42 replies to this topic

[+Mephistopheles]

Samsung angers judge by sending rejected evidence from Apple trial to the media

The Apple vs. Samsung trial was always destined to be a circus, but Samsung's already causing trouble on the first day of testimony: Judge Lucy Koh is furious that the company sent the press rejected evidence after the court overruled repeated attempts to introduce it at trial.

Samsung has been desperate to tell the jury about its F700 phone — which was in development months before the January 2007 introduction of the iPhone — and internal Apple emails that show the company pursuing a "Sony-style" design for the phone. All of this information has been public for days, but Samsung's motions to include it at trial have been denied because the company produced it too late in the discovery process. (For what it's worth, Apple has vociferously denied that the iPhone was inspired by Sony, claiming the mockup was just a fun design exercise based on an existing idea.)

Samsung has already appealed the rulings denying the evidence, but that didn't stop the company's lawyers from trying again today after Apple briefly showed the F700 on a slide during its opening statements. Claiming that Apple had "opened the door" to discussion of the F700, Samsung asked the court to reconsider. That didn't go so well with Judge Koh, who noted that "Samsung has filed like 10 motions for reconsideration," and asked Samsung lead attorney John Quinn to sit back down. At one point in the exchange Quinn told Koh that he was "begging the court," and desperately asked "what's the point in having a trial?" — but Koh simply wasn't buying it. "Don't make me sanction you," she said. "Please."

That woud have been the end of it — except Samsung immediately emailed its rejected slides regarding F700 development and the "Sony-style" prototype to the press with a statement saying "The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design." All Things D and several other outlets ran the slides and the statement, giving new public life to rejected evidence — and eventually Judge Koh found out.

In the words of Verge courtroom reporter Bryan Bishop, Koh was "livid" when she found out about the All Things D story and press release, and demanded to know if Quinn was involved. "I want Mr. Quinn's declaration as to what his role was," said Koh. "I want to know who authorized it." The trial eventually moved on, but Samsung's little gambit may have cost it one more ounce of goodwill from a judge who's clearly unhappy with both sides for failing to settle. Of course, with Samsung's repeated protestations entered into the court record, there's always the chance that the company's team is setting the stage for an appeal should Apple emerge victorious — but we'll have to see how the rest of the trial plays out first.

Source: The Verge

[thealexweb]

The more information about the case that's public the better.

[spacer]

If Apple used a slide of the F700 in its own testimony, I fail to see why Samsung couldn't do the same since it was their own phone. Who cares if it was "too late" in the discovery process? Once Apple used it, it's fair game. This whole thing sounds suspiciously biased.

[Enron]

lol, how did I know it was Lucy Koh before I clicked.

[Pygmy_Hippo]

To be honest I can understand why the iJudge doesn't want this information to get out - she's hardly been impartial in all of this

[M_Lyons10]

thealexweb, on 01 August 2012 - 11:13, said:

The more information about the case that's public the better.

Agreed. I think it's going to bring some light to a crooked judge to be quite honest. I have never seen a case where a judge was so preferential towards a particular side. She made up her mind before she even saw a bit of evidence.

spacer, on 01 August 2012 - 11:29, said:

If Apple used a slide of the F700 in its own testimony, I fail to see why Samsung couldn't do the same since it was their own phone. Who cares if it was "too late" in the discovery process? Once Apple used it, it's fair game. This whole thing sounds suspiciously biased.

I agree entirely.

[Boz]

spacer, on 01 August 2012 - 11:29, said:

If Apple used a slide of the F700 in its own testimony, I fail to see why Samsung couldn't do the same since it was their own phone. Who cares if it was "too late" in the discovery process? Once Apple used it, it's fair game. This whole thing sounds suspiciously biased.

It absolutely is. Not only that, but she allowed new evidence to be introduced in Apple's case when the witness took the stand and showed a ton of photos.

And btw, the reason she is all upset is because the public will see she's a paid/corrupt judge who works for the interest of Apple (hint: she worked for a law firm representing Apple before she was a judge - the law firm was Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Palo Alto) and has huge personal benefits for enforcing patent system as it is because she gains to profit from it as she is a patent lawyer too.

Quote

From 2002 until 2008, Koh worked as a litigation partner representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters

Not to mention that she herself denied Samsung when they requested secrecy in evidence, so I don't know what the hell is she raging about. Here read for yourself:

Quote

In an order handed down late Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh rejected requests from Apple and Samsung to keep sensitive company data from being released to the public saying that both companies "overdesignated" what documents should be kept confidential.

http://forums.applei...-in-patent-suit

So she basically told them.. ah no.. you can't keep this info confidential and it has to be public and now when the information is public and is actually DISMISSED as evidence she gets into a hissy fit.

She'll do everything she can for Apple to win.. just watch.

Denying Samsung a crucial evidence that completely destroys Apple's argument even if it's late is unacceptable and basically shows that she's absolutely biased.

She should have recused herself from this case considering how many connection she has with this whole case, the participants (like Apple) and what the lawsuit is about.

[iwod]

She does have the right though. The evidence was deemed inadmissible, therefore the jury shouldn’t be able to see it. Samsung sent its evidence to the press knowing that they’d publish it and knowing that the jurors were likely to see that evidence that the judge felt they couldn’t see because it was submitted too late.
The judge wasn’t trying to stop anyone knowing her descision. She was likely upset that Samsung was trying to have the jurors see evidence that they weren’t allowed to see an therefore potentially influencing their judgement. That is what isn’t on.

It is one thing the press found out and release. It is another thing that Samsung release it themself.
Fine, post the case publish the material but not during the case.

Oh and BTW, if those above comment were true about its Judge and Law System, it would make Amercia no less evil then any other place on earth.

[Boz]

iwod, on 01 August 2012 - 12:08, said:

She does have the right though. The evidence was deemed inadmissible, therefore the jury shouldn’t be able to see it. Samsung sent its evidence to the press knowing that they’d publish it and knowing that the jurors were likely to see that evidence that the judge felt they couldn’t see because it was submitted too late.
The judge wasn’t trying to stop anyone knowing her descision. She was likely upset that Samsung was trying to have the jurors see evidence that they weren’t allowed to see an therefore potentially influencing their judgement. That is what isn’t on.

It is one thing the press found out and release. It is another thing that Samsung release it themself.
Fine, post the case publish the material but not during the case.

First of all she dismissed evidence that is so huge in importance that to say it's inadmissible is ridiculous especially since she allows Apple to show some nonsensical evidence when they bring out witnesses. So there's something smelling bad here. It's like saying "hey a DNA match in a murder case proving the guy didn't do it is not admissible because it's late".

Second, SHE HERSELF rejected when Samsung and Apple requested that information presented as evidence stays confidential and out of the public eye. So which is it?! You either make it confidential and prevent public from seeing it or you deny it like she did and then Samsung can do whatever they want.

Third, since the information was not admitted as evidence, Samsung can do whatever they want with it, it's not going to be introduced in the trial. If she wanted jury to be uninfluenced by media she should have sequestered the jury.


No.. she was upset because when everyone sees what she refused to allow as evidence will show her as a corrupt and biased judge which she is.

[HawkMan]

No she dismissed evidence because it's irrelevant to the case since that phone doesn't exhibit ANY of the specific design patents Apple is suing for except the round corners. and Apple isn't suing them because their phone is using "one" of the design elements, but because they use practically all of the design elements. Samsung is free to make all their future phones look exactly like that F700. with round corners, fat phone, really huge side bezels outisde the screen, different height of the bezel on top and below the screen, and square home button.

[Boz]

HawkMan, on 01 August 2012 - 12:58, said:

No she dismissed evidence because it's irrelevant to the case since that phone doesn't exhibit ANY of the specific design patents Apple is suing for except the round corners. and Apple isn't suing them because their phone is using "one" of the design elements, but because they use practically all of the design elements. Samsung is free to make all their future phones look exactly like that F700. with round corners, fat phone, really huge side bezels outisde the screen, different height of the bezel on top and below the screen, and square home button.

This says it all. Apple at worst ripped off Samsung and at best proves that Samsung had similar design in phones before iPhone. So Apple's claims that the design of a phone with a button and rounded corners and full screen and icons is their invention is completely detached from reality.

Samsung had more then 10 prototypes they designed before iPhone that clearly show where the design was going. End of.

And yes.. it's not about thickness of the phone.. it's EXACTLY about what is shown on this picture and the one that is dismissed by that corrupt judge that clearly shows Apple was certainly not unique in building a UI that is based on icons like that. Those are major things why Apple is suing. I suggest you read the actual things they are suing about before you place your "opinion" like you did with "nobody uses a front-facing camera"

[jon.01]

How is this woman not barred yet????

[BajiRav]

Boz, on 01 August 2012 - 12:12, said:

First of all she dismissed evidence that is so huge in importance that to say it's inadmissible is ridiculous especially since she allows Apple to show some nonsensical evidence when they bring out witnesses. So there's something smelling bad here. It's like saying "hey a DNA match in a murder case proving the guy didn't do it is not admissible because it's late".

Second, SHE HERSELF rejected when Samsung and Apple requested that information presented as evidence stays confidential and out of the public eye. So which is it?! You either make it confidential and prevent public from seeing it or you deny it like she did and then Samsung can do whatever they want.

Third, since the information was not admitted as evidence, Samsung can do whatever they want with it, it's not going to be introduced in the trial. If she wanted jury to be uninfluenced by media she should have sequestered the jury.


No.. she was upset because when everyone sees what she refused to allow as evidence will show her as a corrupt and biased judge which she is.

I don't know why the judge doesn't allow it now but IF this was so important, what the **** was Samsung doing during discovery process or whenever they were allowed to submit evidence?

[simplezz]

Samsung should just throw in the case here and appeal it and try and get a different judge. Clearly Lucy Koh has been prejudiced against Samsung from the beginning.

[nik louch]

You can taste the biased BS in the air!