Apple Asks Court To Sanction Samsung; Samsung Fires Back; More iPhone Prototypes

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Asks Court To Sanction Samsung; Samsung Fires Back; More iPhone Prototypes

Posted by Unknown on Thursday August 2, 2012 @03:48AM 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.

50 of 404 comments (clear)

The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 04:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by Grishnakh · 2012-08-02 04:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  But this is normal for judges; they think they're little demigods, in or out of court.
2. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by jxander · 2012-08-02 04:10 · 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 Richard_at_work · 2012-08-02 04:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  She has something to say if said speech can affect her case in a significant way - entire cases can go to mistrial for comments said out of the court room.
  Slashdot seems to lack a basic understanding of law and the court process these days...
4. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by syngularyx · 2012-08-02 04:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  so why the Samsung Lawyers were so late in presenting this "extra evidence"????
5. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by tha_mink · 2012-08-02 04:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says [allthingsd.com] the whole point is to influence the jury:
  I don't see how. That was their statement about being pissed that the evidence didn't get admitted. As the Groklaw article said, Samsung is fighting Apple in two courts now, and one of those is public opinion. I think this side of things requires they make their arguments in public. In addition, the judge denied sealing all the documents, so what else to do be release them yourself.
  
  --
  You'll have that sometimes...
6. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by geoskd · 2012-08-02 04:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says the whole point is to influence the jury:
  
  The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.
  There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest. The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality, but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist), and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded, and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business. Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.
  -=Geoskd
  
  --
  I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
7. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by geoskd · 2012-08-02 04:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't know if Samsung is doing to push her buttons. As a judge, she has ruled on this particular subject numerous times and it has been appealed. Samsung's lawyers appear to be doing an end-around her orders. While technically she never ruled that Samsung couldn't release the information, they are getting close to breaking the spirit of her rulings. Most judges would not be happy.
  You've missed a few important details: She specifically ordered the court documents unsealed That means that by HER orders, the very documents Samsung released are PUBLIC. The spirit of her rulings is being upheld by Samsung, and their lead counsel. She is mad because in the court of public opinion she is going to be crucified (and rightly so) With all her mis-steps and outright blunders, many people will be questioning her fitness to serve. Her only way out now is recuse herself because of her bias and declare a mistrial (start over). God forbid one of these judges should admit their mistakes and pony up. They're human, they make mistakes, but as my father always told me, its not whether you make mistakes that demonstrates your greatness, its how you handle your mistakes. Stepping aside is the only way for her to save any face, and if there were any real justice, it would be the only way to save her job.
  -=Geoskd
  
  --
  I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
8. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by Theaetetus · 2012-08-02 04:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.
  What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".
  
  The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality
  I don't know about that. She's made many rulings against Apple, too, so questioning her impartiality would require some specific evidence.
  
  but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist),
  As you note, Quinn was trying to "rile up" the judge. That's the very definition of contempt of court, and it's certainly within her authority to demand explanations in such cases.
  
  and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded,
  Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over. Why did Samsung withhold information on their own product until the eve of trial when Apple wouldn't have a chance to respond, let alone investigate? Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.
  
  and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business.
  Yes and no. Factual statements, yes. Statements about the judge, no.
  
  Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.
  I think not. She made the proper decision, Quinn screwed up by trying to fight this in public rather than saving it for his appeal, and Appeals Courts don't look kindly on litigants who try to go around judges. Even if they may have reversed on the excluded evidence, they're not going to say that his attempt to "rile her up" was reasonable.
9. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by bongey · 2012-08-02 04:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Judge order all court documents unsealed. Judge gave order Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open". So the media could have gone down to the court room and asked for a copy of the documents.Also Apple brought up the F700 first, which if you as you say are a lawyer allows defense to work through new evidence. Quinn isn't an idiot , he probably did it to push the judge to an emotional response and she fell for it.
10. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by gl4ss · 2012-08-02 04:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  maybe they didn't think they'd need it until apple used f700 as an example of how they copy.. despite it being an example of the designs obviousness in fitting to pocket.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
11. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 04:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  1) the jury has already been picked and instructed to not read any news reports on this material, so releasing it now can't affect the jury. If you can't rely on the jury to follow instructions, then the process is broken anyhow.
  2) the material itself was already public before Samsung released it. they just pointed out which publicly-available material the judge wouldn't let in
  3) the judge herself said that this trial should be as open as possible, hence the material being available to the public in the first place
  4) the judge did not instruct that this material could not be released so it's not like the lawyers were disobeying orders
  IANAL, but it seems that Samsung outmaneuvered the judge on this one.
12. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by Andrio · 2012-08-02 04:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!
  
  --
  The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
13. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by EveLibertine · 2012-08-02 05:12 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  PJ addressed this in her post at Groklaw, but very basically information that is already in the public domain can not effect the court, as the jury has already been instructed to avoid news and any other external information source containing information about the trial. Samsung's press release didn't contain anything that wasn't already in the public domain.
  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.
14. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by DeadCatX2 · 2012-08-02 05:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
15. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by squiggleslash · 2012-08-02 05:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
16. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by BronsCon · 2012-08-02 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.
  Neither can Apple, as they have used images of it in this trial. It's been allowed, already, as long as Apple is using it, but disallowed for Samsung; that's the crux of the problem here.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
17. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by urulokion · 2012-08-02 05:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
18. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 06:18 · 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.
19. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by sylvandb · 2012-08-02 06:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "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.
20. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by BronsCon · 2012-08-02 06:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
21. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by Deorus · 2012-08-02 06:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  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?
22. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by anonymov · 2012-08-02 06:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why do you always link to things that contradict you?
  
  "Contrary to the representations Apple's counsel made to this Court, Samsung did not issue a general press release and more importantly, did not violate any Court Order or any legal or ethical standards," Quinn wrote. "These false representations by Apple's counsel publicly and unfairly called my personal reputation into question and have resulted in media reports likewise falsely impugning me personally."
  "Moreover, before jury selection, virtually all of the information and images in the excluded slides had already appeared in dozens of media reports, including by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, and CNET," Quinn's declaration said.
  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?
23. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by BronsCon · 2012-08-02 06:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
24. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by sjames · 2012-08-02 07:25 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Why would you use the term in that sort of rhetorical construct otherwise?
  To leave you with exactly the impression you have without having actually said it. He could have said "faster than a bunny on meth" and you wouldn't likely think he was saying that the court was overrun with drug abusing rabbits.
25. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by Compaqt · 2012-08-02 07:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
26. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by Compaqt · 2012-08-02 07:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Do you get the feeling the guy you're responding to is a paid shill? He's on half the comments in this thread.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
27. Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. by thegarbz · 2012-08-02 11:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  New evidence in a court case is admissible if required to use as a rebuttal to the opposition's claims. As Apple raised the issue of the F700 Samsung should have been allowed to present documents about it regardless if they were in the discovery period or not.
Well damn. by Shivetya · 2012-08-02 04:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Well damn. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 04:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Well damn. by ColdWetDog · 2012-08-02 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  But he's dead. Not pining for the fjords, just plain ol' dead. Not resting. Not stunned. Dead.
  So what Steve wants isn't really all that important anymore, is it?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:Well damn. by squiggleslash · 2012-08-02 05:41 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Sitting on the board of Directors of another company while developing a competing project of your own
  
  Apple was well aware that Google was developing a phone when Schmidt was on their board, and it was public knowledge he recused himself during many iPhone discussions. Apple could have ejected him at any time.
  Apple is playing dirty in this fight, and Samsung is having problems as a result. What's absolutely clear is that the evidence Samsung has presented in public shows that Apple is basically lying about Samsung's products and development processes.
  And last I looked, Samsung is the most popular manufacturer of Android phones, itself the most popular smartphone operating system. So there's a hell of a lot of people who disagree with your last sentence. The mystery is why a locked down pseudo-smartphone that doesn't even let you change the battery without special tools has a single buyer.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Judge contridicted herself. by bongey · 2012-08-02 04:02 · 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.
1. Re:Judge contridicted herself. by bongey · 2012-08-02 04:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
Let's look at the dates by aristotle-dude · 2012-08-02 04:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

"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.
1. Re:Let's look at the dates by Gilandune · 2012-08-02 04:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  are you suggesting the F700 wasnt in development before the iPhone was released? If you look at a SGS and the F700 they are almost identical. There is no wrong to be pursued here, it is clear that both the apple and the samsung designs have well established histories that dont involve copying from one another.
2. Re:Let's look at the dates by jabelli · 2012-08-02 04:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, I'm sure Samsung developed the F700 in four months.
  The point is that Samsung was developing the F700 before the iPhone was revealed, but were not allowed to mention that in court after Apple brought up the F700 as an example of copying.
  If you're on trial for something and the judge tells the prosecution that they're not allowed to bring up your previous conviction, that all goes out the window if you mention it while on the stand, and they can then question you on it. This is supposed to be the same thing.
3. Re:Let's look at the dates by gl4ss · 2012-08-02 04:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  ..are you suggesting that the first iphone which featured just web pages as "programs" had a real smartphone os? not by any definition used by anyone in the business in 2007..
  technically f700 due to having midp support wipes the floor with first gen iphone. it also had hsdpa during time when apple was trying to argue to people that edge-grps is just fine.
  maybe you're also suggesting that they built f700 in a month and they used a time machine for filing their design patent for it in 2006? just face the music, the form factor was on it's way from numerous manufacturers(others than samsung and lg too) during that time, due to tech for making such phones coming to favorable price range: that's the real reason for iphone surfacing when it did, they were in a hurry to get it out during that favorable time. that's why the first generation was half assed in many, many ways.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
4. Re:Let's look at the dates by anonymov · 2012-08-02 05:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You, and The Verge, miss the point so very hard.
  All of this would be relevant if someone was trying to argue iPhone is a copy of F700 or vice versa.
  But nobody says that. Well, besides Apple, who presented it as evidence Samsung copied their yet unpopular phone in measly one month (or four months, depending of if you take presentation dates or release dates). Them korean bastards!
  Didn't you read that? F700 was presented by Apple on one of the slides, and Samsung tried to enter prototypes of 2006 to show that was not a copy of Apple's design.
  Samsung presents F700 as supporting the idea that Samsung didn't have to copy Apple to come to this design.
  Show F700 and Galaxy S to someone who doesn't know about iPhone (however unlikely that is to find such a person) and ask them if they are a part of same lineage or line breaks between them at some point for some reason.
I don't see how this could be illegal by gman003 · 2012-08-02 04:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

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).
1. Re:I don't see how this could be illegal by jeffmeden · 2012-08-02 04:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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).
  They overlooked one thing, the IOC is going to get them thrown out for not "playing to the best of their ability" since they are not fighting in this case like it's life and death.
Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up by skipkent · 2012-08-02 04:12 · Score: 3, Funny

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.
Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up by mkkohls · 2012-08-02 04:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Re:situation deteriorating by bongey · 2012-08-02 04:21 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg by jxander · 2012-08-02 04:35 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
No, the information was the F700 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 04:36 · Score: 3, Informative

Which isn't a Sony mock-up, it's Samsung's design.
Along with 9 other samsung designs.
1. Re:No, the information was the F700 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 06:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, pretty sure stripping off that slide-out keyboard to come to the disputed design was beyond possibility. Samsung had to throw away all their earlier design (did you read actual design patent claims that are at the core of the suit? "black, rectangular, rounded corners, bezel, flat surface level with edges", the whole thing? Those are present in F700) to copy Apple's patented design.
Incomplete timeline by kervin · 2012-08-02 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
The real question here... by LodCrappo · 2012-08-02 05:31 · Score: 4, Funny

What I really think needs investigation is why all of Lucy Koh's statements end with "Sent from my iPhone".

--
-Lod
Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.