Actually, it doesn't matter if they have a two week policy or not. Once emails and other information is subpoenaed, it is illegal to destroy as it is now considered evidence to be presented.
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
Actually, it doesn't matter if they have a two week policy or not. Once emails and other information is subpoenaed, it is illegal to destroy as it is now considered evidence to be presented.
Yes, he has been arguing semantics about that, they jury has been instructed to no read about the case so anything Apple or Samsung tell the media is not for the jury
So, I'm asking, is he accusing any party of tampering? Is he accusing Apple of jury tampering because all the claims that they have said to the press lately?
I haven't claimed anything about Apple having something to hide. I simply said they never disclosed such information in the past. I have neither said they are doing something unreasonable.
I don't remember Samcraig saying so either and we were the only 2 discussing this point. So really, your comment was unwarranted and now we find it was also unfounded.
Drop the "Apple is a victim" routine, let's stick to the facts.
----------
Was this actually the case here ? I haven't read Grewal's ruling on the subject, but it was my understanding that what was subpoenaed was already destroyed based on Samsung's internal policy.
What was the actual timeline in this event ? Did you read the ruling and finding of facts ?
I sure hope this all worth it to Apple: many of their long held secrets have come out, and more will be exposed during the trial.
All in return for stopping what? A bunch of phone models that are no longer made, a tablet design that already has a workaround, and a few gesture features like bounceback.
And that's the best case. The worst case is that their patents and trade dress are dismissed as meaningless by the jury. It'll be like a repeat of Apple v Microsoft.
Likewise, Samsung's counter-claims for their FRAND patents do not apply to the iPhone 4S and later.
Basically, this trial is a year late and a dollar short. Apple filed in April 2011.
only 1 juror said they saw something in the media, and that was a headline to do with Apple's "Kitchen Table"
so much for Samsung tainting the jury
so much for Samsung tainting the jury
It's not semantics. There's quite a difference between a sequestered jury and one that isn't.
Second i don't think he's accusing anyone of anything and I'm not sure why you think he is. He was simply stating that if a jury is not sequestered they can see anything they want and a jury can be tainted by leaks like Samsung did.
You seem to be the one arguing semantics tbh.
Let's put this one to rest ok ? There are 2 contradictory rulings in this particular event. First Apple brought it up with the ITC, which ruled Samsung has not been guilty of wrongdoing :
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-25/apple-jury-to-learn-of-samsung-document-destruction.html
The problem Grewal found was not even that Samsung had destroyed subpoenaed e-mail, just that they had failed to stop their "auto-deletion" policy when the complaint was filed over 1 year ago :
Samsung had had no request for the e-mails in question when the deletion policy came into effect, Apple requested the e-mails later and Samsung couldn't provide them anymore. Grewal's take was that the policy should have been suspended when Samsung learned of the litigation, not that the policy itself is against the law or that Samsung destroyed evidence after it had been requested during discovery.
Facts people. Facts.
----------
Someone talked about it a few pages earlier, hence why I added "IT SEEMS". Like I said, I haven't read any such ruling yet myself. Anyway, it's happened now. Read the "Mercury News Live blog" (is that publication pro-Apple or something ? Their coverage is awfully tainted).
----------
And again, as Judge Alsup put it, if you can't trust the jury to follow instructions, you might as well just close down the whole system.
Samsung would have tried the same trick if they could. For the cost issue and because it would allow them to simplify things by focusing the trial on the other patents. Same as what Apple would want.
----------
When did that happen? Source?
Cause the only mention I have seen was a poorly written and false story yesterday by someone over at Appleinsider by a writer that confused Koh's allowing Quinn to file a counter motion as a ruling on the actual issue
wish the Forbes live blog was going on today, lots more info, way less personal comments
I think there's an obvious strategy here - Samsung waiting until last minute to say they want to use the sales reports and surveys. Part of it, I wonder - is just to ******* with Apple for their motion yesterday + not being able to use the evidence they wanted.
there were also suggestions that they continued to destroy emails, claiming there was no way to retain them, after the suit started. Even with IMAP you can set up a rule to automatically save a copy of everything to a local folder on your computer and no matter what happens to the server copy you have the local one. So Samsung has no real excuse, which is why the jury will be told they can assume Samsung willfully destroyed evidence etc
Everyone, quit getting all fan-boy on this stuff.
Apple and Samsung's attorneys don't actually work AT Samsung or Apple. They, like every other large corporation, hire out whatever IP Litigation team they choose out of a multi-national law firm.
You think Samsung execs are in on the discovery strategy decisions? Take it from an attorney (me): These are the laywers' games. The clients are filled in on the highlights after the fact, which are highly glossed over.
Apple and Samsung's attorneys don't actually work AT Samsung or Apple. They, like every other large corporation, hire out whatever IP Litigation team they choose out of a multi-national law firm.
You think Samsung execs are in on the discovery strategy decisions? Take it from an attorney (me): These are the laywers' games. The clients are filled in on the highlights after the fact, which are highly glossed over.
It's the first thing the judge did today but the other posts occurred before court convened and she did nothing to suggest that Apple's motion was frivolous.
Yep, that's what I've been saying since the beginning. Don't get emotional, stick to the facts. As long as the consumer isn't hurt by what is ultimately decided, these are corporate tactics.
Hum... we know, Kdarling gave a very good synopsis of this already :
she didn't use a strong word like frivolous but did basically say there's no reason to at this moment
She did say unwarranted though. So that post that occurred prior somehow did manage to not get it all wrong, again, it seems (I dunno what source that other guy was using).
It was in the previous thread, not even in this thread. Coverage of this has been on-going for more than a year. Just telling you we're quite aware of many of the details and have posted quite a lot of information. Judge Koh has also made sure the records are as available as possible, unsealing many documents. The court has a page on their website specially for this lawsuit.
Groklaw coverage of the whole thing is also somewhat good, even though they aren't following it as intensively as they did the Oracle v. Google trial.
The patent system is broken. You can argue till you feel you've solved something in your own personal social circles and proven yourselves superior but the fact is that this system is broken. I almost wish something extreme would happen, such as a blanket deletion of patents from a specified date in the last ten years so that humanity can sort of start over again without constantly wasting time, money and other resources battling each other.
the message is the same, Apple's request is a far cry from being valid
----------
thought it was funny Apple are putting evidence for the jury on a DVD