Apple-Samsung Trial

  • Avatar

    Posted: 31 July 2012 09:53 PM #16

    I found a few individuals very entertaining to follow on Twitter for up to date quotes coming directly from the courtroom.

    @FedcourtJunkie…....he posted great quotes all day long.
    @inafried…..All Things Digtal
    @jonfortt…...CNBC techie

    [ Edited: 01 August 2012 10:51 AM by afterglow ]

    Signature

    Tim Cook: iPad is 91% of all tablet web traffic. I don’t know what these other tablets are doing.

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 10:54 PM #17

    afterglow - 01 August 2012 12:53 AM

    I found a few individuals very entertaining to follow on Twitter for up to date quotes coming directly from the courtroom.

    @FedcourtJunkie…....he posted great quotes all day long.
    @inafried
    @jonfortt…...CNBC techie

    Thanks for this.

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 11:09 PM #18

    Mav - 01 August 2012 12:30 AM

    http://allthingsd.com/20120731/samsung-goes-public-with-excluded-evidence-to-undercut-apples-design-claims/

    This is all kinds of idiotic.  Defying the judge?!  Keep it up Samsung! :D

    The judge, she is pissed

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 11:21 PM #19

    Hey, this is the patent trial of the decade.  Quinn’s competitive juices are flowing.  As a litigator myself, I’m not surprised by the public disclosure of the excluded evidence.  If you think the judge is putting the fix in, you’ve got to do something.  Is this out of bounds?  Sure.  But if you know you’re probably going down in federal court, you’ve got to try to stem the bleeding in the court of public opinion until your appeal is heard in 2 years.

    What really galls me though is that I don’t think the excluded evidence is all that compelling.  Plus, I’m supremely annoyed that Samsung is trying so hard to use Apple’s internal e-mails against it when it blatantly failed to preserve e-mail evidence in this case (and has been a repeat offender in this regard in other cases).

    I hope the Judge throws the book at Quinn but I bet her bark will be worse than her bite (especially if no jurors were actually tainted).  There is still a trial that has to be held.

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 11:36 PM #20

    Trainspotter - 01 August 2012 02:21 AM

    As a litigator myself, I’m not surprised by the public disclosure of the excluded evidence.

    I am. There were three previous motions to enter the evidence into the trial. There was an impassioned plea on the first morning of the trial. Then you release the evidence to the public anyway? No way this isn’t contempt. Only question is how severe the sanctions will be.

    Awful way to start a trial. A Judge can influence a trial in a thousand ways - all legitimate. Having Koh ticked from the get go means that Samsung won’t get an inch of latitude. And that’s a very bad thing.

    Plus, I’m supremely annoyed that Samsung is trying so hard to use Apple’s internal e-mails against it when it blatantly failed to preserve e-mail evidence in this case (and has been a repeat offender in this regard in other cases).

    The Judge has already ruled that Apple may mention the destruction of pertinent documents by Samsung. That is terribly damning. First, the Jury may infer that documents favorable to Apple were destroyed. Second, it goes to motive. The jury may well wonder why Samsung destroyed documents if they’d supposedly done nothing wrong.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 31 July 2012 11:39 PM #21

    You do have to wonder about that.  An email system with a default shredder set to every two weeks.

    Signature

    The Summer of AAPL is here.  Enjoy it (responsibly) while it lasts.
    AFB Night Owl Teamâ„¢
    Thanks, Steve.

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 12:04 AM #22

    FalKirk - 01 August 2012 02:36 AM

    I am. There were three previous motions to enter the evidence into the trial. There was an impassioned plea on the first morning of the trial. Then you release the evidence to the public anyway? No way this isn’t contempt. Only question is how severe the sanctions will be.

    Eh, I’ve seen stuff like this before.  I’m sure Quinn’s lawyers were smart enough to parse all of the judge’s words to make sure Samsung was not blatantly violating the letter of her rulings by publicly disclosing the excluded evidence.  If the evidence wasn’t subject to a protective order and the Judge’s rulings only said the evidence couldn’t be presented to a jury, the sanctions might be light.  (After all, Quinn may have only violated the spirit of her rulings.)  However, if there’s some evidence that Samsung was deliberately trying to taint the jury through the public disclosure (which would probably be hard to prove), the sanctions might be severe.  The surprising thing with stuff like this is that the law on contempt can set a very high standard for imposition of severe sanctions. 

    I also wouldn’t be surprised if Samsung did this without Quinn’s knowledge.  I believe Samsung has been caught in several bribery and corruption scandals vis-a-vis the Korean government.

    The Judge has already ruled that Apple may mention the destruction of pertinent documents by Samsung. That is terribly damning. First, the Jury may infer that documents favorable to Apple were destroyed. Second, it goes to motive. The jury may well wonder why Samsung destroyed documents if they’d supposedly done nothing wrong.

    Yes, the jury instruction on spoliation could be quite harmful.  Copyist + evidence-destroyer = Infringer.

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 01:08 AM #23

    Trainspotter - 01 August 2012 03:04 AM

    If the evidence wasn’t subject to a protective order and the Judge’s rulings only said the evidence couldn’t be presented to a jury, the sanctions might be light.  (After all, Quinn may have only violated the spirit of her rulings.

    I agree that the Judge will make the sanctions as light as she can. But sanctions? On the first day of trial? Wow.

    However, if there’s some evidence that Samsung was deliberately trying to taint the jury through the public disclosure (which would probably be hard to prove), the sanctions might be severe.

    Here’s the thing that’s kind of amazing. Samsung all but said that they were trying to taint the jury. Here’s their statement:

    “The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design.”

    The evidence would have established “beyond doubt”? Evidence that the Judge just excluded? What is Samsung saying about the Judge?

    And who exactly is Samsung saying this to? Why release it to the press if they didn’t expect it to get back to the jury?

    Under the circumstances, I think the Judge has to take this breach very seriously.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 01 August 2012 02:34 AM #24

    One more from today’s liveblog of the Apple v. Samsung trial, an email Samsung forgot to delete:

    Now, Apple revealing internal Samsung memos after iPhone release…“Easy to copy” said one….no wonder Samsung didn’t want this stuff in….

    by hmintz edited by hmintz 11:52 AM

    Edit: oops… I see phoebear referenced Samsung’s “easy to copy” email already

    [ Edited: 01 August 2012 02:38 AM by Apple II+ ]

    Signature

    The only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. — Steve Jobs

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 01 August 2012 02:35 AM #25

    Samsung is acting like a cornered animal.

    Signature

    The only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. — Steve Jobs

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 08:34 AM #26

    Apple II+ - 01 August 2012 05:35 AM

    Samsung is acting like a cornered animal.

    I don’t think they have a choice really. They are in the wrong. They appear to be throwing a load of phone designs up that don’t infringe to imply that they didn’t. It all stinks to high heaven.

    Unfortunately this, like the Oracle / Google trial, may end up being merely a beauty contest. If the Jury feel that Android and Samsung are too important to sanction then they will win.

    Koh is being called out as “biased” for not allowing this evidence in court so “obviously she is in Apple’s pay”. The quotes are from the Fandroid army of course. What they would love to see is for Apple to pay Samsung big money and Apple to have to advertise far and wide that Samsung didn’t copy them, just like in the UK.

    Ho Hum.

    Signature

    .

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 08:54 AM #27

    I can’t see why it’s even relevant if Apple did copy Sony. The trial is about Samsung copying Apple. Now if it was evidence that Samsung copied Sony, not Apple, that might be relevant.

    ...Apple to have to advertise far and wide that Samsung didn?t copy them, just like in the UK.

    Actually, I don’t think that’s an accurate description of the UK situation. The (daft) UK judge said that Apple can continue to assert that Samsung copied, because it’s a matter of opinion, but Apple must show on their web site that the courts did not find any such copying to be illegal in the UK.

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 09:26 AM #28

    Whether Apple copied Sony is relevant in 2 ways.  First, Apple’s burden is to prove that Samsung’s designs appear the same as Apple’s designs to an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art.  Samsung wants to argue that Apple’s design patent is invalid because it did not differ significantly from the prior art—i.e., Apple just copied Sony’s prior art.

    Gruber, as usual, has a succinct illuminating explanation of why Samsung’s argument is bogus: 

    http://daringfireball.net/2012/07/inspired

    Basically, Apple did a mock-up of what a Sony phone would look like based on a description (not an actual model) it heard a Sony designer talk about.  That’s why the Judge probably excluded the evidence.  There was no actual prior art—it was all just a hypothetical Sony designer’s talk of a concept.  The excluded evidence is therefore irrelevant.

    Second, from a common sense standpoint, to a juror, if Samsung could show that Apple copied Sony first (which it cannot), it would undermine Apple’s credibility when it smears Samsung as a copyist.  This is a hot-button issue for the Judge and she gets it.  The excluded evidence would be very prejudicial and confusing to a jury.

    Samsung is desperate.  And its lawyers are complicit in its douchebaggery.

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 09:38 AM #29

    FalKirk - 01 August 2012 04:08 AM

    The evidence would have established “beyond doubt”? Evidence that the Judge just excluded? What is Samsung saying about the Judge?

    And who exactly is Samsung saying this to? Why release it to the press if they didn’t expect it to get back to the jury?

    Under the circumstances, I think the Judge has to take this breach very seriously.

    I agree this is a direct affront to the Judge.  Unfortunately for her, the whole world is watching, so she has to keep her cool and be reasonable and measured, to ensure that her entire handling of the case is upheld on appeal and not perceived to be tainted by any personal animosity toward Samsung.  That can’t be easy when there’s so much testosterone flowing through her courtroom.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 01 August 2012 09:50 AM #30

    Juicy counter-attack by the scholar John Gruber of the Apple-Sony-Samsung charges, showcased by Philip Elmer-Dewitt CNN-Fortune Apple 2.0

    The succulent summary:

    Apple wasn’t copying Sony, dear bloggers. Sony was copying Apple.