Apple-Samsung Trial

  • Avatar

    Posted: 01 August 2012 01:18 PM #31

    https://twitter.com/hmintz/status/230695205496553472

    Quinn defended the release, saying it was based on public materials Samsung tried to get into trial to show it didn’t copy #Apple iPhone

    https://twitter.com/hmintz/status/230695733597184000

    Quinn denies Samsung trying to spoil jury pool, says press release to respond to media reports and defend “injury” to company’s reputation.

    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 04:45 PM #32

    More on yesterday’s Samsung “Press Release” and John Quinn’s declaration delivered to Judge Koh at 9AM today.  This is better than watching the olympics!

    http://abovethelaw.com/2012/08/john-quinn-defends-his-personal-honor-as-apple-v-samsung-trial-gets-crazier/

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 05:14 PM #33

    I am starting to wonder if this Quinn guy is deliberately trying to push the judge into an agitated state, so that Samsung can end up starting all over again with a new judge, who is not “biased”

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 06:33 PM #34

    I had no idea who was going to win this case. None. I know that there are facts and legal issues, not to mention arcane patent law, that the jury gets to see and that I don’t.

    However, I have to say that Samsung’s actions yesterday look desperate. I think they think they’re going to lose and they’re already doing everything in their power to win over public opinion. They want to make this look like a miscarriage of justice while the appeal is pending.

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 07:45 PM #35

    New update from Dan Levine over at Reuters.

    Article can be found here.

    “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,” he wrote. “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.”

    Instead, Quinn said Samsung was merely responding to press inquiries about the issue (though this reporter didn’t ask about it) and attached a redacted email he said was from a journalist.

    I was discussing this with my mate this evening and it seems that Samsung are pushing really hard for a mistrial. Hoping Falkirk (or any other AFBers of the legal persuasion) can can let us know if that can be on the cards…

    Signature

    .

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 08:07 PM #36

    .... - 01 August 2012 10:45 PM

    I was discussing this with my mate this evening and it seems that Samsung are pushing really hard for a mistrial. Hoping Falkirk (or any other AFBers of the legal persuasion) can can let us know if that can be on the cards…

    I was thinking the same. It’s like Quinn is deliberately provoking her. And you just don’t do that to a Judge.

    Also, if she sanctions him too harshly, that can be grounds for appeal. The appeals court will say that her actions made it impossible for Samsung to get a fair trial.

    I think the Judge is smart. It this gambit fails, she can make Quinn pay in a thousand little ways. Very, very risky strategy for Samsung. Again, it reeks of desperation and, reading between the lines, it indicates to me, anyway, that Samsung thinks it has no chance of winning this trial.

    Of course, one NEVER knows what a jury is going to do.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 01 August 2012 08:08 PM #37

    Do your worst, Quinn.

    Problem is how it tends to make you look.

    “Responding to a press inquiry” over excluded evidence that’s said to have made the judge “livid” after she nixed its introduction to the jury over and over and over again.  Sure, not suspicious at all.

    Signature

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

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 01 August 2012 08:09 PM #38

    Koh may provide Quinn an extended length of rope.  He’s not the only one who gets to “make a record.”

    Signature

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

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 01 August 2012 08:16 PM #39

    LOL @ THIS

    http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

    Good reporting from Nilay Patel.

    Signature

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

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 08:19 PM #40

    The South Korean company wanted to display images of Samsung designs that were in development before the iPhone, which look similar to the Apple product and could undermine the validity of Apple’s patents. Samsung also wanted to discuss evidence of Apple’s reliance on Sony phone designs, to show that even Apple is inspired by others.

    But U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal had ruled those contentions had not been disclosed in time, so Koh said Samsung couldn’t use them during opening arguments. The Quinn team asked her to reconsider. Denied.

    I’m not sure if most people understand what the above means.

    1) Apple asked for information in discovery.

    2) Samsung tried to sneak the information in long after discovery had closed.

    3) A Judge (not Koh) disallowed the evidence. The is a SEVERE remedy. The only way a Judge would make such a ruling would be if he thought that Samsung was flaunting the rules and/or if he thought that the very late effort to submit the information prejudiced Apple by not leaving Apple time to prepare. I’m guess it was mostly the former.

    So Samsung is hung on their own petard. They did this to themselves. They disobeyed the Court’s orders - flagrantly disobeyed the Court’s orders - and had their evidence excluded. They can’t really go crying to the press now. It was their own fault.

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 08:34 PM #41

    FalKirk - 01 August 2012 11:19 PM

    So Samsung is hung on their own petard. They did this to themselves. They disobeyed the Court’s orders - flagrantly disobeyed the Court’s orders - and had their evidence excluded. They can’t really go crying to the press now. It was their own fault.

    Unfortunately the fandroids are lapping it up.

    None of them seem to have grasped the the point that you raised elsewhere, Falkirk, that actually this “leaked” information is not very compelling at all. All the press and the fans are seeing is that Samsung’s lawyers have pulled something over Apple’s team (which they insist includes a well paid judge) and are ignoring the fact that the information that was leaked was pretty thin.

    Signature

    .

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 01 August 2012 08:34 PM #42

    Mav - 01 August 2012 11:08 PM

    “Responding to a press inquiry”

    Time to call the BS.

    Name of member(s) of the press who asked.  Date(s) of the question(s).  What was the exact question(s).  What was the exact information released. 

    and finally—all discussion the lawyers had regarding the released information in the past 7 days, especially the last 48 hours.

    .....  The judge knows these questions.  Will Judge Koh pull the trigger ?  Or will Apple do it for her ?

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 08:36 PM #43

    Tetra, Dan makes it clear in the Reuters article I linked to above, that although he got the email, he certainly didn’t ask for it.

    Signature

    .

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 01 August 2012 08:44 PM #44

    I dont blame the press or Mac press/websites.  Even if the Mac press was less than ethical, the Samsung team could be sanctioned.

         
  • Posted: 01 August 2012 09:24 PM #45

    John Molloy - 01 August 2012 11:34 PM

    Unfortunately the fandroids are lapping it up.

    There’s simply no point arguing with people who start with the conclusion. Many Android Advocates are arguing that Koh is prejudiced against Android. But:

    - A few months ago, it was Apple that was upset with her decisions;
    - Many felt she was pro-Samsung because she is Korean;
    - She ruled against Apple on the preliminary injunction but an appeals court reversed her decision and ordered to to re-consider the facts based on their, not her, interpretation of the law; and
    - It was ANOTHER Judge, not she, who excluded the Samsung evidence that Samsung is so upset about.

    All of this I’ve gathered without even following the case. Arguing that Koh is biased is just the laziest logical fallacy possible. People think that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is biased.

    Sigh.