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

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: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.

[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.