Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Unknown on from the in-the-next-act-they-fall-in-love dept.

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.

6 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. American Justice At Its Finest by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Does this mean the judge will have to return all that Apple swag?

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  2. Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up by skipkent · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  3. Re:I don't see how this could be illegal by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  4. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by Andrio · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!

    --
    The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
  5. The real question here... by LodCrappo · · Score: 4, Funny

    What I really think needs investigation is why all of Lucy Koh's statements end with "Sent from my iPhone".

    --
    -Lod
  6. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by sjames · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.