The fun thing is those who oppose vehemently to "rounded rectangle" can't give coherent answer what it is about, then, and proceed with "it's about copying the combination of design features" handwave maneuver without ever saying any concrete detail about what else this suit is about.
That's because there really is no concrete detail about it. Trade dress is extremely subjective and based on what the average person may confuse.
So yeah, those who take "rounded rectangles" as literal are dumb, but those who don't see the figurative sense of "rounded corners" (it's also about "a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners", y'all) are dumb as well.
The latter group recognizes the legal validity of design patents and trade dress, the former does not. Dumb or not, the latter group at least has some logical ground.
The jury is not supposed to view evidence or information about the trial unless presented within the bounds defined by the judge. You are implying that the actions Samsung took could cause the jury to change their decision but for them to do so they would have to have already violated the judges own rules thereby imperiling the case.
Samsung has violated those rules, they brought up the subject in the courtroom.
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.
Indeed, broken by Samsung's contempt of court...
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
After the jurors were selected based on not being informed about the case, so if they learn about that "evidence" now, it's news to them.
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
An open trial only means that the public can assist it, not the public can have access to all the information related to it.
4) the judge did not instruct that this material could not be released so it's not like the lawyers were disobeying orders
Though as a lawyer you are still a legal officer and should make sure that everything goes according to the established legal proceedings. Running to the media and making it hard for the jurors to avoid learning about your inadmissible evidence while questioning the Judge's partiality is not the way to go about it.
IANAL, but it seems that Samsung outmaneuvered the judge on this one.
To me it seems more like they're doing Apple a really good service.
I still can't get my head around the fact that this judge blocked Samsung from using evidence that completed negated the point of Apple's case. Its absurd.
I can't get my head around Samsung forgetting to submit such important evidence until after the deadline... Were they counting on making it impossible for Apple to provide counter-evidence? Deadlines exist for a reason!
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.
Inadmissible evidence is only accepted in a trial when an opposing party presents the trial with inadmissible evidence themselves. Apple did not present the trial with inadmissible evidence, so the "opening the door" doctrine does not apply.
Possibly waiting until jury selection/direction was finalized because then you cannot argue the point about "swaying the jury" with public material. The jurors are not allowed to research the case using any other material than what is presented in court. If they do, they are removed from the jury.
Of course you can argue that, it's called a mistrial, the jurors aren't sequestered! Plus by going to the media Samsung is making it extremely hard for the jury to actually avoid learning about the subject, in contempt to court. This isn't going to end well for them.
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?
That's not how it actually began, and you really should RTFA. Quinn's declaration is a nice read.
Please inform yourself, the Samsung bullshit propaganda is affecting your brain. As I mentioned, this is how the whole thing started. If you don't know the facts, refrain from posting. Also, Groklaw is an extremely biased source, and a declaration from the accused Samsung lawyer isn't exactly trustworthy either. Next time, stick to less biased sources.
A little hard to influence a jury that's already been sequestered, isn't it?
They haven't been sequestered, only selected and ordered to avoid consulting the media regarding this issue, an order that Samsung is making extremely hard to comply with, in contempt to court. Secondly, Quinn brought up the excluded evidence in the court room, which got him reprimanded by the Judge with a sanction threat, and that's what started the whole thing.
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.
Those images were used because it came out after the iPhone. The "problem" (Samsung's problem) is that somehow they found a way to forget to file key evidence in this case before the deadline. This was their fault, the exclusion of the evidence is perfectly justified.
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.
Opening the door is a common law legal doctrine that allows for the admission of inadmissible evidence by a party after an opposing party has âoeopened the doorâ to it by first introducing inadmissible evidence at trial.
You are incorrect. Apple did not introduce inadmissible evidence in the trial, so this is not "opening the door".
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.
Where has she failed?
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.
Yes it is, it's called contempt to court, and in this case can be taken as an attempt to influence the jury using excluded evidence since the jury isn't sequestered. Quinn's attempt to bring up this evidence in the court room after it was excluded adds further credence to this intend. Lastly, the evidence was excluded because samsung failed to meet the submission schedule, it is perfectly justified.
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.
She's not going to decide on anything. That's what the jury is there for, and you can't appeal a jury's decision without being able to claim mistrial (i.e.: claim that the jury was in some way tainted by influence from the media).
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.
Samsung explicitly tried to influence the jury in the courtroom using excluded evidence, that's actually how all this began as well as why the Judge threatened that lawyer with sanctions.
Dummy. How they take it affects correct delivery. Accurate communication requires at least two people. You are clearly incapable of such.
While that is true, that doesn't make me responsible for the misunderstanding. As you mentioned (and well), accurate communication requires at least two people, and both has responsibilities. The sender is responsible for ensuring that the message is clear, and the receiver is responsible for interpreting it right, so, again, NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM,
Thats why you buy yourself a Bitfenix prodigy. You'd probably be amazed to find that the latest top-end consumer CPUs and a 680 will work extremely nicely on a Mini-ITX board, which is not all that large.
It's not just the box, it's also all the peripherals. A laptop has everything built-in.
If you don't care about the end result, why get involved in the first place?
I seldom get involved in anything except when I see people complain about something that I have a formed opinion about (in this case I am more interested in knowing whether I am right or in having my opinion refuted) or when my judgement is explicitly requested (in which case I would not be honest if I sugar coated my opinion). It is extremely uncommon for me to criticize anything directly unless it has a direct impact in my life and I can absolutely not adjust,
Linux Desktop? Nope. Desktops are dying anyway, almost everyone has moved to laptops.
This is unfortunate. Ever since I became a nomad (and switched to Apple) that I miss actually shopping for desktop hardware. Every time I enter a retail store and look at the high-end video cards I really really want to build a desktop, but it can't fit my luggage... The desktop PC is far from being dead and I am already missing it, I think it's gonna be one of those things that I will remember from early 21st century just like I miss tinkering with analog electronics in the 80s (no, I'm not old, I was born in that decade).
Year of the Linux game console, perhaps?
Rumor has it that Valve is building a console with PC hardware, so I wouldn't rule out that possibility. They feel that the Windows and Mac App Stores represent a threat to Steam as a third party, so this may be part of their strategy to build a platform of their own. Blizzard has expressed similar feelings, which makes sense if we consider the rumor that they had and probably still have a third party service like Steam planned for battle.net (at least according to the leaked schedules which have been quite accurate, though battle.net third parties is overdue at this point).
If Apple wants to claim something of that magnitude they only need to let Samsung submit the evidence in question and demonstrate copying. Apple doesn't think they have a case there, so why do you?
How did you reach the conclusion that Apple doesn't think they have a case?
The iPhone was unveiled in 2007. Even if the designs had leaked before then, it would take many months to develop and market an imitation.
So? The F700 was released in December 2007, "many months" later...
The whole point of the evidence they presented is to demonstrate that Samsung and others had for years been working on and marketing remarkably similar devices with large touchscreens.
That's not being disputed. Apple claims that those designs would have never been successful in the market without the iPhone to copy from because there were a lot of challenges to overcome in order to make them work. Apple even used the Prada, a phone that came out before the iPhone and failed horribly, to demonstrate this. While designing a phone with a touchscreen is trivial, designing a phone with a touchscreen that behaves correctly is not. It was not until the iPhone that everybody finally understood how to properly design touchscreen phones and implement touch-friendly firmwares that don't require stylii for anything.
The Apple narrative is of course that they brought out the iPhone and everybody else copied them with even the devices that came out before the iPhone retroactively became copies (or, as with the F700, quietly dropping it from their accusation when they realized their folly).
They might have dropped it because of the builtin keyboard making it sufficiently different.
I think it's sad that so many fans believe them. Back in 2006 everybody was wondering when Apple would finally release a video iPod, and fans made mockups that looked exactly like the iPhone. http://guides.macrumors.com/Gallery_of_Video_iPod_Mockups
I think it's sad to not actually understand what the issue is.
Back in 2006 this was considered natural design evolution.
Absolutely, but would it have been successful design without Apple setting an example? I guess not. There's a long way between wishful thinking like drawing a few drafts based on an untested concept and actually building a product that works while betting the company in the process.
That's pretty disingenuous given that my Palm Treo had touch and no stylus in 2004. It was Windows Mobile 6.0, then upgraded to 6.5. Apple's advantage is that they had no legacy products or expectations to maintain so they could start over with a clean interface. When other manufacturers saw how clean it was they realized they had to put away their legacy products and move forward and we're all the better for it.
You contradict yourself. First you claim that other vendors had a legacy and thus couldn't change, and then you claim that after Apple there was no reason to not change? What stopped them from innovating like Apple did before Apple did? They didn't even have to bet their companies like Apple did! All they had to do was to create a new product line!
Additionaly, my Palm Treo had rounded corners! I used the screen lock so it didn't make calls. When in call it would go to the dial screen so you woudn't navigate the phone unlike earlier versions when you could find half typed contacts with your ear doing all the work. The built in SIP client was cool as hell too! The proximity sensor was just another method of dealing the same in-call or in-pocket problems which was a nice evolutionary step but hardly ground breaking or non-obvious.
Groundbreaking or not, many vendors struggled to understand how to actually make the proximity sensor work properly even AFTER they had an example to copy from. Most phones would just turn off the screen as soon as they sensed something close: the iPhone requires certain accelerometer data before it disables the screen, meaning holding it very close to your face so you can read something in the sun won't disable the display. It's this kind of detail that creates loyalty -- you don't notice these things while using the devices, but it doesn't take long until you start missing them once you move to another brand because suddenly things don't work as intuitively as you were used to.
I give Apple a lot of credit for shaking up the landscape and producing a polished product but this lawsuit seems ridiculous. When you're dealing with the shape of a calculator, its hard to think the form factor should be patent worthy.
That's because you re looking at design components individually rather than as a whole and thus missing the synergy. Fortunately the Judge gets the point and expressed it to the jury a lot better than I would.
Errr, no, the link you provided demonstrates that it is a public knowledge Samsung knows about the iPhone designs of 2006 now, it doesn't say anything about what Samsung knew in 2006. That's kinda the difference GGGP points out.
You are right, it does not demonstrate that Samsung had knowledge about Apple's designs before the iPhone launched, though that evidence is still refuted by Apple's release of designs from 2005, and Samsung could have guessed what was going on since, by their own admission, a lot of the components on the iPhone are manufactured by them.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose you've never heard of contempt of court, but don't worry, you're not alone, the average Slashdot poster is quite ignorant.
That's because there really is no concrete detail about it. Trade dress is extremely subjective and based on what the average person may confuse.
The latter group recognizes the legal validity of design patents and trade dress, the former does not. Dumb or not, the latter group at least has some logical ground.
Samsung has violated those rules, they brought up the subject in the courtroom.
Indeed, broken by Samsung's contempt of court...
After the jurors were selected based on not being informed about the case, so if they learn about that "evidence" now, it's news to them.
An open trial only means that the public can assist it, not the public can have access to all the information related to it.
Though as a lawyer you are still a legal officer and should make sure that everything goes according to the established legal proceedings. Running to the media and making it hard for the jurors to avoid learning about your inadmissible evidence while questioning the Judge's partiality is not the way to go about it.
To me it seems more like they're doing Apple a really good service.
I can't get my head around Samsung forgetting to submit such important evidence until after the deadline... Were they counting on making it impossible for Apple to provide counter-evidence? Deadlines exist for a reason!
Please elaborate. How is perfectly justified evidence exclusion grounds to an appeal?
Inadmissible evidence is only accepted in a trial when an opposing party presents the trial with inadmissible evidence themselves. Apple did not present the trial with inadmissible evidence, so the "opening the door" doctrine does not apply.
Of course you can argue that, it's called a mistrial, the jurors aren't sequestered! Plus by going to the media Samsung is making it extremely hard for the jury to actually avoid learning about the subject, in contempt to court. This isn't going to end well for them.
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?
Please inform yourself, the Samsung bullshit propaganda is affecting your brain. As I mentioned, this is how the whole thing started. If you don't know the facts, refrain from posting. Also, Groklaw is an extremely biased source, and a declaration from the accused Samsung lawyer isn't exactly trustworthy either. Next time, stick to less biased sources.
They haven't been sequestered, only selected and ordered to avoid consulting the media regarding this issue, an order that Samsung is making extremely hard to comply with, in contempt to court. Secondly, Quinn brought up the excluded evidence in the court room, which got him reprimanded by the Judge with a sanction threat, and that's what started the whole thing.
Those images were used because it came out after the iPhone. The "problem" (Samsung's problem) is that somehow they found a way to forget to file key evidence in this case before the deadline. This was their fault, the exclusion of the evidence is perfectly justified.
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.
Opening the door is a common law legal doctrine that allows for the admission of inadmissible evidence by a party after an opposing party has âoeopened the doorâ to it by first introducing inadmissible evidence at trial.
You are incorrect. Apple did not introduce inadmissible evidence in the trial, so this is not "opening the door".
Where has she failed?
Yes it is, it's called contempt to court, and in this case can be taken as an attempt to influence the jury using excluded evidence since the jury isn't sequestered. Quinn's attempt to bring up this evidence in the court room after it was excluded adds further credence to this intend. Lastly, the evidence was excluded because samsung failed to meet the submission schedule, it is perfectly justified.
She's not going to decide on anything. That's what the jury is there for, and you can't appeal a jury's decision without being able to claim mistrial (i.e.: claim that the jury was in some way tainted by influence from the media).
Samsung explicitly tried to influence the jury in the courtroom using excluded evidence, that's actually how all this began as well as why the Judge threatened that lawyer with sanctions.
What bias? No decisions were made yet, and the decision to suppress that "evidence" is perfectly justified!
While that is true, that doesn't make me responsible for the misunderstanding. As you mentioned (and well), accurate communication requires at least two people, and both has responsibilities. The sender is responsible for ensuring that the message is clear, and the receiver is responsible for interpreting it right, so, again, NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM,
It's not just the box, it's also all the peripherals. A laptop has everything built-in.
I seldom get involved in anything except when I see people complain about something that I have a formed opinion about (in this case I am more interested in knowing whether I am right or in having my opinion refuted) or when my judgement is explicitly requested (in which case I would not be honest if I sugar coated my opinion). It is extremely uncommon for me to criticize anything directly unless it has a direct impact in my life and I can absolutely not adjust,
This is unfortunate. Ever since I became a nomad (and switched to Apple) that I miss actually shopping for desktop hardware. Every time I enter a retail store and look at the high-end video cards I really really want to build a desktop, but it can't fit my luggage... The desktop PC is far from being dead and I am already missing it, I think it's gonna be one of those things that I will remember from early 21st century just like I miss tinkering with analog electronics in the 80s (no, I'm not old, I was born in that decade).
Rumor has it that Valve is building a console with PC hardware, so I wouldn't rule out that possibility. They feel that the Windows and Mac App Stores represent a threat to Steam as a third party, so this may be part of their strategy to build a platform of their own. Blizzard has expressed similar feelings, which makes sense if we consider the rumor that they had and probably still have a third party service like Steam planned for battle.net (at least according to the leaked schedules which have been quite accurate, though battle.net third parties is overdue at this point).
How did you reach the conclusion that Apple doesn't think they have a case?
So? The F700 was released in December 2007, "many months" later...
That's not being disputed. Apple claims that those designs would have never been successful in the market without the iPhone to copy from because there were a lot of challenges to overcome in order to make them work. Apple even used the Prada, a phone that came out before the iPhone and failed horribly, to demonstrate this. While designing a phone with a touchscreen is trivial, designing a phone with a touchscreen that behaves correctly is not. It was not until the iPhone that everybody finally understood how to properly design touchscreen phones and implement touch-friendly firmwares that don't require stylii for anything.
They might have dropped it because of the builtin keyboard making it sufficiently different.
I think it's sad to not actually understand what the issue is.
Absolutely, but would it have been successful design without Apple setting an example? I guess not. There's a long way between wishful thinking like drawing a few drafts based on an untested concept and actually building a product that works while betting the company in the process.
How they take it is their problem, not yours. You only have to make sure that the information is delivered correctly.
You contradict yourself. First you claim that other vendors had a legacy and thus couldn't change, and then you claim that after Apple there was no reason to not change? What stopped them from innovating like Apple did before Apple did? They didn't even have to bet their companies like Apple did! All they had to do was to create a new product line!
Groundbreaking or not, many vendors struggled to understand how to actually make the proximity sensor work properly even AFTER they had an example to copy from. Most phones would just turn off the screen as soon as they sensed something close: the iPhone requires certain accelerometer data before it disables the screen, meaning holding it very close to your face so you can read something in the sun won't disable the display. It's this kind of detail that creates loyalty -- you don't notice these things while using the devices, but it doesn't take long until you start missing them once you move to another brand because suddenly things don't work as intuitively as you were used to.
That's because you re looking at design components individually rather than as a whole and thus missing the synergy. Fortunately the Judge gets the point and expressed it to the jury a lot better than I would.
You are right, it does not demonstrate that Samsung had knowledge about Apple's designs before the iPhone launched, though that evidence is still refuted by Apple's release of designs from 2005, and Samsung could have guessed what was going on since, by their own admission, a lot of the components on the iPhone are manufactured by them.