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: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.

[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.