Apple-Samsung Trial

  • Posted: 03 August 2012 04:07 PM #61

    An amusing aside:

    Samsung was trying to get Schiller to say the Infuse 4G looks different than the iPhone, but handed him a different phone.

    I think Schiller corrected him.

    Signature

    .

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 03 August 2012 06:18 PM #62

    Samsung lawyer: 

    We object to any implications that we made money from ANY alleged copying of any Apple product.  Now if you would close your eyes while I photoshop some exhibits.  Judge, you also please.  Please.  Puh-leeze, I beg you.  I am a poor country lawyer.  I need this job.  What can I say that I have not already leaked to the press, truthful or not, that may influence the jury outside the court of law.  Samsung does not need an unbiased jury.  Nay, we need a biased jury.  What’s a few billion dollars among friends.  We are friends, aren’t we ?  Sorry about that leak of info against your wishes only a couple hours after you restricted some of our evidence (some of it fake and/or irrelevant or hearsay or ....).  We need to delay this trial a bit more to make sure the jury hears every lie I can think of.  I am good at lying, trust me.  They will want to hear it.  Juries like lies, just like Facebook.  Forget I said that.  I didn’t mean it.  How many more minutes do I have ?  I need to delay.  Millions of Samsung phones need to be sold to pay for my bills.  I get a contingency fee, did you know ?  And I like kimchee.  Now if you will excuse me, my lawyer is calling.

    Apple lawyer:  This means war.

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2012 06:21 PM #63

    Forstall is my favorite Apple exec:

    He?s asked if he told anyone at Apple to copy from Samsung?s designs. ?I never directed anyone to go and copy something from Samsung. We wanted to build something great?There was no reason to look at anything they had done.?

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 03 August 2012 07:08 PM #64

    Forstall wasn’t really a “star” witness, except to let the jury know about the effort and innovation that went into iPad and iPhone.  Great behind-the-scenes insights.

    Signature

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

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2012 07:22 PM #65

    Agreed, but I burst out laughing at his thinly veiled insult.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 03 August 2012 07:44 PM #66

    Don’t disagree.  And actually it only seems like an insult.  It’s the truth that also happens to be good for laughs. LOL

    Signature

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

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 03 August 2012 08:14 PM #67

    Mav - 03 August 2012 10:08 PM

    Forstall wasn’t really a “star” witness, except to let the jury know about the effort and innovation that went into iPad and iPhone.  Great behind-the-scenes insights.

    Not just effort and innovation, but secrecy. And why would that be paramount in this trial? You only hide secrets your competitors don’t already have. In other words, why would Apple need to hide something from Samsung that they copied from Samsung, or anyone else for that matter? Only something novel needs Fight Club posters hung outside of its office. So secret, only in-house engineers were to be recruited, an even they weren’t allowed to know what Project Purple was.

    The first rule of Project Purple is you don’t talk about Project Purple.

    The purpose of calling Forstall was to put a first impression into the jury’s mind that Apple thought, “OMG, we have invented/designed something awesome that will change the world, and we must go to extreme lengths to keep it top secret until it ships so nobody copies it. Because it is fucking unique.”

    John Molloy - 03 August 2012 01:46 PM

    Latest information is that the Judge has denied Apple’s complaint that Samsung have spoiled the jurors by releasing that information and will not grant Apple’s request for an instant win. (way too opportunistic call on Apple’s lawyer’s front I fear, but they did at least try)

    Samsung are trying to get everyone to believe that they “weren’t trying to mess with the jury”.

    Of course they were trying to mess with the jury; but, even more sinister, as PED points out, Quinn is likely trying for a mistrial, knowing he already screwed up by trying to introduce this evidence too late (after the discovery cut-off date, presumably). This is a purely procedural rule (the evidence was probably admissible if submitted to the court on time). In other words, possible malpractice, and regardless, something that would likely come in if a second trial were to be ordered (because they would obviously submit it on time in a second trial). And no, likely not a winnable issue on appeal. “Get your shit in on time” is a well-settled rule, Perry Mason plot devices notwithstanding. Quinn obviously must think this evidence is pretty goddamned important, considering the risks he is taking.

    [ Edited: 03 August 2012 08:18 PM by JDSoCal ]

    Signature

    We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them. — Steve Jobs, 2007

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 03 August 2012 08:30 PM #68

    Funny how Samsung gets to reference all these Apple internal emails and somehow Samsung destroyed their records.  If the court wanted to be fair, they should disallow Samsung from using the info gathered via email messages, just like Samsung did to Apple.

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2012 08:37 PM #69

    JDSoCal - 03 August 2012 11:14 PM

    Quinn obviously must think this evidence is pretty goddamned important, considering the risks he is taking.

    It’s beginning to sound like posturing actually and yes, it increasingly seems like he is aiming for a mistrial. This afternoon for example he mention to the jury that he was unable to talk about.

    From Howard Mintz blog:

    Samsung atty John Quinn mentions “preliminary injunction,” which the lawyers are barred from mentioning to jury (Koh has issued two against Samsung). She blasts him again. Given all the shots he’s taking, Quinn looks like Wiley Coyote after the Roadrunner gets done with him…you know, when he gets blown up with dynamite…

    and then:

    Koh tells Quinn she thinks his mistake was intentional. Wondering if Samsung is somehow trying to tank this trial to make some sort of trainwreck of a record for the appeals courts….


    Howard Mintz again:

    Apple shows video of Denison deposition where he says Samsung designers told him they had not looked at Apple products in their work. Denison insists he stands by that testimony: no indication that designers of Samsung products “considered or studied” the Apple products. Lee setting him up for something.

    This was after Denison (Samsung’s contact) was asked specifically by Apple’s lawyers did Samsung attempt to look at what Apple was doing. He said no.

    Apple atty running through some internal Samsung reports that take aim at Apple, including one consultant’s report, “Why you should care about Apple,” and another that outlined a strategy for “beating Apple” by the end of 2011

    Apple atty shows Denison internal report on Galaxy S1 v. iPhone in March 10, when Samsung phone in development….exhaustive comparison of each feature…copying? Denison denies it’s copying.

    Jon Fortt then tweeted the following:

    “Wow. Latest Samsung documents suggest they looked at Apple UI and borrowed elements”

    It’s all very interesting. I just hope the jury understand.

    Signature

    .

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2012 08:41 PM #70

    It really is fascinating…but you are right…I just hope the jury understands and is taking it all in.  Several are engineers - at least that is what I understood - so you would think it is a bright bunch..but we will see.

    Signature

    Keep Calm and Carry On

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 03 August 2012 08:41 PM #71

    Don’t think Apple’s legal team won’t make mention of that at some point.  We played ball - they hid it.

    Yes, this is Connie “Liver Watch” Guglielmo of Bloomberg (of that infamous trio of reporters), but she _is_ providing a very complete reporting of the trial. 

    Coverage of today’s proceedings:  http://blogs.forbes.com/connieguglielmo/

    Signature

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

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2012 08:56 PM #72

    Do any of you lawyer guys understand why Apple keeps playing the customer confusion card?  That is, that customers mistakenly buy Samsung devices.  Or is this just poor reporting, and the real issue is that customers knowingly buy Samsung because they are “close enough”?  I can’t see this customer confusion argument working, if that is really what is being said.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 03 August 2012 09:25 PM #73

    Lstream - 03 August 2012 11:56 PM

    Do any of you lawyer guys understand why Apple keeps playing the customer confusion card?  That is, that customers mistakenly buy Samsung devices.  Or is this just poor reporting, and the real issue is that customers knowingly buy Samsung because they are “close enough”?  I can’t see this customer confusion argument working, if that is really what is being said.

    Kinda complicated how patent and trademark work together here, but suffice it to say, customer confusion is an essential element of trade dress and design patent causes of action. Not just, “Oh, I thought I was buying iPhone,” but “might as well buy a Samsung, it’s the same as an iPhone.” Like a replica Ferrari kit hurting the sale of real Ferraris. It’s meant to protect the manufacturer, not just the customer.

    Confusion is more than just a tactical argument - it’s an essential element that must be proven.

    Signature

    We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them. — Steve Jobs, 2007

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 03 August 2012 09:34 PM #74

    Thanks, John.  Gotta laugh at that “another slip of the tongue” deal.  Quinn’s legal strategy is ridiculous, and the fact that Koh is wondering out loud for all to hear about his possible trial sabotage will make it highly unlikely that any appeals court will cut Quinn any more slack than Koh already is.  She’s actively trying to defend the integrity of the trial - and I can’t wait to see what happens when Quinn inevitably _tries_ to call for a mistrial.  I wouldn’t put anything past that guy now.

    Signature

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

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 03 August 2012 09:44 PM #75

    Mintz also providing great coverage of the trial.  Link for reference: http://www.siliconvalley.com/apple-vs-samsung

    Signature

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