Slashdot Mirror
Unredacted Documents In Apple/Samsung Case, No Evidence of 'Copy' Instruction
another random user writes "Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case seem not to offer actual evidence that Samsung told its designers to copy the iPhone. Documents that have now been unredacted seem to show that there was never any 'copy apple' instruction. There was a push towards things that would be different, such as what is now seen in the Galaxy S3: 'Our biggest asset is our screen. It is very important that we make screen size bigger, and in the future mobile phones will absorb even the function of e-books.' Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."
Given that there was some serious misconduct with respect to the Jury Forman and his "creative" opinions about prior art and patent law, this case will be appealed and start all over.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
You mean Apple built their case on a fantasy point? Well isn't everyone just super surprised at this.
It's almost like that's what they always do in court or something.
Summarised in one Youtube-movie.
Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers? That was their job after all. They seem better at managing public perception before, after, and outside the classroom and fairly incompetent in the courtroom itself. Yes, the patent system is highly dysfunctional. Yes, the law seems highly dysfunctional. But isn't the job of a high-powered attorney to factor all those vectors, and many more, into their presentation and execution?
Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers
That's funny, I thought our legal system was "Innocent until proven guilty."
As if they would have put it into writing!
The irony of Apple suing people for patent infringement is how little work Apple actually put into developing the technologies in the iPhone and in iOS (compared too all the other companies and research labs that developed said technologies)...
Palm trees and 8
Exactly. its not Apple's lawyers job to make a case for samsung. It would be like the District attorney talking about the murder suspects charity work, how stupid the crime lab can be and how difficult it is to really know, like anything for certain.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
That's for criminal cases, and only if you actually exercise your right to a trial (most people do not, and if they did, the system would be overwhelmed and utterly incapable of handling that many cases).
Palm trees and 8
Despite the reputation lawyers have, it's not their job to lie through their teeth and actively misrepresent the truth either.
Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance.
... except that the entire document was presented to the court and the jury. Apple made arguments presenting it in a light favorable to them, and I'm sure Samsung made counterarguments presenting it in a light favorable to them. That's how trials work. The jury gets to see the entire document, hear both interpretations, and figure out who they think is more credible.
Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance.
Thats not at all shocking. The problem is that Judge Koh (pronounced "Doh") failed to do her job, and keep the trial fair. She was a walking disaster on this trial. She pushed the trail far faster than it should have been, she failed to keep her personal feelings out of it, and apparently didn't even take the time to read the un-redacted documents she was presented with. The whole thing is going to appeal (of course), and will be turned over just on the failure of process alone. If there's any justice at all, Koh will be out on her ass for costing a fortune in legal expenses for all parties involved (including the tax payers), and producing nothing but fertilizer.
-=Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
They would claim they patented the wheel and demand payment for any conveyor that uses round objects to get around.
Guilty until proven wealthy, I thought.
Would you like a slice of toast?
You can then moderate your actions. As an ordinary citizen, we can be done for contempt of court. Lawyers should face even stiffer penalties.
And if they're pissing off the judge, then the judge, rather than gritting their teeth, should damn well SAY SO. At least then if they continue to do the assinine tricks it is now known that it is done to disrupt the court and, as officers of the court, the lawyers responsible can be barred from practice and even fined.
Is it just me or does it seem like Samsung is hard at work trying to sway public opinion with these stories of late? I mean seriously, where's are the Slashdot stories talking about the report that shows Samsung's labor violations in China?!?
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
IAAL.
I must confess I enjoyed reading Groklaw during the SCO-vs-linux days (well technically those aren't over, but you get what I mean). But the whole echo chamber of support seems to have gone to PJ's head and she's gone full-on anti-Apple, and in so doing betrayed her lack of knowledge in quite a few legal matters - for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less than what Apple wants for its patents, exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how FRAND operates.
I guess it's true that eventually you live long enough to see all your heroes crumble, and reading Groklaw's extremely one-sided (and often inaccurate) coverage just makes me sad about the old days, when SCO was just this laughably bad adversary.
(It's like how WWII was the "golden age" for war movies because the Nazis were such simple, no-need-to-think-too-hard enemies you could gun down by the thousands without restraint... SCO provided that when it went after Linux with it's incredibly futile attack).
Groklaw is, I see now, no longer an unbiased cut-through-the-bullshit critique of what's going on on the legal side of tech. Groklaw has an agenda - understand this and you can read it safely.
Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."
That is pretty much what each side is supposed to do in the US legal system. Each side presents the evidence in the way they think best favors their case and then the judge/jury decides between them. Samsung has access (or is supposed to have access) to the same information and can present it if they think Apple is leaving out important details. Neither side has any obligation to present the opposition's case in a favorable light. If Samsung's lawyers didn't do their job well then it isn't surprising that they lost. I have no idea if this is a fair verdict or not but I don't see anything unusual in the process here.
I'm pretty sure it actually is to present the truth in the best light for their clients. A criminal lawyer may actually know for a fact that their client did actually commit the crime, but he still is required to represent him as best as possible even if his client is pleading not guilty. They really cannot do anything other than misrepresent the truth in that case.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
It seems like it would have been in Samsung's interest to post the documents online from the get-go.
"A legal MATTER, baby", at least if you're referencing The Who. And yeah, that's all I've got to add. Sorry.
Why should the judge get to allow his personal feelings and emotions to decide what is or is not allowed in the room he presides over?
Yeah, right "unredacted" documents suddenly show they say the exact opposite of before - but why Samsung didn't show them in court remains a "mystery", it were originally theirs (just like the prior art they couldn't hand over in time - a looong time). Somehow nobody noticed that Apple had the "un" blacked in "We must make something more unlike the iPhone"
Are you fucking kidding me?
But hey, PJ proves it - by selectively only quoting what fits her agenda. And what has actually been in the "redacted" documents all along.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
"Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."
Lawyers presenting evidence in a way that is beneficial to their clients? Outrageous!
Wait...Isn't that their job? And isn't the job of the other party's lawyer to do the same and, if possible, poke holes in their opponents line of argument?
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
When you take things outta context it can sound very bad. I mean look at sports announcers, listen to with a certain mind set and if you pick out little clips and phrases they can sound very dirty.
Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers? That was their job after all. They seem better at managing public perception before, after, and outside the classroom and fairly incompetent in the courtroom itself.
Yes, the patent system is highly dysfunctional. Yes, the law seems highly dysfunctional. But isn't the job of a high-powered attorney to factor all those vectors, and many more, into their presentation and execution?
You might as well say (if you are familiar with football) "Why, those players know the referees are terrible, why don't they just play to win anyway?" and be completely OK with the fact that the refs make horrible, sometimes even random calls for plays and fouls. Just because it's theoretically possible to get a good outcome from a situation like that, doesn't mean that it's not totally fucking broken and therefore every outcome is suspect. Or, if football isn't your thing, it's like a poor person asking a Republican for career advice.
Nothing equivalent to
COPY A to B
?
Try something like this instead:
STORE 0 to B
ADD A to B
Coming up with a proprietary implementation is left as an exercise for Samsung.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I hear the next Samsung phones will come with free large pizzas because the phones are shipped in similar sized boxes.
IAAL, too, and I completely agree.
Boom Shanka
A debate on whether or not Samsung actually copied Apple is not needed. Patent protection doesn't require the plaintiff to show the defendant actually copied their work. A patent protects against anything which infringes it no matter how it is derived. It is a much stronger protection than copyright.n Evidence of copying can help support a claim of infringement.
A copyright holder has to show the infringer copied the work. Two artists which independently created nearly identical works inspired by some other subject matter have no cause of action against each other. It doesn't mean they won't sue each other and it becomes a question for a jury (ie question of material fact) as to whether the work was copied.
Doh! Yeah, that was the reference. I can't believe I misremembered that. (Not that it was one of their greatest songs and I should remember it that clearly.)
"Redacting" a document is altering evidence.
It's pretty blatant really.
It's much like faking video evidence.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You present a case which tries to summarize a multi-year, team effort that is laden with deep technology issues within a large corporation to 12 random people who have been screened so as to have no particular knowledge of the subject matter - and one expects a rational outcome? Really?
Taking this to a trial case is just a joke. There is no way that 12 random people are going to be able to make heads or tails of the "evidence". In the end, it will boil down to which lawyer dressed more to the jurors' liking...
Evidence of Samsung copying Apple could have been useful to support a showing of intentional infringement, but is unnecessary to support a judgment of infringement of a patent. Patent protection is a strong IP protection. It protects against any infringement of the patent no matter how it is derived. Copyright gives the IP holder protection from copying, so it is relatively week. If copying can't be proved there isn't a case for copyright infringement.
Everyone is at risk of becoming marginalized by none other than Android, and the risks associated in general here suggest to fight to not become marginalized. One way to do that is to slap your entire body on Android's business table and get in their way - which, basically, with trade blocks and so forth Apple has done in many cases across the globe with this.
It caused a dent but didn't slow it down much (please remember that the presented figures are net average across quarters):
http://www.businessinsider.com/mobile-platform-market-share-2012-8
Yes, Apple has some solid - if at times overpriced - products and has a market spread. That doesn't save them from the dangers of getting swallowed like RIM as Android grows seemingly unbounded.
Or photoshopping an image of their competitor's tablet to make it look more like an iPad. Oh wait...
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
The Republican would tell them: "Get a job, work hard, and don't depend on other people for handouts."
I'm not sure that's particularly bad career advice, honestly.
Actually a criminal defense attorney can not say anything they know is factually incorrect in court, if they do they a guilty of misconduct, and likely disbarred.
What we got earlier were a lot of apple apologists proclaiming the "Copy instructions" as proof of Samsung's perfidity.
At that point, there wasn't anything about "I had a look at Samsung's rebuttal", just swallowed the load.
Guilty until proven wealthy, I thought.
But I thought Samsung made so much money? Wasn't that the Fandroid talking point for the last week?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
And you're already falling foul of the misinterpretation.
Do you know what contempt of court is?
Despite the reputation lawyers have, it's not their job to lie through their teeth and actively misrepresent the truth either.
So when the Samsung lawyers didn't point out "the truth" that the Samsung document actually said the opposite of what the Apple lawyers said, what was that?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Or photoshopping an image of their competitor's tablet to make it look more like an iPad. Oh wait...
Or holding up two devices and asking the Samsung lawyer which one supposedly didn't look like the other.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The presumption of innocence still applies to civil cases. A judgment cannot be entered without meeting the burden of proof. That burden of proof just happens to be the relative measure of "perponderance of the evidence" (ie, a superiority of evidence, which ever side is more convincing/believable) and not "reasonable doubt", which is meant to be an objective standard.
Even if the defendant were to not respond to a lawsuit, one cannot obtain a judgement without evidence because zero evidence versus zero evidence does not a perponderance make.
You think that Samsung is doing a better managing public perception after the trial? You mean those lame ads that are trying to make me feel bad that I can't 'bump' my cellphone
After those drop tests, I wouldn't recommend "bumping" a Samsung phone.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
At the time of that they did that, I could not have told you which one was the Iphone and which one was the Samsung. Heck, at the time if you had held up a Blackberry and an Iphone, I could not have told you which was which. I didn't know what either one looked like. The fact that Samsung's lawyer did not know which was which does not really tell us anything other than the fact that he did not know which was which
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If you go to the doctor and he said "You shouldn't get ill if you want to live long", would that be good medical advice?
that Samsung had shitty lawyers?
Of course Apple's lawyers are going to slant the everything towards their argument, that is their job after all. They can't rip out the pages that goes against their case before they supply the evidence to the other side, but these are Samsung's documents so surely Samsung's lawyers had access to them anyway.
At the time of that they did that, I could not have told you which one was the Iphone and which one was the Samsung. Heck, at the time if you had held up a Blackberry and an Iphone, I could not have told you which was which. I didn't know what either one looked like.
Ladies and Gentleman: a Samsung patent lawyer, specialized in design patent cases.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
So, because a lawyer specializes in design patents, he should spend his time familiarizing himself with various devices out there, rather than, perhaps, the law on such issues?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That's true, to an extent. However, there's a significant difference between "best possible light" and "active misrepresentation". Come on, you're a smart guy, you know that.
The primary thing this tells us is that Groklaw is so biased on this matter that they aren't thinking straight. Let's apply just a bit of common sense:
These are Samsung documents. Apple obviously does not have the power to hide the contents of Samsung's own documents. As is commonly the case, some court documents were redacted for the public to protect the proprietary interests of the companies involved (Samsung, in this case). That does not mean that the jury did not get to see them. It appears that Samsung now thinks it is in its interest to make the documents public.
Groklaw is trying to get us to believe that the jury's decision that Samsung intentionally copied Apple was based entirely on an out-of-context quite from this document. There's something a bit fishy there. If Apple quoted something from Samsung's documents out of context, wouldn't Samsung's lawyers have been at pains to quote the correct context? You'd think so, wouldn't you? Unless, of course, this document was not actually as pivotal as Groklaw (and presumably Samsung) now would like us to believe. Could it be that the jury did not base its judgment solely--or even primarily--on this document? Could it be that the jury saw much more compelling evidence that Samsung's copying was intentional?
Say for instance a detailed Samsung report comparing Samsung's product to Apple's feature by feature and recommending that Samsung emulate Apple's design choices?
Or perhaps emails showing that Google warned Samsung that its products were infringing upon Apple's designs?
This is kind of sad. Groklaw did some nice reporting on the SCO lawsuit. But when it comes to Apple and Samsung, they seem to have gone off the rails.
and since Apple is now coming out with bigger screens (iPhone 5), it appears that Apple is copying Samsung.
You're mistaken. Only Apple dick-lickers like to brag about how much money their favourite company makes.
In re: misrepresent the truth.
You need to take a legal ethics class (go figure, lawyers are required to take an ethics class). A lawyer is not allowed to lie to the court, either in what they say or the documents they file. It makes it very hard for lawyers when they `know` that a client is guilty. Yes lawyers have to represent their clients as best they can but, at the same time, they cannot lie to the court. I believe that this is why there is an unwritten law that a lawyer never asks a client if he is guilty, there are some things it's just better not to know.
PS: IANAL but my wife is and I still remember when she took her ethics class.
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
If I do it right, you cannot tell the difference between my bare thumb and a shiny chrome plated thimble. Magicians use that to their advantage all the time and it can be accomplished even when standing 3 feet away.
Folks, you don't have to have a smoking gun that says "copy Apple". It doesn't have to be an order to be found guilty as Samdung has been found. They did it. Management was aware of what was going on and they approved of what was happening. Issue closed.
"I'm not sure that's particularly bad career advice, honestly."
Well, it is not an advice to begin with. There is nothing helpful in that.
Are you talking about when the Apple lawyer held up the two devices and asked the team of Samsung's lawyers to identify them? Where one member of the team couldn't because they couldn't see well, but the rest of the team correctly identified them?
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
The Republican would tell them: "Get a job, work hard, and don't depend on other people for handouts."
I'm not sure that's particularly bad career advice, honestly.
It is when you are more likely to get shit on for doing it, which is what is very likely to happen to low income individuals, even those who start out with the best intentions of "working hard". Start off rich, on the other hand, and your odds are a hell of a lot better. Inequality begets inequality, study after study has demonstrated this (and been ignored by republicants).
If a lawyer knows his client his guilty, he cannot present a not guilty plea.
IANAL, but my close friend IS, as a brief.
I believe that this is why there is an unwritten law that a lawyer never asks a client if he is guilty, there are some things it's just better not to know.
It's not just that; if a lawyer knows (actually knows, for a fact, not just "is damn sure") that their client is guilty, they cannot represent their client's innocence to the court. They'd have to recuse themselves.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Or they can go to jail. Their call.
great Who song, but it's actually 'It's a legal matter baby":
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/A-Legal-Matter-lyrics-The-Who/D566D519E4C1D6D5482569770028CEEC
I told you why I changed my mind
I got bored by playing with time
I know you thought you had me nailed
But I've freed my hand from your garden rails
Now it's a legal matter, baby You got me on the run
It's a legal matter, baby A legal matter from now on
My mind's lost in a household fog
Wedding gowns and catalogs
Kitchen furnishings and houses
Maternity clothes and baby's trousers
Now it's a legal matter, baby Marryin's no fun
It's a legal matter, baby A legal matter from now on &c
-I'm just sayin'
I'm pretty sure it actually is to present the truth in the best light for their clients.
Hmmm...seems to me that taking a part of a quote out of context and presenting it such that it appears to say the exact opposite of what it actually meant in context is at best unethical and I would consider it an outright lie on the ethical scale I grade myself by. It seems to me in any profession other than advertising it would be considered so. Lawyers by definition of their trade are not supposed to act unethical. (I know. You can stop laughing now. I live in a fantasy world.)
Who is John Galt?
So, because a lawyer specializes in design patents, he should spend his time familiarizing himself with various devices out there, rather than, perhaps, the law on such issues?
Well, he should at least tell apart two devices, when his whole argument is that they are easy to tell apart because one is not a slavish copy of the other.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Are you talking about when the Apple lawyer held up the two devices and asked the team of Samsung's lawyers to identify them?
No. But keep on making up stuff about that trial. It's not like we expect the Fandroids to stick to the facts.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
You're right, they should advertise the fact they have working maps. Maybe they should advertise the fact the phone doesn't get scratched after 15 mins of use, or perhaps they could advertise they have more than 15mins of batter usage on their phone, OR they could advertise the fact you can connect their device to anything USB without the use of any stupid adapters ...
Just because he can tell them apart does not mean that he knows which one is which. When this case went to court I could have told you that a Blackberry looked different than an Iphone, but I could not have told you which was the Iphone and which was the Blackberry.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company's tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.
"Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.
"Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.
Funny you're talking about "Fandroids" "making up facts". Or is anything outside RDF not a fact by definition and must be Devil's^WGoogle's attemp to sway you from one true way?
If you disagree, you are a complete idiot. If you don't, you are an incomplete idiot.
PS: IANAL but my wife is and I still remember when she took her ethics class.
IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot.