Apple Requests Sanctions Against Samsung Delivering Default Victory in Design Patent Case

[G51989]

Not to be cynical here, because I doubt I'd ever buy one myself, what if Windows Phone becomes the next big thing in the next couple of years? ( Could happen with the massive amount of Desktop/Tablet/Xbox/Phone Intergration they be talking about with it. Who knows? (. What does Apple do if that takes off, and they cant sue? They might have to take more than 2 years to to release models?

 

[Oletros]

lol if Samsung were so good at following all the rules they wouldn't be in court

Ah, companies are in court because they don't follow the rules?

 

[ixodes]

Responses in Bold

Nice work

I usually post very candidly, sometimes in a very outspoken fashion. This time I thought I'd go "all pro-Apple" to see what the responses would be, since many like to accuse me of being anti-Apple.

I find the comments you've made in your response, mirror my thoughts quite closely in several areas.

The side of me that really likes the "Apple of the past" before they became so acerbic against competition, before Steve "lost it" and began spewing venom, is disgusted with their tactics that block the sale of some Samsung products.

Apple used to be a relatively classy company.

While I'm generally pretty brand / platform neutral, I will admit to a slight Apple bias.

That said I use Android and iOS concurrently. My SGS III is my current favorite by a wide margin.

And so it goes...

 

[prezasti]

This confirms a suspicion I had, less anything to substantiate my feelings.

It seems to me that with all the hero worship that surrounded, and still surrounds Steve Jobs, combined with the case being held in a Northern CA Court, the outcome is highly likely to be in Apple's favor with little attention to the true facts.

Furthermore as any of us that have been in court, or witnessed a high profile, high dollar case can attest. Reality goes out the window. Justice? What justice?

There's far too much data that can and will be manipulated.

Confirms what? The author of the article your referring to isn't properly informed of what is going on in the case.

 

[koruki]

Ah, companies are in court because they don't follow the rules?

bulls-eye

 

[SirDaav]

Phffft

"As far as I can tell (and I could be wrong) nothing that was actually released wasn't already in the public domain anyway."

Well you are wrong from what infer, not what you say, which is exactly what Samsung does.

They were not allowed to mention this in court, so they circulate a neat package of everything unmentionable so the jury would see it all anyway ina condensed form so it's easy to quote and assimilate as presented... they could have included this stuff if their useless legal team had gotten it to court on time... but they failed.

They deserve sanctions, big ones.

Is this how they behave in a rape case, a murder trial? No difference here. It's all about ethics.

 

[Oletros]

so the jury would see it all anyway ina condensed form so it's easy to quote and assimilate as presented... they could have included this stuff if their useless legal team had gotten it to court on time... but they failed

They jury CAN'T see anything

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Interesting. But looks like its written by a 16 year old. Also, factually wrong and the person is simply unaware of the proceedings.

So what you are trying to say is it was written by a MacRumors member?

 

[poloponies]

So what you are trying to say is it was written by a MacRumors member?

Nope; spelling's too good.

 

[prezasti]

So what you are trying to say is it was written by a MacRumors member?

So you're saying you are 16?

 

[2bikes]

They jury CAN'T see anything

Is the jury sequestered for this trial?

 

[Tiger8]

Guys, I've seen people sue each other for super-trivial reasons... this is a gazillion dollar market, of course Apple is going to sue if they have ground, it doesn't make them look stupid, desperate, or greedy..

And of course Samsung is going to defend itself, this is just how our legal system is

 

[OT2000]

Stick it to'm Apple.

 

[gnasher729]

PJ is great and so is her site. Very objective and well thought out, great source material, as always.

Sorry to say that, but as far as Apple is concerned, Groklaw and PJ have lost their objectivity. Here's a recent quote:

"PJ: Stacking the deck, I see, as usual. Those are the exact people who *should* be on a jury chosen to decide if a rectangle with rounded corners in a valid patent has been infringed."

 

[kenaustus]

I took the time to read the entire filing by Apple and can only say that Apple's lawyers did a pretty good job in their arguments. There was no doubt that Samsung's attorneys were dumping on the Judge in public.

I can see the Judge going with part (if not all) of Apple's requests as she is aware that failure to do so will simply encourage Samsung & their attorneys to continue their behavior. This is the time to stop Samsung's behavior dead in their tracks.

 

[KPOM]

1. Personally I think this makes Apple look desperate. As if they don't believe they can win the case.

2. As far as I can tell (and I could be wrong) nothing that was actually released wasn't already in the public domain anyway.

The issue is one of tainting. If Apple believes that Samsung tainted the jury by releasing "evidence" that was previously disallowed, then the argument is that it is impossible to un-ring the bell, and that Apple should win by default. It's worth a shot. Even if the judge says no, it doesn't mean that she thinks Apple will lose the case. It just means that the case will proceed. On the other hand, if they win, then Samsung will be forced to appeal just to try to get themselves back into a courtroom on those 4 matters.

 

[samcraig]

"As far as I can tell (and I could be wrong) nothing that was actually released wasn't already in the public domain anyway."

Well you are wrong from what infer, not what you say, which is exactly what Samsung does.

They were not allowed to mention this in court, so they circulate a neat package of everything unmentionable so the jury would see it all anyway ina condensed form so it's easy to quote and assimilate as presented... they could have included this stuff if their useless legal team had gotten it to court on time... but they failed.

They deserve sanctions, big ones.

Is this how they behave in a rape case, a murder trial? No difference here. It's all about ethics.

They jury CAN'T see anything

Is the jury sequestered for this trial?

The issue is one of tainting. If Apple believes that Samsung tainted the jury by releasing "evidence" that was previously disallowed, then the argument is that it is impossible to un-ring the bell, and that Apple should win by default. It's worth a shot. Even if the judge says no, it doesn't mean that she thinks Apple will lose the case. It just means that the case will proceed. On the other hand, if they win, then Samsung will be forced to appeal just to try to get themselves back into a courtroom on those 4 matters.

How many people are getting their legal expertise from TV shows one has to wonder... Not directed at you. Just in general

The jury is explicitly told they are not to read the newspaper, watch tv, etc. Can it happen? Yes. But at the same time - if they do - they can easily be kicked off the jury and replaced with an alternate.

So no - what Samsung released isn't going to taint a jury nor are any of the members going to see it. That wasn't Samsung's intention for releasing it at all.

 

[KPOM]

Is the jury sequestered for this trial?

I doubt it. It is extremely rare even for a criminal case and virtually unheard of in a civil case. That said, they are instructed to avoid any media coverage about Apple, Samsung, and the case in particular, and to avoid websites, etc. that are likely to mention the case (such as this one). However, since it was released, and got lots of press coverage, it increases the possibility that someone on the jury saw something. They will likely be asked on Friday whether or not they accidentally saw or heard any coverage about Apple or Samsung.

Samsung's move was just plain dumb. By releasing the slides along with a slam of the judge in public, they should have known that they would upset the judge and that nothing good could result. They also made it that much harder to find sympathy at the appellate court. An appellate court still might well conclude later on that the evidence was allowable, but they could have made the same conclusion had Samsung not released it to the public.

 

[KPOM]

How many people are getting their legal expertise from TV shows one has to wonder... Not directed at you. Just in general

The jury is explicitly told they are not to read the newspaper, watch tv, etc. Can it happen? Yes. But at the same time - if they do - they can easily be kicked off the jury and replaced with an alternate.

So no - what Samsung released isn't going to taint a jury nor are any of the members going to see it. That wasn't Samsung's intention for releasing it at all.

I've been on a jury. About halfway through the trial, when we arrived to court one day the judge asked us specifically whether we saw any media coverage. We all responded that we hadn't.

After the trial was over, I did a newspaper search and saw exactly what the judge was worried about. There was a newspaper blurb (about a paragraph long) about one of the witnesses.

In this case, though, the information was posted on AllThingsD and the WSJ, and got widespread coverage. It significantly increases the likelihood that a juror accidentally saw something he or she shouldn't have. Remember, in high profile criminal cases, a judge often imposes a gag order, even though the jury is given the same instructions not to read about the case outside the trial. It's the same principle.

 

[joecool99]

Apple is just as hypocritical as any company out there.

What about apple stealing Google Chrome idea for one search/type bar in Safari 6 OSX 10.8 ? isn't that stealing ideas ? Doesn't matter if it's software or hardware. It happens in all fields of technology. FAIL.

let SAMSUNG breath and let free market sort this out by customers deciding where they want to spend the money.

 

[KPOM]

How are the interests of truth served by banning evidence from court?

The federal rules of evidence are there specifically to govern how and what evidence is allowed. If there were no rules about evidence, trial could be unwieldy and unlikely to deliver just results as both sides could attempt to confuse jurors by introducing "evidence" that is irrelevant to the dispute at hand, falsified, or duplicative.

----------

Oh god, did I really just have to debunk that Verge article twice in 1 day ? Can't you people read all the trial threads. Anyway, same post I posted to Rogifan, YES I MEANT THE F700, Because it is HIGHLY relevent. So much so, Samsung is risking contempt of court to show its evidence. Here's why :

But it isn't as if Samsung has no other recourse. If Samsung loses, an appellate court is almost certain consider whether the evidence was excluded improperly, and if yes, they will order a new trial where that evidence is presented, if they conclude that it might have affected the jury's ruling. Koh has already been overruled twice by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Once was in Apple's favor, as Koh originally ruled against Apple's request for an injunction, but then reversed course on instruction from the 9th Circuit. The second time was in Samsung's favor when the 9th Circuit stayed Koh's ruling with respect to the Galaxy Nexus.

 

[poloponies]

How many people are getting their legal expertise from TV shows one has to wonder... Not directed at you. Just in general

The jury is explicitly told they are not to read the newspaper, watch tv, etc. Can it happen? Yes. But at the same time - if they do - they can easily be kicked off the jury and replaced with an alternate.

So no - what Samsung released isn't going to taint a jury nor are any of the members going to see it. That wasn't Samsung's intention for releasing it at all.

And you know nobody will see it how? You know that a family member won't discuss it with them? Jurors aren't monitored, they can easily be exposed to something inadvertently like a news blurb on the radio.

And you're still missing the point, it's the attorneys' conduct that's being challenged. You have no idea what "Samsung's intentions" were. It was wrong, period. It may not be sanctioned or sanctionable, but it was wrong.

 

[Flitzy]

The judge better rule in Apple's favour.

If any company deserves sanctions, it's Samsung; they made their business by copying, copying, copying. Let's see how well they do now when they don't have Apple to copy from.

What about apple stealing Google Chrome idea for one search/type bar in Safari 6 OSX 10.8 ? isn't that stealing ideas ? Doesn't matter if it's software or hardware. It happens in all fields of technology. FAIL.

Can't tell if serious or not but Google didn't invent a "unified address bar".

And, besides Samsung, Google is the next biggest offender of copying other peoples idea. Heck, how do you think they came up with Android? That weasel Schmidt has no shame.

 

[kdarling]

The federal rules of evidence are there specifically to govern how and what evidence is allowed. If there were no rules about evidence, trial could be unwieldy and unlikely to deliver just results as both sides could attempt to confuse jurors by introducing "evidence" that is irrelevant to the dispute at hand, falsified, or duplicative.

Thanks. Here, though, the evidence seems very relevant.

Samsung says that Apple would be able to claim that the F700 copied the iPhone, yet Samsung will be unable to present evidence proving otherwise.

As the Samsung lawyer said when he begged Koh to reconsider, “What’s the point of having a trial? (Apple) wants to create a completely false impression that we came up with this design after January 2007.”

It's at times like this that some legal procedures seem to lack common sense or fairness to the normal observer.

 

[rjohnstone]

I took the time to read the entire filing by Apple and can only say that Apple's lawyers did a pretty good job in their arguments. There was no doubt that Samsung's attorneys were dumping on the Judge in public.

I can see the Judge going with part (if not all) of Apple's requests as she is aware that failure to do so will simply encourage Samsung & their attorneys to continue their behavior. This is the time to stop Samsung's behavior dead in their tracks.

The judge is the one who allowed the information to be public.
Samsung simply re-released information that was already in the public domain per HER orders.
Samsung and Apple wanted the docs sealed. The judge said no, everything is public.
So there are no grounds for sanctions.

As for the claims of jury tainting, not gonna happen. The judge ordered the jury pool to not watch or read anything in regards to the case outside the court room. Any juror found violating the judges orders risks being dismissed.

Samsung's lead attorney is one of the best in the business. He threw Judge Koh's own statements back at her with regards to the leaked information.
Read his very clear and concise response and back by precedent.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012080117581118