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.
The judge's job is to judge the case in court.
She has bugger all to say other than as a private citizen about Samsung's speech to the media.
Inside the court, a different matter, but that's not what's got her livid. If she's emotionally involved then she is not an impartial judge any more.
What is the world coming to when I find myself cheering on a lawyer, one whose actions and defense of such is just so damn much fun to read. Its like, okay Judge, two can play at this game and your out matched.
As for Apple, why must a company with such great products because the new poster child for much of what is wrong with regards to Intellectual property. They seem hell bent to do what their competitors could not do, besmirch their name
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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.
"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone
"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700
The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700, it had a real smartphone OS, a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard. So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine because the iPhone was in development long before 2006 and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
A judge can "suppress" evidence within the courtroom. That's fine, that's even necessary. If evidence was illegally obtained, say through an illegal search and seizure, of course a judge should prevent it from being used in court. I may think it was wrongly suppressed in this case, but it's the law.
But Samsung isn't trying to release this evidence in court. They're releasing it for public knowledge. They may be doing so in an attempt to overturn the inevitable ruling, but a judge cannot prevent a company from releasing its own property in a case like this (national defense, maybe, or if it was "stolen" information, but that's not this case).
So it's logical to conclude that Samsung believes:
a) The judge is completely biased, possibly bought off, perhaps just a rabid Apple fangirl
b) That they cannot win this case, and will need to appeal, therefore:
c) Pissing off the judge cannot hurt them, as this judge would never rule for them anyways, and
d) Anything they can do to improve their odds on appeal is worthwhile
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).
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.
As far as phones and tablets go the technology changed. Apple just wasn't going to do anything until It could make it the way it wanted to. Samsung was already making phones and tablets with the technology that was available at the time. It didn't allow for the designs that apple wanted hence they waited. Samsung did not copy they were infact just changing their designs to utilize the best materials and desgn that new research, parts etc, made possible. As they are showing they were already headed that way long before the iphone.
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.
Samsung was attempting to introduce evidence well past discovery. In other words, they were trying to "ambush" Apple. The honorable Judge wouldn't have any of such tricks.
There are rules to follow in court proceedings. Samsung clearly did not.
We saw this kind of behavior with SCO vs Novell and Oracle v. Google. It didn't work then and neither will it this time.
well, when you have billions and billions of dollars in cash laying around, maybe you have a little influence on which judge ends up handling your frivolous lawsuit? just a thought...
-Lod
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.
What I really think needs investigation is why all of Lucy Koh's statements end with "Sent from my iPhone".
-Lod
No one is saying they couldn't have submitted it earlier. But they were not required to. They made the deadline. That it all that matters.
I believe it was a response to Apple submitting evidence equally late in the discovery process claiming that the Samsung F700 was a copy of the iPhone. Basically, the judge allowed Apple to ambush Samsung late in the discovery process with transparently bogus claims that they'd copied the iPhone when that was impossible barring time travel, despite the fact that Apple had to have known about the F700 for long enough to submit that evidence earlier, and then blocked Samsung from responding to the ambush on the basis that they waited until too late to submit evidence that they had no reason to expect they would need.
Let's be realistic here. No one should be able to patent a shape as basic as a rounded rectangle. That is like patenting an if else statement. It is a basic principle and if we allow this kind of crap then eventually no one will be able to make anything but a few companies that own all the patents. This is the same thing as if the first guy to make a land line handset would have patented the shape of the land line handset and no one could make a long rectangle with a speaker on each end. It is just plain stupid or imagine if the very first programming language would have patented the if else statement and no other programming language could use it.
Nope, the evidence was submitted as a response to Apple's argument that Samsung's earlier design proved they have a track record of copying from Apple. Since the product mentioned precedes Apple's product which Apple failed to mention, Samsung attempted to bring forth the documentation, which the judge dismissed.
Samnsung team decided it was time to start managing the public opinion, whihc has so far being left completely on the hand of Apple, to the extent that educated persons like you have already condemned Samsung... Even though we know Apple has not paid for using Samsung's technology in their products, but we don't know if Samsung indeed blatantly copied the form of Apple's product, and whether the latter actually breaks any law -- it doesn't in most industries!
In fact, Samsung developed many of the processes and parts that made Apple's iPhone design possible. They, in large part, made the iPhone's design possible. It wasn't until they developed the technologies to make such designs possible that they were, themselves, able to make products modeled after such designs. How do people not get that?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Sorry ... I already have a patent on getting a patent on getting a patent. I think the whole recursive process is covered out to ...oh,lemme check ... about 4,327 recursions at this point, you could get 4,328 if you file fast!
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007,
Yes, and Samsung internal documents show the F700 design going back to 2005, and a Korean design patent was filed in December 2006 - before the iPhone design was unveiled.
So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine
No, Samsung is not claiming that Apple copied the F700, Samsung is claiming independent invention. Apple is claiming that the F700 copied the iPhone.