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.

3 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. Judge contridicted herself. by bongey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by jxander · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    This signature is false.
  3. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.