are talking out of your ass.

Apple "lost" to the Galaxy S series because the iPhone 4 was a dud. Remember the antenna design troubles which Apple "solved" with a plastic outer casing which they initially wanted users to pay for because they said it wasn't a design failure? My friend had one of those. I still remember people trying to hide their iPhone at the time. People were embarrassed from having an iPhone. My boss had planned to buy an iPhone and ended up with a Galaxy S because of that crap. Then Apple throws a hissy fit that Samsung caused them to lose market share. Cry me a river.

The UK judge did well to dismiss their stupid case with a cheeky comment. Apple fanatics are so stupid many of them didn't even take the hint. They don't "get" British humor.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jkflying]

They didn't think they would need to, because Apple had never accused them of copying with the F700 before.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[jkflying]

Yes. It's called being honest. Unless you are on the Samsung defence team, you're also guessing.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they can't. An open trial only means that they can assist the trial, nothing else.

People have already pointed you at the document emitted by the court to prove you wrong and you persist in saying this crap. Shill.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

YesDinosaursDidExist

...and they roam the Earth. Obviously.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

I guess I have to repeat the link posted above by someone else since some people still don't seem to get the point:

Regarding the motion to seal potential evidence at trial, the Court has made clear to the parties that all evidence introduced at trial will be open to the public, with the narrow exception of “exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserves protection.” Order at 2, ECF No. 1256 (citing Oracle Am. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-CV-03561-WHA, at ECF No. 540). With a July 30, 2012 trial date, this case has reached a stage of the proceedings where “the presumption of openness will apply to all documents[,] and only documents of exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserve protection will be allowed to be redacted or kept from the public.” ECF No. 1256 at 3.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Kalriath]

No, because he's wrong. Open trial simply means that the trial isn't closed (i.e. secret). To not be an open trial, it pretty much has to involve government on one side, and national security.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Kalriath]

Huh. If that's the case, the Galaxy Tab doesn't infringe anyway, since it doesn't have a metallic surround. In fact it's cheap plastic.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

If you can't trust the people of the jury to do their job why bother with a jury at all? Clearly you do not know anything about how it works. If a member of the jury reaches a decision based on facts gleamed from the news, or word of mouth, or whatever from outside the court they can be removed from the jury. If it is considered they have poisoned the opinion of the rest of the jury there can be a mistrial. Heck IANAL and even I know that.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

By your standard the original iPhone wasn't a smartphone either. You couldn't install apps. This was at the time Steve Jobs claimed you could write your apps in HTML and Javascript and run it from inside the browser or go shaft yourself. At best you had hyperlinks. Only Apple could write apps for the system.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

Bingo.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

You are conveniently forgetting the Apple "leaks" ever since the case started.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Cederic]

I have to admit, his written response was as close as I've seen any lawyer tell a judge to sit down and stfu.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Cederic]

Correct, Apple's claim is based on admissible evidence; Samsung's is not.

...because the judge ruled Apple's evidence as admissible, but denied Samsung the right to counter it.

Doesn't sound fair to me.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Cederic]

Samsung's contempt of court

From what I've seen of this case, contempt is the only appropriate response.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Theaetetus]

Patents applications are only made public by the patent office after they are granted which may take years to happen. Never heard of submarine patents?

That's absolutely true... before 1997. Welcome to the future, my friend! Applications are now published after 18 months.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[milkmage]

what do leaks have to do with it?
my comment addresses this "She has bugger all to say other than as a private citizen about Samsung's speech to the media."

i've served on a jury.
we were instructed by the court to not talk to anyone about the case. no press, no family or friends, nobody.

sometimes a judge will issue a gag order:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order
Gag orders are often used against participants involved in a lawsuit or criminal trial. They are also a tool to prevent media from publishing unwanted information on a particular topic.

bottom line is a judge can control what you do outside the court.

this is just wrong "She has bugger all to say other than as a private citizen about Samsung's speech to the media."

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Livid and let die.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good God, thank you!

People on this site treat anything which comes out of Groklaw as law when it's just an opinion piece.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Grudge2012]

maybe they didn't think they'd need it until apple used f700 as an example of how they copy.. despite it being an example of the designs obviousness in fitting to pocket.

Wait, what now? They didn't think they needed the "evidence [that] would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design" - until Apple claimed that it did exactly that? Which would mean that Apple had entered it as evidence, so there would be no need for Samsung to enter it again? Sorry, but the Chewbacca defense makes more sense than that.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

so why the Samsung Lawyers were so late in presenting this "extra evidence"????

Does not matter. Not insightful. Mod down.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

The media is not part of the jury.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[cheesybagel]

Which is still longer than the time required to design a cellphone. In case you didn't notice they change the model every year.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but it seems that Samsung outmaneuvered the judge on this one.

Sounds like a pretty good legal strategy... I've known a few judges in my time, they just love that.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Grudge2012]

And that is grounds for appeal. No sense watching this trial, no matter who wins it's getting appealed.

Of course it will be appealed. You don't need a reason to appeal.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doping is much different from throwing a game but concern over the increasingly complex issue is certainly justified. Not knowing what herbal supplement Carl Lewis took, I'd be premature in appraising whether it was reasonable or innocent for Lewis and several other teammates to have consumed it. It would help to know what effect they sought by taking it, what the product was marketed or known for treating, and whether they communicated with each other about its use. Certainly there should have been full test and interview disclosure to some sort of impartial international panel, and test samples kept for peer review.

I agree that the same rules should apply to all nations equally, and without suppression over political or commercial concerns. While we admire and appreciate the things the worlds finest are able to do, we should also be willing to be self-critical and seek to improve ourselves and our societies.

Wondering about common herbal products I looked up Ricola cough drops.
I'm puzzled that the U.S. version of Ricola has 3 herbs not in the classic international formulation, and lacks 6 herbs that are.
I wonder why the U.S. version is different. It's easy to doubt that it is better.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid.

[milkmage]

and your point is what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order

Legitimate claims for use of a gag order include, for instance, a criminal court may issue a gag order on the media if the judge believes, or claims to believe, that potential jurors in a future trial will be influenced by the media reporting or speculation on the early stages of a case.

Gag orders are often used against participants involved in a lawsuit or criminal trial. They are also a tool to prevent media from publishing unwanted information on a particular topic.

A GAG ORDER ON THE MEDIA. Yes. the Judge can tell the press to STFU.
"also a tool to to prevent the media..."

Well damn.

[Shivetya]

What is the world coming to when I find myself cheering on a lawyer, one whose actions and defense of such is just so damn much fun to read. Its like, okay Judge, two can play at this game and your out matched.

As for Apple, why must a company with such great products because the new poster child for much of what is wrong with regards to Intellectual property. They seem hell bent to do what their competitors could not do, besmirch their name

Re:Well damn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that was Steve Job's dying wish. Destroy Android at all costs, even if it takes every last penny. In fact the quote is...

I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion [£25bn] in the bank, to right this wrong.

Re:Well damn.

[BMOC]

...like Kahn Noonian Singh pushing down on the bizarrely non-intuitive user-interface to the genesis device, Jobs dying wish will ultimately fail. If only he had targeted his overcapitalization for good, like putting men on Mars, I might respect him. Instead he blew it all on childish ego.

Re:Well damn.

[ColdWetDog]

Because that was Steve Job's dying wish. Destroy Android at all costs, even if it takes every last penny. In fact the quote is...

I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion [£25bn] in the bank, to right this wrong.

But he's dead. Not pining for the fjords, just plain ol' dead. Not resting. Not stunned. Dead.

So what Steve wants isn't really all that important anymore, is it?

Re:Well damn.

[Sudline]

But they created most technologies Apple actually use in iPhone.

Re:Well damn.

[squiggleslash]

Sitting on the board of Directors of another company while developing a competing project of your own

Apple was well aware that Google was developing a phone when Schmidt was on their board, and it was public knowledge he recused himself during many iPhone discussions. Apple could have ejected him at any time.

Apple is playing dirty in this fight, and Samsung is having problems as a result. What's absolutely clear is that the evidence Samsung has presented in public shows that Apple is basically lying about Samsung's products and development processes.

And last I looked, Samsung is the most popular manufacturer of Android phones, itself the most popular smartphone operating system. So there's a hell of a lot of people who disagree with your last sentence. The mystery is why a locked down pseudo-smartphone that doesn't even let you change the battery without special tools has a single buyer.

Re:Well damn.

[bkaul01]

Apple fighting samsung completely legally within the confines of the system (and trouncing them because Samsung is a shit company that can't create anything in the consumer space worth owning) is not what is wrong with intellectual property.

So how does that align with the fact that Samsung sells twice as many phones as Apple? Or that they're pretty much the premier display provider, and also make memory and other components that other companies - including Apple - use in their own products?

Re:Well damn.

[shutdown -p now]

trouncing them because Samsung is a shit company that can't create anything in the consumer space worth owning

Show me an Apple smartphone that can do half of what Galaxy Nexus can, then we'll talk.

Re:Well damn.

[steelfood]

Has he got any loose change in his pockets?

Re:Well damn.

[BronsCon]

... and in the new rMBP line...

Re:Well damn.

[Compaqt]

True that. Remember all the rumors for the longest time about the "gphone"?

Re:Well damn.

[Kylon99]

"He's dead." I think that's the problem. He's revered so much like a god at Apple, you *can't* go against his last wishes. You'd be branded a traitor or an infidel. You cannot counter a god's last dying wish. The only one who could would be Steve Jobs himself and well, he's dead!

That's the theory at least. Hopefully it won't be like this but I think we're all wondering how much of a corporate cult Apple had turned into.

Re:Well damn.

[AdrianKemp]

Apple could sell a lot more phones if they didn't bother making money too.

Re:Well damn.

[AdrianKemp]

a) that doesn't mean they aren't a shit company. Microsoft labs creates amazing tech (kinect anyone?).

b) You'll notice I said consumer, not commercial. Their displays are fine, their TVs are shit.

Re:Well damn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun stormin' the castle! b-bye!

Re:Well damn.

[drinkypoo]

So what Steve wants isn't really all that important anymore, is it?

It does if he managed to get Apple irrevocably committed to the fight before he died. And indeed, if Apple loses this one, they lose the big game unless they can come up with the next big thing, which they have consistently proven they cannot do without a Jobs at the head.

Re:Well damn.

[Anonymous Coward]

They promised they would not copy, and they lied, that's the problem.

Re:Well damn.

[mjwx]

trouncing them because Samsung is a shit company that can't create anything in the consumer space worth owning

Show me an Apple smartphone that can do half of what Galaxy Nexus can, then we'll talk.

Half, you are a harsh taskmaster.

I would have said a quarter of what the Galaxy Nexus can do.

Re:Well damn.

[Kalriath]

Google purchased Android, not developed it. And having both Android and iPhone in my house, I can safely say that the only features that are similar between the two are the ones Apple copied from Android (Notification Center anyone?)

Re:Well damn.

[cheesybagel]

The lawyer seems to have pulled a Xanatos Gambit on the Judge.

Re:Well damn.

[cheesybagel]

Expensive perhaps. Shit no. Heck I have a 30 year old Samsung TV which still works. You wouldn't even recognize the logo.

Re:Well damn.

[cheesybagel]

So you are claiming Samsung doesn't make money selling their phones? Where do the billions in damages Apple wants to milk from Samsung allegedly from their profit by selling smartphones come from then? Just because Apple is only content with obscenely large profits of the kind only a monopoly can grant doesn't mean the business isn't profitable at all. For comparison check their market share and profits where they actually have competition like PCs or music player devices.

Re:Well damn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that was Steve Job's dying wish. Destroy Android at all costs, even if it takes every last penny. In fact the quote is...

I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion [£25bn] in the bank, to right this wrong.

But he's dead. Not pining for the fjords, just plain ol' dead. Not resting. Not stunned. Dead.

So what Steve wants isn't really all that important anymore, is it?

Jesus (or your own favorite religious icon) has been dead for a loooong time.
And still people live by his wishes.

Sadly, but that people are dead dont end their influence.

"My Icon is better than your Icon" is immortal.

Re:Well damn.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's coz this one reads like a Perry Mason novel... all we need now is for Paul Drake to return from his stakeout with some crucial evidence... perhaps Sony's being blackmailed and crucial evidence being withheld? And where's Della Street?

Judge contridicted herself.

[bongey]

Judge Lucy Koh ordered all the legal documents be un-sealed, but then complains when Samsung sends the unsealed , public information to the press , of which the press requested. If Apple wins, Samsung will win on appeal because the judge is digging her own hole.

Re:Judge contridicted herself.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If Apple wins, Samsung will win on appeal because the judge is digging her own hole." I think this is probably the dirtiest thing I've ever seen in this argument, even if Apple is getting a smudged and dirty by stifling competition and attempting to create a monopoly on the smartphone and tablet markets...

Re:Judge contridicted herself.

[Anonymous Coward]

some people live to hate and hate to live.

Re:Judge contridicted herself.

[UnknowingFool]

No the judge ruled some documents to be unsealed especially those that were already available to the public like SEC financial statements. She never ruled any and all documents to be released and was leaning to keep the royalty rates of third parties not involved with the suit from being released.

Re:Judge contridicted herself.

[Theaetetus]

Judge Lucy Koh ordered all the legal documents be un-sealed, but then complains when Samsung sends the unsealed , public information to the press

Actually, she complained about the press release that specifically called her out. That's a different issue.

Re:Judge contridicted herself.

[bongey]

Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open". Please read Mr. Quinns response. The excluded evidence that Samsung was trying to submit wasn't sealed. I know this is /. but did you even read the groklaw article? The judge made a fool of herself by getting emotional.

Re:Judge contridicted herself.

[UnknowingFool]

Did you read the order or are you reading the lawyer's twisting of it? From the order itself:

Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy” while a showing of good cause will suffice at earlier stages of litigation. Id. . .

Similarly, this Court explained at the June 29, 2012 case management conference that “the whole trial is going to be open.” Hr’g Tr. at 78. In light of the Ninth Circuit’s admonition in Kamakana regarding the presumption of openness and the high burden placed on sealing documents at this late, merits stage of the litigation, it appears that the parties have overdesignated confidential documents and are seeking to seal information that is not truly sealable under the “compelling reasons” standard. As one example, the parties have sought to redact descriptions of trial exhibits that will presumably be used in open court.

. . .the parties are ORDERED to carefully scrutinize the documents it seeks to seal. At this stage of the proceedings, the presumption of openness will apply to all documents and only documents of exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserve protection will be allowed to be redacted or kept from the public. Nearly all of the documents which met the lower, “good cause” standard do not meet the higher, “compelling reasons” standard for trial.

Please show me anywhere where the judge rules that all documents are to be public. She was responding to yet another request from Samsung (and probably directed at Apple top) that they should only seal documents for specific reasons. But she did not rule all documents to be unsealed.

Re:Judge contridicted herself.

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge made a fool of herself by getting emotional.

Pretty sure it's the Samsungites who are. Just read all the posts on why the judge is 'wrong' here.

Re:Judge contridicted herself.

[Anonymous Coward]

".the parties are ORDERED to carefully scrutinize the documents it seeks to seal. At this stage of the proceedings, the presumption of openness will apply to ALL DOCUMENTS"

Re:Judge contridicted herself.

[jkflying]

This set of documents was unsealed. Which is what counts.

Re:Judge contridicted herself.

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge made a fool of herself by getting emotional.

Pretty sure it's the Samsungites who are. Just read all the posts on why the judge is 'wrong' here.

Yeah, especially in the previous /. story about this trial, where the comments section featured plenty of misogynist and racist slurs against Judge Koh for daring to rule against Samsung in any way.

Let's look at the dates

[aristotle-dude]

"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700

The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700, it had a real smartphone OS, a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard. So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine because the iPhone was in development long before 2006 and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Gilandune]

are you suggesting the F700 wasnt in development before the iPhone was released? If you look at a SGS and the F700 they are almost identical. There is no wrong to be pursued here, it is clear that both the apple and the samsung designs have well established histories that dont involve copying from one another.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

No moron, they're just arguing that they couldn't have copied apple because they were already working on what is alleged to be a copy.

But the judge is saying "No, you can't show us that evidence." And making it so samsung cannot defend itself.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[jabelli]

Yes, I'm sure Samsung developed the F700 in four months.

The point is that Samsung was developing the F700 before the iPhone was revealed, but were not allowed to mention that in court after Apple brought up the F700 as an example of copying.

If you're on trial for something and the judge tells the prosecution that they're not allowed to bring up your previous conviction, that all goes out the window if you mention it while on the stand, and they can then question you on it. This is supposed to be the same thing.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung's device was in development before the iPhone was announced (with a developed design). The point is that many parties often develop the same thing at once, and apple didn't change the industry in the way it has claimed.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700

The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700, it had a real smartphone OS, a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard. So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine because the iPhone was in development long before 2006 and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device.

Durr, it takes a lot longer than 4 months to get a smartphone from design to market. Given how secretive Apple is about their designs, their only excuse is "well someone stole the design when it was secret" even though they have no basis at all for that claim. The design patent for the first iPhone was way too late given that Samsung was done designing before that went through.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Baloroth]

Not what Samsung is saying in the slightest (did you even read the second sentence of the summary, or did you just jump into the comments?). What Samsung is claiming is that they developed the F700 independently of Apple. Apple is claiming Samsung copied them (in fact, they specifically point to the F700 as an example). In other words, Samsung is the one who would have needed the time machine, to make an iPhone-like device before the iPhone was ever revealed and possibly before the iPhone design was even finalized.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[LodCrappo]

"The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700,"

sure

"it had a real smartphone OS,"

means nothing, as Apple's claim is not about the OS

"a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard."

all meaningless, as far as your argument that Samsung copied Apple goes..

"So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine"

no, they have not said that anywhere

"because the iPhone was in development long before 2006"

maybe it was, but what is your proof? simply the assumption that these things take a while? how then can you argue that Samsung's own device must also have been in the works for just as long?

much more importantly, where is your proof that the design elements specifically being claimed were copied were "in development" long before 2006? how long does it really take to make a square with round corners? I can do it in photoshop in about 3 seconds.

"and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device."

again, completely irrelevant.

How can you somehow think your statements support Apple's claims of copying? Are you so blinded by love for a corporation that all common sense and reason has failed you?

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you should look at all the dates. Not just the ones you carefully picked to make your argument sound more interesting. For example, from the same wikipedia entry you referenced the design patent for the F700 was filed in 2006 and before the iPhone announcement in 2007.

What would be more interesting would be to find evidence of industrial espionage where leaked prototypes and early previews of the iPhone were documented to have influenced the design patent filed in 2006.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[gl4ss]

..are you suggesting that the first iphone which featured just web pages as "programs" had a real smartphone os? not by any definition used by anyone in the business in 2007..

technically f700 due to having midp support wipes the floor with first gen iphone. it also had hsdpa during time when apple was trying to argue to people that edge-grps is just fine.

maybe you're also suggesting that they built f700 in a month and they used a time machine for filing their design patent for it in 2006? just face the music, the form factor was on it's way from numerous manufacturers(others than samsung and lg too) during that time, due to tech for making such phones coming to favorable price range: that's the real reason for iphone surfacing when it did, they were in a hurry to get it out during that favorable time. that's why the first generation was half assed in many, many ways.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with the function of the iPhone, software that was on it, whether it was a 'real smartphone' or anything else like that...it's about a SHAPE! A freakin' rounded rectangle that appear in all manner & walk of life...Apple is claiming Samsung copied a freakin' rectangle moron! Samsung is simply saying that they independently developed their rectangle...what a load of crap that this is even at trial to begin with, and Apple Fan morons like yourself will continue to support Apple even when they come for YOUR rectangle...

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anubis IV]

Regardless of which came first (personally, I think it was a case of parallel, concurrent development and that neither side copied the other for those two devices) I think Samsung is playing up the F700 a lot because they want to win in the court of public opinion, not because the F700 actually matters. This controversy is good for them, both in terms of PR and in terms of helping to establish cause for a mistrial, possibly.

If you take an actual look at the F700, you'll see that it's nothing like the iPhone at all. The primary picture floating around is as staged as the much-lambasted images that Apple used to "show" that Samsung devices looked similar to the iPhone and iPad. The F700 was a dumbphone with a slider keyboard and a vastly different UI (the UI shown in the images floating around is not the primary one).

Even if the F700 was admissible (which it shouldn't be, since Samsung's lawyers tried to play fast-and-loose with the rules and got burned), I don't think it would be a big deal in the case, since it doesn't demonstrate the vast majority of the features discussed in the design patents (e.g. the bezel isn't what's described in the design patent, the glass isn't what's described, the icons aren't what's described, the indicators in the UI aren't what's described), which would need to be present to establish prior art by demonstrating that Samsung had had those ideas before the iPhone.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Kyusaku Natsume]

Still, there was a windows of oportunity to Samsung to copy the iPhone design since they are suppliers of Apple. Still, the F700 could and should be fairly safe of any claims by Apple, but not the following models, there is a clear imitation of Samsung of Apple designs even from the packaging style and the design of the interface.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

Article from the Verge (Good Read)

http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

the F700 was announced in Feburary 2007 at Mobile World Congress, after the iPhone was announced in January at MacWorld, and it’s actually a chunky 16.4mm-thick slider QWERTY that looks appreciably different than the iPhone. It also has a homescreen that’s quite different than iOS — what you’re seeing above is the function menu. (Remember, it was a dumbphone: no apps!) But that’s been hashed out all over the place. I want to point out something else. Let’s look at the F700 in a different context. Instead of looking at the similarities, let’s try to highlight the differences.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[anonymov]

You, and The Verge, miss the point so very hard.

All of this would be relevant if someone was trying to argue iPhone is a copy of F700 or vice versa.

But nobody says that. Well, besides Apple, who presented it as evidence Samsung copied their yet unpopular phone in measly one month (or four months, depending of if you take presentation dates or release dates). Them korean bastards!

Didn't you read that? F700 was presented by Apple on one of the slides, and Samsung tried to enter prototypes of 2006 to show that was not a copy of Apple's design.

Samsung presents F700 as supporting the idea that Samsung didn't have to copy Apple to come to this design.

Show F700 and Galaxy S to someone who doesn't know about iPhone (however unlikely that is to find such a person) and ask them if they are a part of same lineage or line breaks between them at some point for some reason.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[is not primary]

"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700

The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700, it had a real smartphone OS, a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard. So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine because the iPhone was in development long before 2006 and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device.

In the same link you submitted it says the patent of the F700 was submitted in December '06. Prior to the announcements of the iPhone in Jan '07. Before said announcement, the looks of the iPhone were kept very secretive (http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/10/commentary/lewis_fortune_iphone.fortune/index.htm). I think the main point Samsung is making, is that they could not of copied the iPhone for its F700. Essentially, its the would be ace in Samsung's hand for that point, they just wanted a way to play the card.None of this is info that isn't already in the public domain so IMO the judge was unfair to dismiss it (although it maybe a case of rules are rules), but more so to get angry about Samsung's actions. I think the whole counter claims and back and forth are primarily to add pressure to the legal teams.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. I wonder who made the parts for Apple. Before the original iPhone was revealed.

Could it be Samsung???

Nah, not possible.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[NatasRevol]

The F700 was a feature phone that was a very slight upgrade from their last phone.

They could do that in 4 months.

Plus the F700 had lots of plastic on the front and a slide out keyboard. Not exactly a similar design to an iPhone.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Ossifer]

I know I'll also get mod'ed "troll" to death (despite this being a violation of the moderation guidelines) for agreeing, but it's is quite amazing that people are denying this. Samsung is built on copying others. I have myself worked with Samsung engineers (in a partnership role) who readily admitted that Samsung doesn't innovate, they just mass-copy (make 37 slightly different models) and market like crazy.

Don't delude yourselves--Samsung's post-iPhone phones are quite obviously copies of the iPhone. Denying that is just ridiculous. IANAL (and neither is PJ/Groklaw), so I don't know if this copying is legal or not, violates copyright or patents or whatever, but it seems to me the actual court case is there to determine that. Let that happen.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[tayhimself]

you look at a SGS and the F700 they are almost identical.

Here is a good comparison of the F700, SGS, and iphone 3G that proves your statement false

http://www.peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.jpg

I find myself more supportive of trade dress (since copying is meant to confuse the public) and far less so of software patents.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[X.25]

"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700

The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700, it had a real smartphone OS, a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard. So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine because the iPhone was in development long before 2006 and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device.

Obviously, Wikipedia has all the facts in the known universe, as well as internal company communication/data which can shed light on when some device went into design/production/etc.

Wikipedia generation will be the end of us. Really :(

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anubis IV]

I'm not sure what point it is that I'm missing or what you're trying to say.

If your point is that it's sleazy that Apple can introduce it as evidence and then use it against Samsung by claiming it's a copy, then yes, I agree with you. Wholeheartedly. The two phones share almost nothing in common, so allowing Apple to claim otherwise is unfair if Samsung is unable to respond with facts. But that wasn't the topic I was addressing.

The topic I was addressing was whether or not the F700 would be effective in proving that Samsung had iPhone-like designs before the iPhone, thus enabling them to claim prior art. Towards that end, I believe that just as Apple shouldn't be able to claim it's a copy, Samsung shouldn't be able to claim it's prior art, since the two phones are vastly different. Suggesting it's either proof that Samsung was copying or proof that Samsung came up with an iPhone-like design before the iPhone is foolish, since it doesn't match up with the description in the design patents.

To me, you could substitute the F700 with a plunger, since a plunger has about as much in common with an iPhone as the F700 does. That Apple is trying to claim that a plunger is a copy of their iPhone is foolish (and that Samsung is unable to argue back is even more foolishness). Similarly, that Samsung wanted to include a plunger as proof that they had come up with a design similar to the iPhone's before it was announced is foolish. It's foolishness all around.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Samsung received an order for a bunch of CPU, RAM and flash chips from Apple, and instantly thought "Hey... Touchscreen phone with rounded corners!"

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Compaqt]

re: the interface, are you trying to say Apple is claiming the rights to unsorted grid of icons?

Hmm, wonder where they could have gotten that idea. I wonder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_Manager

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anubis IV]

re: the interface, are you trying to say Apple is claiming the rights to unsorted grid of icons?

No, but feel free to continue putting words in my mouth.

What I was saying was that all of those factors need to be taken together, since parts of a design patent are not considered in isolation of one another in the courts. Rather, they are taken together as a whole when determining whether infringement occurred. Apple doesn't have an exclusive claim on rounded corners. They don't have an exclusive claim on icons. They don't have an exclusive claim on glass screens. But they do have a claim on devices that implement all of those (along with the other aspects I skipped) in a single product in the way they described.

In contrast, the F700 does NOT implement most of those. The only one it really seems to have are the rounded corners. As a result, I don't see how it can be used by Apple to claim that Samsung was copying them, nor do I see how it can be used by Samsung to claim that they had iPhone-like designs before the iPhone. That's what I was saying: that the F700 simply doesn't matter.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, you could substitute the F700 with a plunger, since a plunger has about as much in common with an iPhone as the F700 does. That Apple is trying to claim that a plunger is a copy of their iPhone is foolish (and that Samsung is unable to argue back is even more foolishness). Similarly, that Samsung wanted to include a plunger as proof that they had come up with a design similar to the iPhone's before it was announced is foolish. It's foolishness all around.

Maybe Apple isn't actually trying to argue that and you're getting worked up about nothing?

I haven't checked any more than I suspect you have, but my reading of the situation is that the F700 was introduced as evidence by Apple to illustrate before-iPhone and after-iPhone Samsung design. They'll argue something like this: Before, Samsung was designing phones like the F700, thick chunky things which weren't minimalistic and had slider keyboards and user interfaces completely unlike the iPhone's. And after, suddenly new Samsung designs sprouted up which were mysteriously very very similar to the iPhone, right down to making the home screen look as similar to iPhone as possible without actually being pixel-for-pixel identical.

But that's just my impression. I could be wrong.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

No Samsung never said Apple copied their design, they are saying "Look we were working on this design before the iphone therefore we didn't rip off their design"

Apple claimed the F700 was a blatant iphone rip off. Samsung is claiming independent development. The first claim is that the iphone was so revolutionary that no one thought of the designs before, the other is that other tech and changing trends had phones moving to that direction anyways.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[jrumney]

I haven't checked any more than I suspect you have

Maybe you should, before reading the situation. Apple introduced the F700 in the context of Samsung designs after the iPhone, not before.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[cheesybagel]

Bollocks. Samsung stopped the policy of doing as little R&D as possible in the early 1990s when they changed CEOs to Lee Kun-hee. After that Samsung started massively investing in R&D and aimed for quality rather than just quantity. If you had any knowledge of the electronics business you would know this. Samsung is the world's largest DRAM and Flash manufacturer and they consistently manage to be the market leaders in quality as well. Whenever you hear about someone manufacturing the currently largest density memory device the company doing it is nearly invariably Samsung. They are also a leader in displays. Did you see many other AMOLED displays on cellphones when the Samsung Galaxy S came out? Certainly not Apple which manufactures squat.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[cheesybagel]

Obviously, according to Apple, Samsung did the design, finished the molds and tooling, manufactured a prototype and shipped it to the Barcelona GSM conference in less than a month while their own design cycle took years. Then Samsung managed to get it working, manufacture it, and make it available only 4 months after Apple put the iPhone in the market. Pfft. Obviously Samsung had evidence that they were working on the F700 the year before; long before the iPhone was announced. Is this surprising? Do any of you people know the time for a regular electronics design cycle? At the same GSM Barcelona conference the F700 was announced the Neonode N2 was being displayed with a functional prototype. It is a clear example of convergent design but Apple as usual prefers to think someone copied them.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Cederic]

The F700 was a feature phone that was a very slight upgrade from their last phone.

They could do that in 4 months.

Which is why it's important to Samsung that their evidence of pre-January 2007 design work should be presented to the jury, as it proves that they didn't copy the iPhone design.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[cheesybagel]

So the icon theme switched from high contrast B/W silhouettes in the F700 (if Samsung was Apple they would be saying Microsoft copied it in Window Phone 7!) to a color scheme and you think that is a radical change? I guess you never used a Symbian or Windows CE phone of the era with color icons. Samsung also manufactured those.

Of course if one has a 3x4 grid of icons and the other has a 4x4 grid of icons there is blatant copying! Only in the minds of Apple users of course. Ever considered the cellphone screen dimensions are not the same? Once the screen size is increased of course it makes sense to add more icons and you naturally get to the 4x4. You will notice Samsung also did that in the Samsung Tab which has an even wider screen where the icon grid width was extended to 5 columns. Of course there the Apple fanatic which did these slides suddenly didn't consider the icon grid dimensions to be important as a comparison measure anymore for the tablets. Pathetic! Both have an iconic quick access bar. Heck even Symbian phones had that except to save space (low resolution screen) they used text menus rather than icons. The text menus allowed you to place a call to a cellphone number or a contact in your contact list (sounds familiar?). You could also send an SMS (sounds familiar?).

Black gray and silver? My old Samsung LCD monitor purchased before the iPhone was announced also uses those colors in the device. As did my old SE cellphone from 2005. Is it suddenly forbidden to use those colors because Apple uses them? The Apple standard icon color scheme is suspiciously similar to the CSS 2.1 Web standard color scheme. The icons are obviously not the same. The icon background which makes icons look like rounded buttons was probably added so that people don't mistakenly click on the wrong icon with their fat fingers. Apparently they realized people don't miss the mark as easily as they thought and made them transparent. They seemed to be concerned with the users hitting the icon in the F700 so much that they even highlight the background, row, column in question. Probably the touch recognition was noisier. This all seems pretty obvious to me.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[cheesybagel]

A "good read" that is fallacious. The original iPhone did not allow you to install apps either. You could only use the Apple bundled apps.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[cheesybagel]

So in your mind it is easier to design and manufacture a phone with a slide out QWERTY keyboard than a phone without keyboard. Fun. Both have a resistive touchscreen.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[cheesybagel]

Samsung does not manufacture cases or boards for Apple. That is Foxconn.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Ossifer]

Really?! That's the best comeback you can come up with?

Apple isn't a manufacturing company. You did know this already, right? Maybe you can blame McDonald's for not selling innovative bags of flour? Or Samsung because the PC OS is non-existent?
If you knew anything about anything you wouldn't bother coming with such lame crap.

We're talking about *consumer products* here. Try again.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[cheesybagel]

Perhaps you think consumer products are made of magic Apple pixie dust. Guess what, great components help to make a great final product. If you think Samsung does not produce innovative consumer products you are sorely mistaken. So tell where is that Apple cellphone with an OLED screen?

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Ossifer]

Your lame attempt at obfuscation is failing quite miserably. Samsung COPIED the iPhone. Period. If you choose not to believe, go spout your bullshit to someone who fucking gives a crap what idiots think.

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also pretty clear that a smartphone hardly resembles a dumbphone. What the Hell is this all about?

Re:Let's look at the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

mod up... this story is a red herring.

situation deteriorating

[LodCrappo]

This is obviously not a simple issue as evidenced by conflicting court decisions around the world.
In such a case, you really need a thoughtful and unbiased judge who can interpret rather than react.

I don't think Lucy Koh fits the bill, at least not at this point in time. This seems like the kind of thing that disintegrates into a fancy form of "I don't like you" instead of a rational process.

Re:situation deteriorating

[bongey]

Lucy Koh "worked as a litigation partner" in patent and trade secrets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_H._Koh#Professional_career . I don't see how she is even being left to judge this case, she was patent troll lawyer for 6 years.

Re:situation deteriorating

[LodCrappo]

well, when you have billions and billions of dollars in cash laying around, maybe you have a little influence on which judge ends up handling your frivolous lawsuit? just a thought...

American Justice At Its Finest

[hyades1]

Does this mean the judge will have to return all that Apple swag?

I don't see how this could be illegal

[gman003]

A judge can "suppress" evidence within the courtroom. That's fine, that's even necessary. If evidence was illegally obtained, say through an illegal search and seizure, of course a judge should prevent it from being used in court. I may think it was wrongly suppressed in this case, but it's the law.

But Samsung isn't trying to release this evidence in court. They're releasing it for public knowledge. They may be doing so in an attempt to overturn the inevitable ruling, but a judge cannot prevent a company from releasing its own property in a case like this (national defense, maybe, or if it was "stolen" information, but that's not this case).

So it's logical to conclude that Samsung believes:
a) The judge is completely biased, possibly bought off, perhaps just a rabid Apple fangirl
b) That they cannot win this case, and will need to appeal, therefore:
c) Pissing off the judge cannot hurt them, as this judge would never rule for them anyways, and
d) Anything they can do to improve their odds on appeal is worthwhile

So Samsung is playing the long game. They've given up on this battle, and are already preparing for the next one.

In fact, if they can show that this judge ruled more harshly in retaliation for doing something that is completely legal, they improve their odds of getting it overturned on appeal. So they should actually be trying to anger this judge (through entirely legal means, of course).

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[jeffmeden]

So Samsung is playing the long game. They've given up on this battle, and are already preparing for the next one.

In fact, if they can show that this judge ruled more harshly in retaliation for doing something that is completely legal, they improve their odds of getting it overturned on appeal. So they should actually be trying to anger this judge (through entirely legal means, of course).

They overlooked one thing, the IOC is going to get them thrown out for not "playing to the best of their ability" since they are not fighting in this case like it's life and death.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[theshowmecanuck]

I think more people than Samsung believes this. And that Koh is probably on a power trip (like most judges) so that it makes her feel more powerful when she can bar the truth from being told over some technical matter of the law. Almost as bad as not allowing a smoking gun into a murder trial because of an illegal search and seizure... even if it proves guilt. Both circumstances suppress the truth. So why is one bad and not the other. No altruistic arguments now. We're strictly talking about suppressing truth in court of law so that the wrong party gets punished (relatively speaking: Samsung not Apple, and society not the murderer), whether directly or indirectly.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[tha_mink]

In fact, if they can show that this judge ruled more harshly in retaliation for doing something that is completely legal, they improve their odds of getting it overturned on appeal. So they should actually be trying to anger this judge (through entirely legal means, of course).

Yes, that's why it's so interesting to see what the judge will do next.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, though, being thrown out of court would be a good thing.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[UnknowingFool]

First of all, you are confusing legal with court procedures. It's not illegal for a lawyer to show up in court wearing a bikini. I'm pretty sure all judges would issues orders of contempt if a lawyer did that.

Here's why the judge is mad. She's ruled on this subject repeatedly. Samsung missed their deadlines. While it might have helped them, that's too bad. Now it seems they are doing an end-around her orders.

As for not hurting them, I suppose that you've never gotten a judge angry at you. While they have to be partial, it's never a good idea to test someone's patience.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[JDG1980]

Almost as bad as not allowing a smoking gun into a murder trial because of an illegal search and seizure... even if it proves guilt. Both circumstances suppress the truth. So why is one bad and not the other.

Because a murder trial features the full might of the State aligned against one defendant. Because of this, the Constitution and the legal process give criminal defendants additional procedural rights to help to level the playing field. The State is far more powerful than the defendant, so the State must play by the rules, dotting all the 'i's and crossing every 't'. Allowing the State to take shortcuts while prosecuting people is a serious threat to individual freedom. In contrast, a civil case simply involves two private parties, and the stakes at hand are financial; they don't involve jail or execution. The burden of proof is lower in a civil case, and it's reasonable for the rules of evidence to be somewhat more relaxed as well. I can see there being some of the same concerns as with criminal prosecutions if the trial involved a large corporation suing an individual (as in the McLibel case), but when you've got two large corporations going at it, there's no due process reason why you can't just have 'em strap on the boxing gloves and go at it.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[gman003]

You suppress evidence gathered from illegal searches because it is a huge discouragement to performing illegal searches.

Let's say I'm a cop, and I suspect someone is responsible for the murder I'm investigating. I've got zero evidence besides a really good gut feeling. Can't get a warrant.

If I break in and search the place anyway, I could find the evidence I need (or even plant the evidence I want found, because I'm a loose-cannon cop not playing by the rules). But it's illegal, and the judge will throw it out immediately and prevent the jury from seeing it. So I don't do that - I question witnesses, maybe follow the guy around a bit, until I have enough evidence for a warrant.

If I know the judge will just slap me on the wrist and say "bad cop, don't do it again", do you think I'm going to think twice about my break-in search?

That's why judges are allowed to suppress illegally-obtained evidence. Because that's the only way to truly enforce police evidence laws. Because it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be thrown in prison.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[Mabhatter]

But as a JUDGE the technical matter of law is her only intention.

The lawyer is deliberately misleading the public here and trying to influence the case outside the court. THAT is highly frowned upon. The lawyer botched his chance to get these in court properly. This has nothing to do with "truth" either... Courts don't have months to wait on evidence when both sides are playing chicken with how much they open up. Apple cracked first with their stuff in line. Samsung came in late, they should have flinched first.

Besides, if she lets Samsung be late, then she has to give Apple time to review the evidence and enter their own rebuttal evidence. Then give Samsung another turn. The lawyer was probably gaming the system to get the evidence entered "at the buzzer" so it wouldn't reopen the gathering again... Trying to get one last "bombshell" in... And they lost.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[gl4ss]

last time I checked on the subject contempt was illegal, hence it being something else than "goofing off".
what's there to confuse what's legal with what's court procedures? both are joined at the ankle, hip, knee, waist, stomach and shoulder.

it's going to appeals anyways, as long as they don't get actual sanctions from releasing material they own to the press it's not going to matter - if the judge starts being partial even more it'll be favorable for them in appeals. it's already ridiculous for her to say the she doesn't _like_ something without specifying how it was illegal for them to do what they did..

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[micheas]

Bizarrely, Apple was allowed to submit evidence late and then Samsung was not allowed to submit the counter evidence late.

The weird thing is that the general rule for allowing things in late, that the other party has known about and had the evidence since before the deadline seems to be the case here, so I don't really understand the ruling, except that it seems to fall under judicial discretion which means flipping a coin will tell you as much as a law book about how a judge will rule.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[DeadCatX2]

How are they doing an end-run around her orders? Has the jury seen any of this evidence? I doubt it, considering that they're supposed to be sequestered now. So the "end-run" theory fails.

Besides, all of the documents were already in the public. All Samsung did was say "here is what the judge is suppressing." Here's a NYT article which explicitly mentions the F700 evidence...and it's dated before the jury had even been chosen!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/technology/apple-samsung-trial-highlights-patent-wars.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[theshowmecanuck]

If a cop did an illegal search and found a murder weapon that proved a guy killed your mother, would you rather the judge set the murderer free, or throw the cop in jail for violating someone's civil rights? Or would you rather punish society, let the murderer go free, and as has happened before, kill someone else? I'd like to see you justify your beliefs to that person's relatives. I think it is better to make precedent and throw both the cop and the murderer in jail. And the bonus is, if they do an illegal search on someone and the gun they find isn't smoking or even related to the case, the precedent is set and the cop still goes to jail. Right now that doesn't happen and society is punished once again. It's a geek site, where are the, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?"

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[drinkypoo]

As for not hurting them, I suppose that you've never gotten a judge angry at you. While they have to be partial, it's never a good idea to test someone's patience.

What does that have to do with this? There's a massive difference between a judge angry at an individual and a judge angry at a corporation. For one, corporations never die.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

While it might have helped them, that's too bad.

Why? Why is some arbitrary deadline more important than justice? Especially involving a ruling which sets such a far reaching precedent?

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[Desler]

The rule of law is more important than getting revenge. Illegal searches are wrong in all cases.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[metrix007]

If a cop did an illegal search how do we know the guy accused was not framed? Better to let a guilty man go free than an innocent suffer.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[Cederic]

It's a geek site, where are the, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?"

The many need a fair justice system. The many need a police service that obeys the law. The many need evidence in trials to be untainted - how do you know that the gun wasn't planted in that illegal search?

Those needs of the many outweight the needs of the few; the relatives of the victim, or even potential additional victims.

I'd rather have a murderer walking loose than lose the controls and balances on the police and the justice system.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[UnknowingFool]

It's called rules of evidence. Unlike what you seem in TV dramas, lawyers are not allowed to spring evidence on one side without the other side having a chance to look at the evidence. Tell me about what's fair that Samsung had the evidence but failed to submit in the years it had?

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[Desler]

Exactly. We know for a fact that people have been wrongfully convicted of crimes due to faulty evidence and we know that people have been wrongfully executed for crimes they didn't commit. Allowing illegal searches so someone can get their revenge is a true slippery slope.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know the gun wasn't planted in a legal search?

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a rule of law, it's an interpretation on how to apply it. The judges are supposed to help the system to punish the right person for what that individual does (punish ~ penitence ~ penitentiary) . In this case the individual is a policeman. Why do people want them to live by everyone else's rules except in this case. Now you want him to go free in this case instead of being punished for illegally searching someone and violating their privacy. Instead you want to punish society. You want people to turn off their brains and pretend that reality is twisted and a felon is innocent when the evidence to the contrary is in front of them. Guns can be planted in legal searches too. The argument that this prevents planting of evidence is a fallicy. I think freeing a murderer, not punishing a law breaker, and punishing the wronged (society and the murdered's family) is an interpretation on how to apply law... and that's the slippery slope. This is where judges make ridiculous rulings and lame thinkers go along with it.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal

[theshowmecanuck]

I'd rather have a jury decide if a person is guilty of murder or should go free than a judge based on an arbitrary interpretation of law. Put all the facts on the table including on how the murder weapon was found. Let the jury determine the verdict. The jury has traditionally been trusted to determine the believability of a person on the stand and the evidence given... that isn't the judge's job, nor should it be. That's why the jury is made up of peers. Judges let the accused essentially go free in these cases not because the evidence is invalid or planted. That doesn't even come into the picture. It is only because the accused was violated. His or her rights were violated. So punish the person who did that. If a guy on trial for murder were shot while in custody would you throw some random guy in society in jail for that and let the policeman go free? And if he lived would you drop the murder conviction? Of course not. Violating the prisoner's rights in that way doesn't change the truth and fact of his crime. And the right people are punished for those violations. An illegal search is no different in terms of violating their rights. And the fundamental truths and facts of the crime still should not be suppressed. Let the data be free.

Jury Rules changed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't Jurors supposed to avoid reading news on case they are on?

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[skipkent]

Yes that's the spirit! Are you also not going to support products containing Samsung parts? I've heard Samsung is behing 1/4 of the parts used in some phones.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[Anonymous Coward]

And I suppose you'll stop buying Apple products, Microsoft products and every other technology products for the same reasons. And well FOSS is all copies of commercial applications, so they're out too. Actually, I can't think of any company that didn't copy from a competitor.

That leaves you with just your brain - wait, it is kind of a copy of other simian brains and reptilian brains.

Nope, can't use your brain.

So much depends on...

[Anonymous Coward]

If judge Koh owns an iPhone, should she recuse herself?
If judge Koh doesn't own an iPhone, is she technically competent?

OUT OF CONROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Show me product design specs around a phone with low power consumption ARM processor, with a custom OS
designed for novel access to the web and stored multimedia driven by novel touch interface.,

Show me the all inclusive patent for this idea.

Until then we are all standing on the shoulders of giants and all you "Lawyer Shills" can just *Fu(# 0FF

Signed Anonymous

Re:Let's look at the dates - Yes. Please do look!

[Anonymous Coward]

With a partial user name of Aristotle I would have hoped for better logic ...... but fuzzy buckets. No you are almost a parody of logic or drunk on willful stupidity and I can't figure out which it is.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[Anonymous Coward]

Including iPhones.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[mkkohls]

As far as phones and tablets go the technology changed. Apple just wasn't going to do anything until It could make it the way it wanted to. Samsung was already making phones and tablets with the technology that was available at the time. It didn't allow for the designs that apple wanted hence they waited. Samsung did not copy they were infact just changing their designs to utilize the best materials and desgn that new research, parts etc, made possible. As they are showing they were already headed that way long before the iphone.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[Urza9814]

What, exactly, is ridiculous? I see nothing ridiculous about SAMSUNG'S behavior in this case, only Apple's. And the judge. The only 'ridiculous' thing Samsung is doing is having the balls to defend itself against a judge that is very clearly in the wrong, and a patent troll (Apple in this case). I'm DEFINITELY buying a Samsung as my next phone after this...

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, can't use your brain.

Well, we knew that from his post.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[Anonymous Coward]

That leaves you with just your brain - wait, it is kind of a copy of other simian brains and reptilian brains.

Nope, can't use your brain.

He's clearly waaaaaaaaay ahead of you on that front.

Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judge

[bogaboga]

Samsung was attempting to introduce evidence well past discovery. In other words, they were trying to "ambush" Apple. The honorable Judge wouldn't have any of such tricks.

There are rules to follow in court proceedings. Samsung clearly did not.
We saw this kind of behavior with SCO vs Novell and Oracle v. Google. It didn't work then and neither will it this time.

In support of Sumsung, buy an Android device today

[Anonymous Coward]

In support of Samsung in the Apple vs. Samsung case, buy a Android phone or tablet today. It can be a Samsung device or not.

Note, I do not work or have any dealings with none of these companies nor Google. I am a current owner of Apple devices who is tired of Apple causing trouble.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[Wildclaw]

Ah yes, the US court system where truth doesn't matter.

Of course, that is pretty much like the rest of the US. The whole country is one big cesspool of liars.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[Anonymous Coward]

I always like to show people Samsung's picture frames to help establish prior art in terms of design.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

It looks like the smooth glass panel with similar proportion, rounded corners, and chrome edges was used by Samsung in their products at least as early as March of 2006. It seems like a natural progression to take the design aesthetic of this picture frame and turn it into a computing device.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[jxander]

Incorrect. They were trying to submit evidence late in the discovery process.

I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating: They were trying to submit evidence late in the discovery process

As in, still part of the discovery process. To use a sports analogy, should we discount any late-game come-backs if the winning points were scored "late in the game"?

No, the information was the F700

[Anonymous Coward]

Which isn't a Sony mock-up, it's Samsung's design.

Along with 9 other samsung designs.

Re:No, the information was the F700

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, pretty sure stripping off that slide-out keyboard to come to the disputed design was beyond possibility. Samsung had to throw away all their earlier design (did you read actual design patent claims that are at the core of the suit? "black, rectangular, rounded corners, bezel, flat surface level with edges", the whole thing? Those are present in F700) to copy Apple's patented design.

Re:No, the information was the F700

[Anonymous Coward]

If the F700 is so different, then why are Apple claiming that it shows that Samsung has a history of copying Apple products?

Re:No, the information was the F700

[Kalriath]

The original iPhone also had tapered rectangular rounded corners.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[Sique]

And well FOSS is all copies of commercial applications, so they're out too.

I wonder what commercial application was the original for NCSA httpd (whose latest reincarnation is Apache, which started out as a series of patches to NCSA httpd). Or the original for sendmail. Or for BIND. Or for the BSD filesystem. I wonder why commercial UNICes included the BSD toolchain anyway, if there were commercial applications BSD copied from.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[gl4ss]

how do you ambush someone with publicly available vids and filed design patents?

moreover.. what the fuck does have to do with samsung re-releasing that information to press since it's their own company history shouldn't they be able to release and broadcast it as widely as they want?

Incomplete timeline

[kervin]

Your own wikipedia link Samsung_SGH-F700 states that Samsung got a design patent for the F700 in December, 2006. Before the announcement of the iPhone.

obviously a paid off judge (or Apple fangirl)

[slashmydots]

So, Apple shows evidence IN COURT that the judge said wasn't admissible and instead of declaring a mistrial, she complains that Samsung complained about it. Then Samsung releases non-admissible evidence OUTSIDE COURT to the media and she gets all pissed off? Either she is the most clueless, incompetent judge in human history and this is her first trial and she never went to legal school or this is a crooked as it gets. She's either some obsessed Apple fangirl or they paid her a hell of a lot of money to be this one-sided. I'd give her about 3 days before she's forcibly thrown off the trial by the DA or whoever does that.

Re:obviously a paid off judge (or Apple fangirl)

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Apple shows evidence IN COURT that the judge said wasn't admissible and instead of declaring a mistrial, she complains that Samsung complained about it.

That evidence was admissible. It's the specific documents that are admissible and non admissible.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[slashmydots]

And what did the judge so when Apple showed non-admissible evidence right there inside the court room? Not a damn thing. Just kidding, actually she did do something. She told Samsung to stop complaining about it.

And the stuff is not being shown in court.

[Anonymous Coward]

In court, against her rulings.

Out of the courtoom, her rulings have as much force as mine.

Re:And the stuff is not being shown in court.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the broad protections of the First Amendment, with extremely limited exceptions, unless the media outlet is a party to the case, a media outlet cannot be found in contempt of court for reporting about a case because a court cannot order the media in general not to report on a case or forbid it from reporting facts discovered publicly.[12] Newspapers cannot be closed because of their content.[13]

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[Rakshasa-sensei]

You're trying to tell us the evidence was so hard for Samsung to find they couldn't get it submitted earlier in the discovery process?

Was the data stored in LEO and retrieving it involved launching a rocket with specially trained astronauts, or something of equal scale. By submitting it late when it was such an obvious piece of evidence it means Apple would be severely hampered in producing a counter, so there's really only one reasonable explanation for why they tried to pull that one and the judge obviously didn't buy what ever dog-ate-my-homework story they tried.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have to argue that if Apple are confident that their IP has been damaged/infringed on, they shouldn't be possible to "ambush". They should already know about this F700 and every other phone Samsung has ever demoed.

Only if the Jury violates her orders

[Shivetya]

which if they do makes the whole issue moot anyway.

The jury is not supposed to view evidence or information about the trial unless presented within the bounds defined by the judge. You are implying that the actions Samsung took could cause the jury to change their decision but for them to do so they would have to have already violated the judges own rules thereby imperiling the case.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. They were trying to submit evidence late in the discovery process.

I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating: They were trying to submit evidence late in the discovery process

As in, still part of the discovery process. To use a sports analogy, should we discount any late-game come-backs if the winning points were scored "late in the game"?

And lets also not forget that they were introducing it in response to Apple. Apple brought up the design in question.

Samsung, shouldn't fight the law

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear it ends poorly.

A Dipwad Judge Can Louse Up a No-Brainer Verdict

[bbbaldie]

See Lance Ito.

All Things D

[ThatsNotPudding]

aka the Apple Ministry of Propaganda. #ZeroImpartiality

The real question here...

[LodCrappo]

What I really think needs investigation is why all of Lucy Koh's statements end with "Sent from my iPhone".

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is saying they couldn't have submitted it earlier. But they were not required to. They made the deadline. That it all that matters.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[squiggleslash]

The evidence was submitted as a response to specific evidence Apple manufactured (such as the infamous pre-iPhone/post-iPhone graphic), so no, it couldn't have been submitted earlier in the discovery process - at least not significantly earlier.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the US court system where truth doesn't matter.

Of course, that is pretty much like the rest of us. The whole world is one big cesspool of liars.

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter why is was late *in the discovery process*? Who cares if they submitted it as soon as they could or two seconds before the deadline. If it's within the prescribed discovery period I fail to see the problem. Or to use the GP's analogy, should "buzzer-beaters" not count in basketball?

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[is not primary]

To be fair, both sides are submitting a lot of evidence right? So it takes time to prepare, submit and present each and every item, and as the AC pointed out and the article hints at, it was a response to Apple's evidence, I think from the previous day (I might be misreading that).

Nice rhetoric though. I like the part with the astronauts.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the correct response would have been for APPL to ask for, or automatically get, an extension of discovery given the evidence showing up late in discovery.

Either that or APPL shouldn't have shown the evidence in question as an example of Samsung copying

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[makomk]

I believe it was a response to Apple submitting evidence equally late in the discovery process claiming that the Samsung F700 was a copy of the iPhone. Basically, the judge allowed Apple to ambush Samsung late in the discovery process with transparently bogus claims that they'd copied the iPhone when that was impossible barring time travel, despite the fact that Apple had to have known about the F700 for long enough to submit that evidence earlier, and then blocked Samsung from responding to the ambush on the basis that they waited until too late to submit evidence that they had no reason to expect they would need.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[steelfood]

Yeah, like the iPhone. Them fancy retina touchscreens are made by Samsung.

Or, get the iPhone and cut out the screen and throw it away in disgust. That works too. It can still make phone calls.

Oh wait.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[Poisonous Drool]

I was involved in copyright litigation. The other side missed almost every deadline and the judge let them get away with it. They also wiped hard drives during discovery and amended their complaint *after* discovery ended. Our attorney said some judges use strict deadlines, others don't. The point is, don't assume deadlines are always strictly enforced. I know from experience that they aren't. You should be able to read the filings on PACER if you really care about the deadline issue. Note that discovery isn't on PACER. (If you use the RECAP Firefox plugin, the filings should be free.)

financial interest in Apple?

[sylvandb]

Surely Samsung's lawyers have investigated how much financial interest the judge has in Apple. If she owns any Apple stock, even indirectly as in a growth mutual fund or even an index fund (where Apple may be a significant part of the fund, e.g. Apple is 4.5% of the S&P 500) then she has some financial interest in the case.

The question is, how much? Is it enough to influence someone?

And another bias-related question... Will she try too hard to avoid showing favoritism toward a Korean firm?

Re:financial interest in Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will she try too hard to avoid showing favoritism toward a Korean firm?

Why would she need to do that? Are you referring to the fact that she has a Chinese surname? Though judging by her personal name and the fact that she's made it to the top of the US justice system, I think she probably identifies more as an American than any fictitious pan-Asian identity that might sway her bias towards a Korean company.

This is all just silly

[sudden.zero]

Let's be realistic here. No one should be able to patent a shape as basic as a rounded rectangle. That is like patenting an if else statement. It is a basic principle and if we allow this kind of crap then eventually no one will be able to make anything but a few companies that own all the patents. This is the same thing as if the first guy to make a land line handset would have patented the shape of the land line handset and no one could make a long rectangle with a speaker on each end. It is just plain stupid or imagine if the very first programming language would have patented the if else statement and no other programming language could use it.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

It was the magistrate that decided that the evidence was inadmissible not Judge Koh. Koh only concurred with the magistrate.

Samsung shot themselves in the foot. They have this entire case. This is not going to end well for them.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[cryptolemur]

Nope, the evidence was submitted as a response to Apple's argument that Samsung's earlier design proved they have a track record of copying from Apple. Since the product mentioned precedes Apple's product which Apple failed to mention, Samsung attempted to bring forth the documentation, which the judge dismissed.
Samnsung team decided it was time to start managing the public opinion, whihc has so far being left completely on the hand of Apple, to the extent that educated persons like you have already condemned Samsung... Even though we know Apple has not paid for using Samsung's technology in their products, but we don't know if Samsung indeed blatantly copied the form of Apple's product, and whether the latter actually breaks any law -- it doesn't in most industries!

Oh NOES

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just get something straight here...

Samsung makes TV's better than they do phones.

Apple makes phones better than computers.

RIM sucks.

When Apple makes TV's Samsung will cry and then sue them.

That said I'm going to get a patent on getting a patent and how patents look.

Re:Oh NOES

[daboochmeister]

Sorry ... I already have a patent on getting a patent on getting a patent. I think the whole recursive process is covered out to ...oh,lemme check ... about 4,327 recursions at this point, you could get 4,328 if you file fast!

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[BronsCon]

In fact, Samsung developed many of the processes and parts that made Apple's iPhone design possible. They, in large part, made the iPhone's design possible. It wasn't until they developed the technologies to make such designs possible that they were, themselves, able to make products modeled after such designs. How do people not get that?

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg

[BronsCon]

Yes, you are correct. but, when Apple introduced the F700, the very evidence Samsung was barred from introducing, it became fair game for Samsung, under the same rule that barred them from introducing it initially.

Hmmmmm

[Fuhckeschite]

....I wonder if Lucy Koh owns multiple apple devices.

F700 design patent pre-dates the iPhone

[chrb]

The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,

Yes, and Samsung internal documents show the F700 design going back to 2005, and a Korean design patent was filed in December 2006 - before the iPhone design was unveiled.

So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine

No, Samsung is not claiming that Apple copied the F700, Samsung is claiming independent invention. Apple is claiming that the F700 copied the iPhone.

No.

[Imazalil]

No it's not. Yes, Steve Jobs said those things, but if you look at his track record he was bit of a drama queen with his statements.

You'll notice that it's only Samsung, not all the other Android manufacturers or Google itself. If Apple's plan was to go after all of Android, they would likely start with a small manufacturer and then move their way up the chain with wins under their belt. Apple is going after Sammy because their combo of hardware and software for a period of time was an outright copy of the iphone.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll notice it's only Samsung if you're wearing reality-distortion glasses, because surely Apple didn't sue HTC, or Motorola. They went as far as not to sue Motorola _twice_, as you see.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[Anonymous Coward]

So how does a picture demonstrating that the Galaxy Tab does things that the iPad never will show Samsung Copying? Or is your point that when rounded corners becomes fashionable, fashionable brands use rounded corners?

DESPERATION = SAMSUNG

[milkmage]

there is no logical reason for them trying to introduce movie footage as prior art. I can't believe they even tried.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/2/3215953/samsung-2001-uk-television-show-dispute-apple-ipad-patents

In an order today, Koh rejected Samsung's arguments that it should be able to introduce footage from 2001: A Space Odyssey and the UK television show Tomorrow People, both of which feature characters using tablet devices, as "prior art": pre-existing creations the would call into question the originality and validity of Apple's design patents.

Re:DESPERATION = SAMSUNG

[Cederic]

there is no logical reason for them trying to introduce movie footage as prior art. I can't believe they even tried.

Hmm. Maybe it's because they show

pre-existing creations the would call into question the originality and validity of Apple's design patents.

Who would've thought it. Judge Koh disallowing evidence yet again because it would be prejudicial to Apple's case.

I'm shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

But he's dead. Not pining for the fjords, just plain ol' dead. Not resting. Not stunned. Dead.

So what Steve wants isn't really all that important anymore, is it?

HERETIC!

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[jbolden]

Well it shows they were heading towards some of these elements, like the importance of touch. But the F700 also shows they had other ideas regarding GUI and the importance of keyboards. Its not at all clear they were "headed that way". Somehow they took a drastic diversion towards iOS interface elements and paradigms.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up

[jbolden]

Samsung spoiled evidence and filled key evidence for their case later than they should have. Those are things that are wrong. They deserved sanction.

I'm not sure if Samsung is getting a fair trial here or not. But no question the judge has every reason to be pissed at them.

Samsung is PRIMA FACIE GUILTY

[Timtimes]

Samsung is a major outlaw electronics manufacturer who has adopted the vision of American capitalism that requires them to steal everything that isn't nailed down and then pay a small fine if-when they ever get caught. FWIW, I won't even argue over Samsung prima facie guilt. They were copying Apple even in the packaging of their products. Enjoy.

Sarcasm?

[lpq]

The idea that Apple's "patent", on the shape of something to display or transmit information is ludicrous to begin with -- in that light, showing movies from 30-40 years ago that show the usage of such devices, seems entirely pertinent to whether or not samsung violates apples patents or is following in the footsteps of 35 year-old SciFi, seems entire pertinent as a defense, as if it is the latter, then the obviousness of apple's patent -- and thus it's validity is completely at question. If samsung proves to a jury that apple's jury is baseless, they can vote to toss out any damages against samsung regardless of instructions about them only to decide if they violated a false and made-up law.

That's the entire basis of jury nullification of bad-laws...