Samsung on Evidence Release: We Didn’t Do Anything Wrong

| News

In response to claims that it intentionally released excluded evidence in hopes of influencing the jury in its court battle with Apple, Samsung’s legal team said it didn’t do anything wrong, and was only responding to media inquiries.

“Contrary to the representations Apple’s counsel made to this Court, Samsung did not issue a general press release and more importantly, did not violate any Court Order or any legal or ethical standards,” Samsung’s legal team said in a court filing, according to CNET.

Samsung says sending journalists excluded evidence was OKSamsung says sending journalists excluded evidence was OK

Samsung had hoped to convince Judge Lucy Koh to reverse her earlier ruling and allow evidence at trial that the company felt would prove Apple’s iPhone was inspired by Sony smartphone designs. John Quinn from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, the legal firm representing Sony in court, went so far as to beg the Judge on the opening day of the trial to allow the evidence.

A few hours after Judge Koh said she wouldn’t reverse her ruling, Samsung’s PR department sent PowerPoint presentations showing the evidence along with a statement to several journalists. In response to Samsung’s move, she demanded to know who wrote the press release, who approved it, and how Mr. Quinn was involved.

Apple’s legal team accused Samsung of attempting to “pollute the jury,” and called the move blatant contempt of court. Samsung, however, said it was simply responding to media inquiries, and that releasing the information wouldn’t taint the jury.

“Samsung’s brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to press inquiries was not motivated by or designed to influence jurors,” Mr. Quinn said. “The members of the jury had already been selected at the time of the statement and the transmission of these public exhibits, and had been specifically instructed not to read any form of media relating to this case.”

Mr. Quinn reiterated that Samsung hasn’t violated any court rules or ethics, and that Apple’s legal team is trying to make him look bad. “These false representations by Apple’s counsel publicly and unfairly called my personal reputation into question and have resulted in media reports likewise falsely impugning me personally,” he said.

Apple and Samsung have been fighting in courtrooms around the world over patent infringement complaints for over a year. Both companies claim the other is using mobile device patents without proper licensing, and Apple has also accused Samsung of blatantly copying the iPad’s look and feel. The iPhone and iPad maker is claiming Samsung owes US$2.5 billion for patent infringement, while Samsung claims Apple owes 2.4 percent of all iPhone sales for using its patents without proper licensing.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

12 Comments Leave Your Own

ctopher

This trial is better than the Olympics. And just as maddening. Why do I have to wait until Friday to find out what Judge Koh thinks of Mr. Quinn’s statement. This red tape delay is maddening!

Oh and don’t forget Apple’s lawyers response.

I’m on the edge of my seat. Too bad it won’t be decided in a fortnight!

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

She won’t sanction him. She will lose control of the case if she does, have to declare a mistrial, and whatever penalty Samsung or its lawyers would be faced with (and would appeal to higher authorities with better common sense), would be a token’s payment for a shot at a judge like Alsup or Posner who won’t let this patent crap get out of hand.

And since we’re discussing material that Samsung sent to the press, why not look at the actual material so you can judge for yourself on the merits why Quinn has gone ballistic on this? Do the actual facts matter, or just the soap opera unfolding? Here’s a link. It’s so on-point contradictory to Apple’s allegations of “copying” (which in itself is neither a crime nor a tort), that a clear explanation to Quinn and the public is needed as to why it is being excluded. “Too late in discovery” does not hack it. Discovery is a process rather than a single point in time because it can take time to discover things. Duh.

geoduck

John Quinn from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, the legal firm representing Sony in court,

One point for clarity. Does Quinn represent Sony or Samsung? I hadn’t heard that Sony was represented in this case.

jfbiii

Tell us again about your days in law school, Bosco.

OldMorris

Personally, I think the design and software implementation by Samsung for their phone and tablets post iphone were specifically meant to copy the iphone/ipad look, feel and functionality right down to the packaging. I believe being apple’s close manufacturing partner allowed them to accelerate their copying. I think its positive because it provides real competition to Apple. I think its negative because it becomes difficult for Apple to differentiate themselves and reap their rewards via superior (or at least different) design and function.

The Samsung product copying was so blatant that it became hard to see any difference at first glance. I would not be surprised if a lot of the initial sales were based on “it’s just like an iPhone” comments.

Weather its actionable or not, patentable or not, is up to the courts. If it is then I hope Apple prevails because for some strange reason my sense of right or wrong makes me feel that it is piss poor the way Samsung has treated their business partner.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@jfbiii: Considering the track record of lawyers quoted by TMO as “experts” a year ago in the pre-trial phase of Oracle v. Google, I think anyone with 8th grade reading proficiency and a willingness to RTF documents could offer a better opinion on these cases.

But anyway, my comments were not a matter of law. They were a matter of competition and human nature. What you have witnessed is Judge Koh having her ass handed to her with teriyaki sauce on a shiny silver platter by John Quinn. He clearly doesn’t respect her, and she knows it. But why should he? She screwed this up badly. Read the documents. How is Samsung supposed to defend against accusations of “wholesale copying” in court and in the media without outlining its 20 years of progress in phone design?

Grayson

Bosco (Brad), the reason Judge Koh did not allow the Samsung eveidence was because Apple was able to show a prior iPhone prototype called “Purple” that predated the Sony design. See:  http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/30/apples-purple-concept-for-iphone-gets-sony-inspired-designs-thrown-out-of-patent-trial/ . OldMorris has it spot on, Samsung is blatantly guilty of copying Apple in the pursuit of ill gained monies. They and all other Android manufacturers as well as Google should be made to pay the piper. Google and the Android makers did not have to coppy the iPhone, the Widows Phones do not copy the iPhone, why should the Android models?

RonMacGuy

Tell us again about your days in law school, Bosco.

LOL.  Funny how the lawyer-wanna-be is avoiding the posts on topics that he’s been so incredibly wrong about over the past 3 years and now is only focusing on the patent infringement lawsuits.  Oh, and silly comments about “penetration”.

But hey, it cuts back big-time on the garbage on TMO, which is nice.

What, no comment on the “Apple?s iPhone Takes Smartphone Share from Android in U.S.” article on July 20 Bosco?  Apple iOS at 33% now.

Remember that post on Jan 31, 2011?  Are you “taking a look and figuring out why that is, and adjusting accordingly” yet Brad?

Regarding “Google Hiring Android Developers to Make More Apps” at The Mac
Observer, Bosco (Brad Hutchings) wrote:

Humor me a minute. What if the market is actually making a fairly rational
decision to reject Apple’s command and control model? See, I think it is
because the shift in the market tracks closely with my own awakening on the
openness thing in smart phones. But if Android falters, as you’d all like,
I’ll take a look and figure out why that is, and adjust accordingly. At
what point will any of you be willing to admit that the market as a whole
just doesn’t like what Apple is selling? That the early success of the
iPhone was due to early adopters willing to sustain Apple’s margins and
turn over control of their phones to the all-knowing Apple?

I don’t think any of you are stupid. I do think that many of you live
sheltered technological lives and I know you pay a premium for doing so.
Which is your prerogative of course. I’m not judging. I’m just here to
tell you why most people aren’t going along that path.”

How about this one Brad?  Admitting that you were wrong yet?

I won’t have to use any excuse, but if Apple comes back
and dominates the smart phone market, I’ll admit I was wrong. But it’s not
happening, which is why it’s so much fun watching you guys all try to
explain why Apple continues to win by being less relevant!

The fun part is that we’ll be doing this all over again in a year for the
declining and mostly irrelevant iPad, and you’ll all be explaining why that
isn’t like the iPhone, which isn’t like the 1992 Mac, etc.

Hee hee.  This is so much fun!!

gslusher

But anyway, my comments were not a matter of law

The problem is, Bosco, that this appears to actually BE a matter of law. I’m not an attorney, either, but I have read that Samsung may not have provided this evidence before the deadline imposed by the court. The deadline—which applies to both sides—is to ensure that the other side has an opportunity for discovery and to build their case. One of the more important jobs a judge has in a civil case is to see that both sides follow the rules as established by statute, court procedures and policies and precedents.

If this is correct, and if Apple had pulled the same trick, the judge probably would have not allowed that evidence, either.

John Quinn. He clearly doesn?t respect her, and she knows it. But why should he

Again, I’m not an attorney, but it might not be a good idea for an attorney to show that she/he does not respect the judge. Of course, Samsung/Quinn may be trying to provoke the judge into doing something that they can use in an appeal.

Samsung claims that this was in response to media inquiries, but I’ve already seen several columns/articles where journalists have said that it was sent to them, though they had not requested it. It smacks more of a general press release.

DamenS

Sony has representation in this court case ?  Why ?  What is Sony’s claim against Apple, and why would they not have seperate proceedings against Apple than Samsung ?

Intruder

The mention of Sony with regards to the legal team is a typo, folks. It should read “Samsung”.

RonMacGuy

Brad, I get the feeling that you are ignoring me.  grin  But hey, I wanted to let you know that you can very easily make my references to your past not-so-bright comments go away.  Just one little post from you admitting you were wrong and apologizing for being such a jerk over the past few years to us Apple fans.

The market is obviously not ‘making a fairly rational decision to reject Apple?s command and control model.’  At what point will ‘BRAD’ be willing to admit that the market as a whole DOES like what Apple is selling?  That the ‘early success of the iPhone’ was not just due to early adopters and has continued for years past what Brad thought it would? That Apple is not losing relevance as you predicted.

So, just a little apology and admission of being wrong, and I’ll never post references to your 2010-2011 silly comments ever again.  I’ll just save the email from you and cherish it.

So what do you say Brad?  Let’s end this!!  I promise!!

Log-in to comment