Slashdot Mirror
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.
But this is normal for judges; they think they're little demigods, in or out of court.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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"?
This signature is false.
Which isn't a Sony mock-up, it's Samsung's design.
Along with 9 other samsung designs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
:(){
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
"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.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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?
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog