Sales by SKU is probably what they don't want revealed. They have never reported such a break down before, only sales by family (iPhone - iPad - Mac).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Requests Sanctions Against Samsung Delivering Default Victory in Design Patent Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sales by SKU is probably what they don't want revealed. They have never reported such a break down before, only sales by family (iPhone - iPad - Mac).
Samsung *was* allowed to provide proof. They simply failed to do so by the appropriate discovery deadline. This is basic civil court stuff. A 1st year law student should already be familiar with the fact that you've got to meet deadlines in order to have evidence allowed in the case. If Apple has 'accused' the F700 of trade dress violation, and Samsung didn't provide the evidence against that in time, it's their own fault.
----------
If Judge Koh (actually, the magistrate judge assigned to that portion of the case's process), had allowed the evidence in question, which was not submitted until well after the deadline, Apple would have had a very good case for appeal.
Besides, based on the Verge's analysis, the disallowed evidence in question doesn't prove much of anything. It's certainly not a 'smoking gun'.
It's a civil trial... nobody goes to jail.
Actually, it *is* a possibility (though not a likely one). Read up on 'Contempt of Court'.
Koh doesn't need to "respond" in kind. Right now, she's considering Apple's motion, and shows no signs of letting Samsung's late evidence in.
Showing up the judge isn't a good strategy. Plus, none of this is going before a jury. It is all for the court of public opinion, and so far it doesn't seem to be having a desired effect. I think Apple is highly unlikely to get a default judgment, but some sort of sanction against Samsung is possible, including perhaps a gag order. It isn't in the court's interest for this case to turn into a public circus.
----------
On the other hand, Samsung is even more opaque, since they don't even announce unit sales of phones anymore. Neither Apple nor Samsung are exactly paragons of virtue when it comes to investor disclosure. Both companies derive half their profits from mobile phones.
Unfortunately, Samsung has been sanctioned over their email retention policies before. (In 2003 & 2007, IIRC.) It may be in line with Korean law, but since they don't *only* do business in Korea, they've got to make sure they are aware of laws/requirements in other countries as well.
Mind you, these policies are OK in the US as well, until you have a reason to believe you'll be involved in a lawsuit, at which point you'd *better* start retaining pertinent emails. Samsung has already, in this suit, been sanctioned for failure to do so.
I believe you are wrong.
Samsung didn't file after the deadline. They filed within the Allotted time. Just very very late and last minute. Judge Koh's decision to reject the evidence was based on that. She believed that it was submitted intentionally late as to prevent Apple sufficient time to respond with their own evidence, So therefore, she rejected it.
iPhone 4S
Announced/Released October 2011
1.5 years old on April 2013
iPhone 4
Announced/Released June 2010
3 years old on June 2013
That's some pretty basic math that you've messed up right there. If the rest of your analysis is even half as accurate...
...well, never mind.
It may also be the buyer surveys and tracking studies. There's a fine line between a "public" case and revealing proprietary information. Samsung's stated intent is to use the information when cross-examining Phil Schiller. It would be interesting to get an analysis of what Schiller's direct testimony Samsung seeks to counter using that data in cross examination.
Koh's only bias seems to be in keeping this case moving as quickly as possible. If Apple and Samsung will be filing dueling motions throughout the case, she's bound to react in a manner that neither side will like.
The article is almost completely devoid of facts (there is, in fact, a case involving Apple and Samsung in front of Judge Koh), and full of misinformation and outright lies. If it 'confirms a suspicion' you had, then you didn't need to hear *anything* to confirm it.
A blow-by-blow from the other day...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...ith-one-juror-done-samsung-begging-live-blog/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...ith-one-juror-done-samsung-begging-live-blog/
Actually, Judge Grewal denied it, and Judge Koh has upheld that ruling. I believe that was the exact reason given (i.e. Samsung "withheld" evidence until the very end in an attempt to deny Apple sufficient time to discover their own evidence in response).
Can someone cite the patent that Apple is suing over? I though there were like four patents in total Apple was suing over?
Koh has denied Apple's motion based on Quinn's statement it seems, calling it frivolous. Again, goes back to winning the case on merit of evidence rather than on "sanctions". The request for summary judgement on those grounds wasn't Apple's best move.
The dockets have not yet been entered.
And why do you feel the need to say this ? Highly irrelevant, Samsung has not been asked to produce sales information nor have they asked for such information to be sealed. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about and no one has claimed Samsung was more open than Apple on this front.
The link I just posted gives the opening statements which speak to the patents in question
The jury isn't supposed to go *looking* for anything related to the case that isn't presented in court. There's quite a big difference between that and 'the jury CAN'T see anything' not presented in court.
The jury in this case isn't sequestered (they can be, but usually aren't because it's very expensive, and a major hassle for the members of the jury). That means that when they go home every evening after the day's proceedings, they have the *potential* to be exposed to information in the press. It is the duty of the jury members to attempt to avoid such exposure.
It is also the duty of the parties in the case to avoid doing anything which might reasonably expose the jury to information outside of the proceedings. Failure in this duty is called 'jury tampering', and is a serious bit of misconduct.
Judge Grewal refused it, and no, it wouldn't have been ground for appeal as all accepting the evidence would have caused is a delay as the Judge would have assigned extra time for Apple's lawyers to review the newly entered evidence.
The judges have been clear they want this case to move as fast as possible.
The verge is a trash tabloid, and somehow manages to rank even lower than Florian Mueller in credibility. I wouldn't trust legal analysis from them at all.
Good advice. Obviously, Apple wasn't going for criminal contempt of court (as that would have required criminal accusations of libel, hard to prove when the evidence in question is already public), but rather civil here. The problem is the sanction they ask for go against the rules of civil sanctions for contempt, which must be temporary and lifted as soon as the contempt is stopped by the offending party. Obviously, a summary judgement is permanent, thus it cannot apply.
So Apple did file a frivolous motion. Interesting.
----------
I did multiple times already in this thread. It is bad ethiquette to not read the thread before responding :
----------
Judge Alsup said in SCO vs. Novell : "if you can't trust them to do that much, we might as well just quit" before denying a motion entered by SCO about the very same thing.
Not too surprising. It was a long shot. I just read the ruling, and Koh didn't directly call Apple's motion frivolous. She just granted Samsung's motion to dismiss, which did claim, among other things, that the claim was frivolous.
The point, though, is that people here were claiming that Apple has something to hide or is doing something unreasonable in wanting some data kept secret. Companies often will disclose as little information as they legally are required to.
iPhone 4S
Announced/Released October 2011
1.5 years old on April 2013
iPhone 4
Announced/Released June 2010
3 years old on June 2013
That's some pretty basic math that you've messed up right there. If the rest of your analysis is even half as accurate...
...well, never mind.
I believe he was the one who rounded 649 to 700 also
. Math may not be his strong suit. Lol
I believe he was the one who rounded 649 to 700 also
ya ya ya
rub it in. And i have a terrible sense of time guys u better home samsung prevails - for the sake of the future.
it will be a very very dark day in innovation if apple wins
and im an apple fan
it will be a very very dark day in innovation if apple wins
and im an apple fan
guys u better home samsung prevails - for the sake of the future.
it will be a very very dark day in innovation if apple wins
and im an apple fan
We'll be fine.
here is another live blog for the trial
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21219566/live-blog-apple-samsung-patent-trial-830-friday
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21219566/live-blog-apple-samsung-patent-trial-830-friday
He was replying to your statement that the jury can't see anything... Sure they can.