writing this as a screenplay ?
Samsung has enraged the US judge overseeing its patent battle with Apple by leaking to reporters evidence she had previously banned from court. The South Korean electronics monster is hoping to persuade a jury that it did not rip off Apple's designs for its own smartphones. It kicked off the first day of arguments in the trial …
Here's Steve Jobs explaining how "Good artists copy, great artists steal": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU - he proudly announces he has "shamelessly stolen great ideas".
Clearly this too would be banned by this judge in America as it too, whilst being of direct relevance to the case, helps Samsung.
The Samsung guy was right to ask "why bother with a trial", but should have added "in the US".
The judge hasn't said it's not evidence, but that they're not allowed to use the evidence. In this case (according to the article) that's because they submitted the evidence too late in the discovery process. Which would mean that they didn't give Apple enough notice that they were going to use it, so Apple would have time to prepare counter-arguments.
I'm wondering if the judge is not pissed because she knew it was evidence because Apple used it in their properly submitted evidence. She had to reject it as Samsung introduced evidence because they submitted it too late and they shouldn't have kept bugging her to admit it when Apple already had it.
Then again( and not being a lawyer or even close) Samsung would have to wait until Apple brought it up in court before they could use it and if they didn't then so too Samsung could not use it.
One would have thought that the first thing Samsung would have done was to find all their phones and other manufacturers phones which used the "bar type" format having a large screen.
Redneck 'Merking here.
First, only the defendant is required to be appraised of the prosecutor's arguments so as to prepare a defense against them.
Second, since Apple introduced the excluded evidence as part of their presentation, defense is permitted rebuttal without having aired said rebuttal previously.
I think were I a foreigner being abused by Judge Koh the way Samsung is, I'd work hard to embarrass the hell out of her too.
This is a CIVIL case. So while Samsung is still the Defendant, Apple in this case is the PLAINTIFF. And in a civil case, it's not unheard-of for the Defendant to COUNTERSUE the Plaintiff if they feel the plaintiff is in the wrong. Therefore, in a civil case, the standards of evidence are more even than in a criminal hearing. BOTH sides can present evidence and BOTH sides need time to examine the other's evidence and prepare arguments against it.
The judge could easily have granted Apple an extension to address "new discovery." It's SOP in US courts and if you followed the SCO/IBM battle on Groklaw it took years of extensions and and ultimately the extinction of SCO to settle that more or less. The judge's motives for not doing so are very unclear, but one is left wondering how many Apple shares she owns. Of course she may just be a stickler for the rules and don't like changing time lines for trials, especially if she has a vacation scheduled. She has however put on a very biased-appearing show so far.
Given the gamesmanship and skullduggery many companies and individuals play when they have deep enough pockets, why ban later entry of evidence? When judges do that, they sometimes commit innocent people to excess burden or costly end-run battles and appeals and even sentencing or actual incarceration. And, sometimes the guilty go free. As long as the parties are not spinnng or conjuring then factual event info should be allowed and then debunked or vindicated.
evidence has to meet certain legal criteria, and once denied, is not suitable for further court discussions. Samsung not pulling out the folder until after evidentiary hearings are concluded means they goofed big.
second goof is to deny orders of the court, and on that, a judge is absolutely top dog in the universe. if something is denied as evidence, you can't turn around and wave it in front of the cameras saying the judge was an idiot. this is contempt of court. remedies can include jailing responsible parties until the trial ends or until the judge's term ends (depends on the legal severity of the case), dismissal, or a bench ruling for the other side.
in other words, Samsung's media genius could get them out of the smartphone business in the US. and it could be used as a factor in other international trade commission cases.
look for a flurry of firings in traditional Korean style... .
I think that the obvious bias that the judge has shown towards Apple needs to be investigated. I think the question has to be looked into whether the Judge accepted money from Apple or has ties to Apple. If the investigation shows that Koh was impartial, it would go a long way to convincing me that she was unbiased in her work. If she is innocent, she has nothing to fear.
Appears she used to work for the company that handled IP issues for Apple in the past. There's been a few links to her previous work before, and it does seem odd that she's got prior experience with the company here. To be seen as unbiased, it's odd she didn't excuse herself from the start, as time and time again she appears to be favouring Apple.
Ohhhh isn't this the good old US and A, where the best (???) of the corporate legal teams, say for the likes of Monsanto, the meat industry, the drug / pharmacuitical industries, etc., etc., etc.. - wheedle and knnive and then get themselves appointed as judges and government administrators, that oddly enough make determinations in favour of the alledged "wronged parties" - which they also just happened to have worked for a few years ago?
The more I hear about Apple and their scumbag bullshit - the more I want to grab their legal teams, drag them across their own desks, and then shove their fucking Iphones up their own arses.....
"Here - represent this! - now for the Ipad!"
I'm sorry, but is the definition of "bias" in your comment that you feel the judge is ruling too often in Apple's favor for your taste?
Following Rules of Evidence is hardly sufficient reason to question a judge's impartiality, especially to the extent of investigating her for taking bribes.
Otherwise a judge's partiality could be questioned almost every time he or she made a ruling for one side or the other. Accusing a judge of impartiality on that basis would be laughable.
But so is stating "obvious bias" and questioning Judge Koh's partiality based on....what? You don't seem to have given any reason for your statement, or provided any proof of "bias", obvious or otherwise.
Your comment, to me, is instead a scary example of why the innocent often have a LOT to fear...from people like you, who believe they should be "investigated" on the basis of nothing more than, perhaps, disagreement with their ruling, or even with the law itself.
Scary because you wrote as if one of the most important concepts underlying U.S., U.K. and many other countries' jurisprudence doesn't even exist. Or did you simply forget even a judge is: "Innocent until proven guilty"?
Provide some evidence yourself, or withdraw your baseless, faceless accusation Anonymous Coward!
And next time at least have the courage to speak up under your own name!!
LOL - OK, you have a point there.
The "speak up under your own name" part was meant as more cartoonish than anything. But you're right, it came across angry. My apologies. I withdraw the comment as overly snitty and pompous. Let me try again, as more of an adult:
I do think it's going too far to suggest Judge Koh be investigated for, or even suspected of, taking money from Apple. There is nothing I can see, no facts or incidents to support, the suspicion of bribery.
I don't see how excluding Samsung's evidence shows anything except their attorneys made a bad mistake. I also haven't read anything explaining WHY they screwed up getting the Sony evidence in on time.
Unless someone can show Judge Koh admitted evidence from Apple that was also submitted late, her decision looks like strict adherence to rules of evidence, not bias. (Of course, the expectation is she will be equally strict about all evidence, and all rulings.)
As far as "innocent until proven guilty" - that's a comment I'd make about thousands of on-line discussions. It does scare me how many people seem to believe it should be the other way around. (Yes, even corporations...though I admit it's hard not to think of them as guilty of something most of the time.)
p.s. What's wrong with Cordwainer 1? :-(
LOL - OK, you have a point there. The "Have the courage..." was intended as more cartoonish, but the whole thing came across as a rant. I apologize and withdraw the comment as overlly snitty and pompous. May I try again?
I really do think (sorry) it's ridiculous to suggest, Judge Koh should be investigated for, or suspected of, taking money from Apple. There are no facts, no evidence to support an accusation of bribery.
Yes, it does frighten me how many online discussions seem to sneer at the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." It's disturbing how prevalent assumption of guilt is - demands the "obviously" guilty be punished immediately, no need for a trial - you can SEE they're guilty! Um, yeah, I think that's a little scary.
So I also can't agree there's "obvious" bias based solely on commenters saying the judge "seems" biased. It would be nice if they included examples, because I haven't seen any evident bias in this case yet.
What I do see is Samsung made some bad mistakes. Not submitting the Sony evidence on time is just one. Ruling that evidence inadmissible was not "bias", but adherence to rules of evidence (unless you can show Apple also submitted evidence late that was admitted). Going public can only come back to bite Samsung; e.g., if they lose and file an appeal, they've tainted any future jury-selection nicely.
Though I will admit, it's hard not to assume all corporations "bend" the law when convenient, including Apple.
p.s. What's wrong with Cordwainer 1 :-(
I understand why it's not allowed as evidence, but I'm with the OP. If this has now been specifically excluded as evidence in the trial, why can't Samsung talk about it outside the trial?
If Samsung is trying to paint the image of a trial unfairly stacked against them, this kind of reaction from Apple and Judge Koh is actually helping them.
It can't be contempt the slides are NOT evidence in the case, The judge made this clear.
If anything its embarrassing for the judge which may be deserved if she is refusing late evidence in a Multi Billion Dollar trial because she wants to, Sometimes the stakes are higher than the judges whim.
What the jury do is up to them, usually the judge will instruct them what to avoid during the trial.
She's made bizarre, seemingly incompetent judgements all favouring the same plaintiff, maybe it's the way the US legal system works but most judgements she'd made would be laughed away in the EU for starters and likely many other countries.
Outside the US she definitely appears openly biased.
Even inside the US she looks biased and the sole obvious reason for Apple's suit is that the Galxies are nicer designs, not copies. I suspect that she's seriously considering contempt of court charges, but as far as making the slides public goes, she pretty well opened the door by denying them as evidence. Civil cases are somewhat like basketball where a player will deliberately commit a foul in order to change the time flow in a game. She should have allowed the evidence and provided time for Apple to respond. In fact however, Apple already HAS responded publicly and well before this, so again looks like judge bias. Were I lawyering for Samsung I would be looking very closely at Lucy Koh in every legal means checking history, finances, college, relationships, everything that could explain the apparent bias and if possible provide grounds for asking that she recuse herself.
That's why idiots like you aren't judges. It is evidence. That's why she excluded their evidence. You can't rig things in your favour by submitting something at the last minute. But given how samsung can't hold onto emails then maybe paying fair isn't their top priority so we're fortunate to have a fair and honest judge.
Friday. Sammy objected to Koh's apparent bias in jury instructions. Sammy drew the court's attention to the fact that Apple had not saved emails until (I forget when) which was long, long after they sent their first silly letter to Sammy. So the take now is that both parties have failed to preserve email evidence. In fact, given that Apple instigated the action, you could say their destruction is weightier. However Koh has put a different spin on it. now, the jury is instructed that both parties have fouled.
It was contempt because it was used as a way to try to get excluded evidence to the jury.
Samsung COULD have used the exclusion as part of any appeal, but releasing their evidence and case like this is likely to pollute any future retrial so it looks more and more like an act of desperation. Bad move Samsung.
Both sides have to submit the evidence they're going to use in advance. This is supposed to give each side a fair chance, because they know what evidence is being used, even if they don't know what arguments will be made with it.
Therefore you're not allowed to introduce new evidence in a dramatic courtroom surprise (like they often do on TV). Otherwise you'd hide your best evidence and there'd be no way for the opposition to counteract your argument. Even if they could disprove it easily, if only they had the time to dig out the incriminating emails...
So the kindest interpretation is that Samsung have been a bit slow to put together all the stuff they needed for the case to submit to discovery, maybe Apple handed over some documents at the last minute, or they made an error? In which case tough luck, rules is rules.
In the worst interpretation, Samsung deliberately tried to screw over Apple, by not revealing vital documents they should have done. Then compounded that by releasing them to the press, after several attempts to get teh judge to admit them had failed.
I usually tend towards cock-up rather than conspiracy, until strong suggestions otherwise. But the judge may be less forgiving, particularly as they've seriously pissed her off by doing this.
Nope, in US civil cases the judge has a lot of freedom to ignore many rules and it appears to be normal to do so. Koh had the option of allowing the late submission, albeit with a possibility of creating delay if Apple fought hard enough. She chose not to, continuing the pattern of favouring Apple.
Didn't judge Koh dismiss a whole bunch of Apple's case earlier, until forced to accept it by a higher court? That doesn't sound like favouring Apple completely.
I'm sure a way could have been found to submit late evidence. If the judge isn't allowing it, that's either because she's biased, she's made a mistake, or she thinks Samsung are trying to pull a fast one. I'm not following the case, so I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other. I'm not qualified to anyway...
They're arguing that the release of this evidence to the press is an attempt to sway the jury.
But I thought that while serving jury duty you weren't allowed to read papers / external news sources regarding the case? I may be wrong here though, my experience of this is limited to Law and Order.
Also on that note, i really am surprised that Samsung haven't requested a new judge to replace Koh, denying evidence? Isn't the whole case about evidence? I mean who cares if it's a little late, proof is proof is proof. Can't help think it'd be different if it were apple trying to throw in evidence last minute.
"Proof is proof is proof"
And rules are rules are rules. Samsung's lawyers have no excuse for not knowing them, and given how long this has been going on they've no excuse for not having all their evidence prepped in time. Squealing "it's not fair" is a bit feeble given the moolah they're no-doubt hoovering up from their client.
It's not evidence if you don't give the other side enough time to respond to it or possibly even produce counter-evidence - which is likely why Samsung left this one until so late.
Judge Koh is only upholding the basic rules of any sound legal system. It's Samsung who's playing dirty tricks here - and not the first time either (last I heard they had 'inadvertently' deleted some of their e-mails)
By "inadvertedly", you mean, automatically deleted as part of their standard practices for all emails.
But yes, obviously as soon as someone claims they invented the rectangle, Samsung should have to waste time and money saving every email for this farce of a trial. For some reason, Apple never have to go through this.
When ANY company gets sued for ANY reason they are under a legal obligation to ensure that no evidence gets destroyed. Samsung's response, knowing that their email system automatically deleted emails after two weeks, was to send out an email saying "please save your emails somewhere safe" but then not to check that this was being done.
Why did they not simply turn off auto deletion?
Why don't they keep a tape archive of old mails?
Both pretty basic and standard methods of not getting themselves into that position.
What the press IS allowed to report is the proceedings of the court, what each side said and what was ruled in or out. They have to be careful with any opinions they offer on those rulings though. The press can report that the judge ruled the F700 evidence as not admissible, but not that either side is guilty before the jury has made that decision.
Samsung aren't the only side to have requests ruled against them BTW, there's a long list of requests from both sides that have been rejected.
I'm not commenting about how the law works - evidently the law does allow trials to be held over who invented rectangles, and for devices to be banned in the meantime. That doesn't mean we have to like it, or that the system isn't worthy of criticism and ridicule.
If the system is that one company can claim they thought of rectangular devices with round corners first (a dubious claim anyway given earlier devices on the market, and even if it was true, something that shouldn't be patentable anyway), and then the other company has to waste time and money on legal fees and red tape and employee training costs, rather than spending money on innovating, then yes, I find that rather sad.
All big companies retain in-house lawyers for precisely this reason. It's a cost of doing business. Apple are constantly being sued for one reason or another (Samsung are sueing them at the moment if you hadn't noticed) and its something that they expect and budget for. How do you think Samsung would feel if they couldn't sue other companies who used their patents for free because that would reduce the amount of innovation that said company could engage in?
You really have to get past this simplistic idea that "Apple patented a rectangle". It's about as true and accurate as saying that Samsung invented the TV set. Apple patented a very specific design, one that most companies (even Samsung, when they put their mind to it) can avoid infringing without much trouble.
Samsung evidently don't have an in-house policy of keeping emails permanently.
I'm not saying no one should be allowed to sue anyone. I'm saying that, aside from this case being barmy from the outset, it's also sad Samsung's time and money has to be wasted like this.
You are a perfect example of someone who's been prejudiced by the years of media coverage of Apple, thus proving a fair trial isn't possible. Despite being shown factual evidence of countless phones that have used rectangles, rounded corners, full size touchscreens, any number of buttons, you still believe "Apple did it first", despite them being late to the party in 2007.
What is this "very specific design" you refer to?
There is a legal requirement for a company to keep documents for a defined period (the period varies based on country and field) but it's typically 7-10 years. Computer storage is cheap (even server based SAN storage costs only a few tens of $ per gigabyte per year) so you have to start out by wondering WHY they would delete the emails after only 2 weeks to start with.
I have no problems with Samsung competing and producing their own designs (I've bought some of their kit in the past, I may again in the future). What you seem blind to is just how far they went to make their phones and pads look and behave like Apple devices. Stock Android (which I've used) lacks many of the features that Apple are sueing them for or behaves significantly differently. TouchWiz went out of its way to accomplish this (even to the point of removing reflow from the web browser).
As for specific designs, it's all there in the design patents (it's not my fault if you can't read or understand design drawings). The judge will use those in combination with copies of the real devices to decide if Samsung's devices are copies or not.
I suspect not actually, but you really shouldn't make such stark and abusive comments without trying to check some of the details first.
The argument, as most, has two sides. I suggest reading them both.
Specifically Samsungs response and counterclaim to the complaint that they deleted emails which notes that actually, Apple has deleted even more emails than Samsung, for longer than Samsung, and in fact AFTER Apple chose to start the lawsuit.
Samsung may have an argument, founded or not, that they did not anticipate legal action prior to it being started. It's a bit hard to give Apple credit for a similar an argument.
It really, really, really is, all incredibly silly.
Subtly seems to be a problem for fandroids so I find it best to perform the written equivalent of hitting them over the head with a brick. Mr "." in particular has a habit of making outrageous claims, ignoring proofs to the contrary and then repeating the same or only slightly different claim at a later date.
It would appear that you fit in with their number nicely as once again the truth is rather more subtle than you're trying to make out. Samsung tried to infer deletion because of the small number of emails provided in discovery dated between the meeting at which Apple threatened to sue and when they filed formal notice that evidence was to be preserved.
Since discovery only requires relevant emails (you don't need to provide those on other, unrelated subjects) and Apple had not yet started formal proceedings it's hardly unlikely that there weren't many mails as many of the Apple employees that Samsung talked about where working on later designs by that point. After the formal decision to sue there will have however been much more email traffic about the case, which was seen in a large increase in the number of emails.
As Samsung had only supposition and no actual evidence the claim was thrown out.
What got Samsung into trouble however was as follows:-
1) They had been in legal trouble 8 years prior for the same system. They still hadn't fixed it.
2) Their legal consul sent an email out to only 28 people following that meeting warning them to save emails. That number was increased to over 2000 following formal notice from Apple.
3) They didn't bother to check that people were following the policy.
It's this lack of care rather than the lack of emails that got them in trouble.
I suspect any email policy is more to do with work processes than lack of space (e.g., avoiding people being bogged down with endless emails). Yes, I'd probably argue against such a system on the whole, but how a company chooses to operate is not up for us to question.
Having seen vanilla Android and TouchWiz, I don't see the latter as looking like IOS - does IOS even have homescreens yet, or are you still left with the poor solution of selecting from millions of rows of icons?
A few similarities doesn't mean an attempt to mislead consumers, and it's no different to the way that Apple introduce features that were first in other products (which they've done for large numbers of things in their phones).
Once again, the Apple fan labels other companies as "copying" for anything that Apple did earlier (even if they weren't first), yet ignores Apple for doing the same.
I can read (why is it that you can't debate without throwing insults all the time? You seem to be angry over this case), and I think this case and the claims are barmy. If you claim my understanding is incorrect, it's up to you to explain why - so far, you haven't.
I'm not sure an email is a document. I've sent many over the years discussing plans , brain-storming ideas etc which were never pursued. There is also a big heap of other interface work in progress. My company carried a document store for anything official since it is central and the contents can be accessed by anybody with priviledges. An email is little different to a letter or conversation.
Ok, make it look like a cane toad, should sell heaps. The problem is, as the UK judge managed to fathom, rectangles are not cane toads. There is no law preventing anybody from making a phone. The laws of reality say it has to conform to some norms of utility and fashion. Judge 1 rectangular cornering lawyers 0.
"Samsung's response, knowing that their email system automatically deleted emails after two weeks, was to send out an email saying "please save your emails somewhere safe" but then not to check that this was being done."
What business automatically deletes emails after two weeks? Forgetting the evidence trail for a moment, what about more fundamental business needs like disaster recovery? Depending on the user concerned, there could be business leads; contracts; communications for other cases; and more, all flushed away after two weeks.
Heck, I remember one senior manager from an old company resurrecting an email over nine YEARS old, asking if we had any relevant information he could follow up on.
Strikes me as weird that a company deletes stuff after two weeks. What have they got? A 2Mb limit on their Outlook mailbox?
Colour me puzzled.
What business automatically deletes emails after two weeks?
Forget about disaster recovery, what about meetings that are booked more than 2 weeks ahead?
What about the minutes of those meetings that occur more than 2 weeks apart?
What about people who go on vacation for the US standard 2 weeks?
The law is that they need to start saving from the point that it is “reasonably foreseeable” that they will be sued. Apple meeting with you with the threat that unless an agreement can be reached seems like its reasonably foreseeable. Samsung's own consul thought so.
"Why did they not simply turn off auto deletion?
Why don't they keep a tape archive of old mails?"
WHY are you not asking the same questions of Apple?
Apple deleted scores of emails as well that were relevant to this case - the judge said so herself in her instructions to the jury.
You just perfectly made the OP's point that Apple are getting less criticism than Samsung regardless of Apple's actions!
The judge attempted to rule that Samsung failed to preserve emails not when actually sued, but much earlier... when Apple made a presentation to them alleging infringement.
And even Apple, who was in a position to know they intended to sue, failed to issue 'protect your emails' order until much later.
So Samsung is 'guilty of spoilation' for not immediately assuming Apple intended to sue and Apple doesn't have the same duty? I don't think so.
"But I thought that while serving jury duty you weren't allowed to read papers / external news sources regarding the case?"
I think so, but since people do, if only by accident, a newspaper that reports what -it- thinks about a criminal trial can be found in contempt of court.
This time it looks more like Samsung shooting themselves in the foot.
True, but the problem is that by that argument, the media shouldn't be reporting anything else with respect to Apple or Samsung phones either. But I don't see them pausing on all the hype that Apple continues to receive.
The problem is that the issue of "smartphones from major multinationals", one of whom being the number one company (not Apple), is a far bigger issue than one single specific criminal event. Given the fanaticism over companies, especially Apple, it seems an impossible task to prevent any risk of jury prejudice over Apple versus Samsung, not to mention that such damage is already long done before the trial starts. Compared with most criminal trials, where this isn't an issue. This is particularly a problem given the prevalent "Apple did it first" myths, that are specifically relevant to this trial. (Not to mention that talking about this trial as if it were a criminal trial, not some company claiming it invented rectangles with rounded corners, is a bit mad imo...)
If risk of jury corruption is an issue, then this trial should be thrown out on the grounds that a fair trial is already impossible.
Well said, Mark. Apple gets such uncritical coverage by tech reporters, bloggers and the media in general that many people who don't follow closely could easily be of the opinion that Apple invented pretty much every aspect of the modern smartphone. Samsung is prevented from nobbling a jury which may well have been pre-nobbled by years of positive spin from Apple fans.
Well hang on - if the jury is capable of listening without prejudice, why is it a problem for Samsung to publish material that won't be admitted in court? You can't have it both ways.
No I don't think it should be decided by people commenting here either. It shouldn't be a court case at all, anywhere.
(Actual so-called "fandroids" are very rare. Most the time it's people just fed up of the Apple hype all the time. Indeed it's funny you assume that if people don't support Apple, they must favour Android - a typical tactic to pretend they only have one competitor, to make Apple seem like a 50/50 choice. Personally I like other platforms too, be it Symbian, Windows or Linux.)
Juries can still be inadvertently tampered. Hallways, courtrooms, and sequestrations are not completely soundproof, and when big news hits, people will tend to gossip about it. The end result? Samsung dropps a bombshell on the media, it gets plastered on all the night newscasts, people hear it, the Tweets fly, and there is talk of it EVERYWHERE. Odds are with a media blitz big enough, loose lips will end up in the jury's ear somehow.
Jesus...what a play! But as any fool knows, the law isn't about FAIRNESS, it's about making money for lawyers. I agree with Samsung here (although their legal team must be boobs), but if they forgot to include something fundamdental to their case...
Paris, because she suffered a premature release to the press without her permission.
@Derezed: " their legal team must be boobs), but if they forgot to include something fundamdental"
You seriously believe that lawyers of this calibre forgot to introduce vital evidence? No chance. This is a legal game, and the fact that they're playing it suggests to me that they know they have a poor case. And the judge can see this play for what it is - it won't be the first time she's seen it (and hence the angry response).
No. I seriously believed you'd fall for that plan from the Revenge of the surfboarding killer bikini vampire girls.
About the lawyers just doing their jobs...as a staunch reader of Private Eye I can see they are propagating a system where the just lose and the guilty get away with murder. I am not suggesting that lawyers aren't necessary, but they have created a game within a game here...law is not for the people, it's for the sake of law. It works for murderers and thieves (in its limited way), but I don't think it works in the civil sphere (i.e. man versus company). I think most lawyers are blood sucking parasites who add very little to the world. As for their payment, they are already rich when they start training unless they are geniuses...what planet are you living on? Posh kids become lawyers like their fathers before them. A gravy train and a sell propagating system of bullshit.
All I can say is that you pretty clearly don't know any real lawyers, but only "know" them from sensationalist press and TV fiction. Of lawyers that I have known:
One (now deceased) came from a working-class background and "read for the bar" in the 1930s after spending some years studying and clerking in a law office, never having set foot into a law classroom, and had a moderately successful 60-year career in a small practice in New York. (By the way -- none of his children went into law, two are astronomers and one spent his career after getting his doctorate happily teaching science at a small state college in rural Vermont, so your claim about how little lawyers are made is wrong on both ends.)
One has worked all his career in housing law/tenants' rights -- there's no way HE was going to be getting rich.
One had worked his way up in a municipal planning department to become the director of the department and assistant city manager then quit to get his law degree so he could be better at the urban planning that he felt was so important. (As an aside, he helped the employees in the planning department become unionized -- even though he was management -- simply because he believed that it was the best thing for them.)
And, just for completeness, there was the lawyer who represented me when I was hit by a car while in the crosswalk crossing with the light. Worked on spec, but didn't gouge me on the settlement (To be fair though, given the circumstances, I had handed him pretty much a slam-dunk of a case: among the witnesses were a pair of EMTs sitting in their ambulance parked at the end of the block!).
This is not, admittedly, a huge population from which to make a judgement, but it is a pretty random sample -- two I knew socially, having met them from different vectors, one was my boss and one worked for me -- so I suspect that the sample is more representative of what the majority of ACTUAL lawyers are like than your personal experience. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Remember: if something is in the news, it's because it's NEWS, i.e.; NOT the norm.
Lawyers make money because people are litigious. Lawyers did not dream up the Samsung/Apple war: they are the hired guns. I get a little bored with the lawyers-are-sharks' line. Every lawyer I know is honest, competent and conscientious, and aware that they serve a higher justice as well as their clients. Of course there are sleazoids, as there are within every profession, but lawyers are to bloody-minded people as referees are to boxing. They enable these fights to be played by the rights, transparently, in the full view of society. Because it is a specialist skill requiring much learning and experience, they get paid accordingly. I have no trouble with that.
Very likely, both Apple and Samsung know the whole "who's on first?" issue is a wash. I also think that the release of these documents was not necessarily directly in response to the judge's whim but rather to the release by Apple of similar documents that purport to show that they were "first." At the same time, it highlights the Judge's apparent arbitrariness. She might be thinking of the already impaneled jurors, she might have a lot of Apple shares, maybe she bought a crap Samsung TV, she may be a lot of things. She appears biased. I suspect the move is deliberate and that Samsung cannot foresee a victory - fair or otherwise - in Judge Koh's court. So, they are looking ahead to an appeal, where there will be judge's instructing juries on what to ignore.
Sammie have handled that quite badly, but I can't help think they do have a point here. If Apple are claiming the F700 is a rip-off and they've got evidence to the contrary it should be admitted. OK, so the court may need to allow Apple some time to prepare a counter-argument, but it's hardly due process to exclude evidence that may show that an argument being put to the court is false/incorrect.
Given the profile of Apple's (many) cases, and the statements being released regularly by both sides I'd say the Jury's going to have a hard time focusing solely on what they hear in court. Doesn't make Sammie look too good though.
Although she may be livid, I suspect the reality is that as it wasn't admitted as evidence, Sammie probably are free to do what they wish with it to some extent. Personally I'm surprised it hasn't ended up on Slideshare or something!
that if there's new evidence that it should be admissible if it's important enough, and then time extended for the opposition to work out a response, but in practice I can't see it working. Imagine a case where someone knows they have a weak case, but they have lots of shady evidence. So they delay the trial over and over and over again by just proposing new evidence that seems like it might be relevant on the surface, but isn't really. If it's likely that they will end up with the death penalty (not trying to get into an argument about capital punishment) then delaying indefinitely is a bonus for them, but for the legal system, and the associated costs, it's ridiculous.
You could start adding rules about how many they can do, and how relevant each one has to be, but at the end of the day, that system is already in place, and it generally works quite well. If there's evidence that they failed to submit, then they should do so at the appeal, or get their arses in gear and submit it in a timely manner the first time. What they've done is to release something that, while it's in the public domain (sorry, replying to something further down), is probably not something that most jury members would know about, or have actively gone to find out, which some of them may now know of. They ignored the court, and basically stuck two fingers up at it, and for that they deserve to be punished, regardless of how the rest of the case goes. Just because you might like Samsung, or agree with them on this, doesn't make it all right for them to just ignore the legal system and practically spit in its face.
I would have asked for the UK Judge to be admitted as an expert witness just for the fun of watching the Apple legal term's faces.
On this I can't see what the problem is, we have seen it reported here already in the article about the Jony and the pdf in it. So where is the contempt here when all this is already in the public domain and Apple would have read about it before.
Yeah, due to disclosure, Samsung would know that Apple have a slide featuring the F700. So Samsung would know that Apple knew about it. But Samsung can't have a slide featuring the F700 because they haven't submitted it in time for Apple to know about it- which they already do. Or something.
Meanwhile, a big quarter page picture of Jony Ive on the front page of the Telegraph business section today (dead tree edition), saying that Apple aren't motivated by money. Apple are on the press offensive as well, but smart enough not to anger the judge. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9438662/Apple-design-chief-Our-goal-isnt-to-make-money.html
I'm also more interested in making good products than in making money. A difference between me and Apple is that Apple are interested in preventing others from making good products. I don't see how others' success in terms of Product Greatness precludes mine, but I can see how it would affect my ability to make loads of money.
"...Samsung phones from 2006 and then ones from 2010, saying that the key question for the jury was how the South Korean firm's engineers leaped from one to the other"
What did Apple phones look like in 2006?
How did they "leap" from no phones on the market in 2006 to a "new" design of phone in 2007 year let alone a4 year span?
PS I'm not biased, I own neither and want neither. When they get standby life up to a few weeks and talk time to several hours, then get back to me, until then, I'll hold onto my 6310i thanks.
It is legally ok, but not morally.
This case is just a nasty move by Apple just to help sales of its iPhone and hurt the competition. Another reason why I will never buy an Apple product.
US judges tend to side with US companies but who knows how patriotic or fanboy like the jury are.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine "we fucked up horribly and forgot to do our paperwork properly" is not considered good grounds for appeal.
You may be able to appeal if new evidence turns up, but probably not for evidence you had in your pocket all along...
Also this is civil law, and I don't think there's the same kind of checks and balances as there is with criminal law. Private Eye didn't get their libel loss reversed, when it turned out Robert Maxwell was a crook...
Obviously they can appeal on the grounds the judge got the procedure wrong, but they don't have grounds for appeal on 'natural justice'. They're massively paid lawyers, who should get their paperwork right. If they did screw up though, Samsung may be able to win the damages back off their lawyers...
Apple are just pissed off because they didnt have time to photoshop their response...
how did they get the documents to the jury though? or did i miss that?
i also assume they can release whatever press releases they want. i cant see how a judge can say anything about this.
what do samsung expect? a fair trial against a US company? hah, nice one :)
on the other hand they were stupid being so late. i take it when we see in films late on in trials when new evidence turns up its all BS as the judge would refuse it? or is that because new evidence wasnt around at the start of the trial?
@"You seriously believe that lawyers of this calibre forgot to introduce vital evidence? No chance. This is a legal game, and the fact that they're playing it suggests to me that they know they have a poor case. And the judge can see this play for what it is - it won't be the first time she's seen it (and hence the angry response)."
poor case? they showed they invented that design before apple. its pretty much a winner i would have thought... not that this trial isnt pure BS anyway.
I'm confused - it's one thing to try to corrupt a jury, but why should information be *censored* to the public, just because of Apple? Sorry, that's a seriously different matter. It's bad enough we have this farce in the first place, but now Apple wants to twist what's allowed to be published, because it might challenge the RDF version of events?
If the argument is that information in the news might prejudice any jury, then why doesn't that argument apply to the vast amounts of wall-to-wall hype, bias and misinformation in favour of Apple in the press (especially the US)?
Surely by that argument, given the prevalent myth of Apple "inventing" everything to do with smartphones in 2007(!), then it's impossible for Samsung to ever get a fair trial. Any jury is going to be prejudiced against Samsung, since they'll believe that Apple were first with everything, and everyone else "copied". But no, one single piece of information slips that's in favour of Samsung, and that's the thing that upsets the judge? This just shows how impartial this trial isn't.
Don't forget that Samsung are countersueing for patent infringement.
The judge is trying to ensure that the rules of civil law are being followed. If one side makes a late submission of evidence it can only be included with the permission of the other side. Samsung were late to introduce their evidence on the F700 so it's entirely normal that this evidence would be excluded.
Stop trying to throw your teddy out of the pram and wait to see how the case turns out.
Samsung's case is that Apple owes them patent fees. If they win they get those fees plus damages (they are REQUIRED to licence them, the only point they can argue is how much for).
Apples case is that Samsung unfairly coppied their design. If they win they want damages and Samsung to stop.
Samsung's case doesn't require an injunction. Apple's case does (and the judge thinks that they have a strong case), but they have to pay a bond to cover Samsung's losses if they lose.
Both sides decided that they wanted to take their case to trial. They BOTH refused to settle and they are both listed as plaintiffs. Samsung also had the option of having a separate trial for their claims, which they declined.
Samsung's claims having started out as defensive doesn't make them in any way more valid or worthy than those of Apple. It's pretty easy to argue that Apple's case is defensive also.
"Samsung may have put the judge's back up, but it's the jury it has to convince ..."
Taken in combination with the deleted emails, I think there is a real chance that the jury will not matter. Remember, the judge decides on points of law and the jury decide only on points of evidence and then only under the direction of the judge.
I will be surprised if Samsung win now, and I'm not too fussed about that. Having a case is not sufficient. You have to bring that case before a court in the approved manner. Otherwise, how do we really know you have a case? Samsung are a squillion dollar company with no excuses for screwing up on basic points of legal procedure. Beyond a certain point, ineptitude starts to look suspicious.
It must be nice to not be "too fussed" about travesties that allow injustice to harm companies and consumers.
Remember, it is consumers who are the end-targets and victims of Apples legal actions. It is consumers who are denied better products at cheaper prices. It is consumers who are denied the chance to purchase from free markets.
And what would you put in the legal system's place? Arbitration? Decree by President? Chain-saws in the city streets? Our legal system might deliver imperfect justice, but in comparison to the system we could have (check out courts and judges in Belarus or PR China), I'll take ours any day.
"And what would you put in the legal system's place?"
One that works. Specifically, one that does not involve members of the group who make money from prolonging the legal process being in charge of that process. Also, one where precedent is not used to overrule the decisions of the elected legislative bodies even when the precedent is obviously wrong and flies in the face of written law.
Also, one where judges can be sacked for persistent poor performance and repeatedly having their decisions overturned on appeal.
Also, one where the rich are treated equally with the poor.
Also, one where the police are treated equally with the non-police.
Also, one where the punishments are decided on the basis of what actually reduces crimes instead of what gives the editor of the Daily Mail a hard-on.
Also, one where lawyers who present evidence they know is false are tried for perverting the course of justice.
Also, one where lying to obtain money is tried as fraud even if you are in charge of a bank, instead of magically needing "special powers" in order to bring a case.
One where shooting an obviously unarmed, non-threatening person dead while they read their paper on the Tube leads to life-time sentences for the perpetrators instead of promotions.
One where killing people with a car is not regarded as less serious than stealing a few cans of beans from a shop.
One where juries are allowed to ask questions and are able to refuse to hear further testimony from a lawyer who is clearly just running up the bill or obfuscating on purpose.
"One that works. Specifically, one that does not involve members of the group who make money from prolonging the legal process being in charge of that process."
You do realise, don't you, that one of the points of the rule that Judge Koh was enforcing was precisely to prevent unnecessary prolongation of the trial process?
"Also, one where precedent is not used to overrule the decisions of the elected legislative bodies even when the precedent is obviously wrong and flies in the face of written law."
If you don't like precedent, move to a country in mainland Europe like France. They don't use precedent there.
"Also, one where judges can be sacked for persistent poor performance and repeatedly having their decisions overturned on appeal."
This can happen now. But you have to tread very carefully to ensure that judges are not sacked for having reached inconvenient decisions for the state or populus. And in the US, of course, judges are often elected.
"Also, one where the rich are treated equally with the poor.
Also, one where the police are treated equally with the non-police.
Also, one where the punishments are decided on the basis of what actually reduces crimes instead of what gives the editor of the Daily Mail a hard-on."
"Also, one where lawyers who present evidence they know is false are tried for perverting the course of justice."
I've not heard of miscarriages of justice involving this.
"Also, one where lying to obtain money is tried as fraud even if you are in charge of a bank, instead of magically needing "special powers" in order to bring a case."
This is not a shortcoming of the legal system, it's a shortcoming of our political system.
"One where shooting an obviously unarmed, non-threatening person dead while they read their paper on the Tube leads to life-time sentences for the perpetrators instead of promotions.
One where killing people with a car is not regarded as less serious than stealing a few cans of beans from a shop."
"One where juries are allowed to ask questions and are able to refuse to hear further testimony from a lawyer who is clearly just running up the bill or obfuscating on purpose."
There are plenty of downsides to allowing juries to ask questions or refusing to hear evidence. Quis custodiet etc etc
A judge makes a single decision that has the incidental effect of shortening a trial and you want to say that judges don't fight for longer trials?
95%, if Samsung was a US based company the judge would have ruled differently
This judge is doing what many US judges do, implementing xenophobic racism against defendents and respondents who are not US citizens, treating foreigners in a way it would never treat US citizens (and corporations the SOCOTUS declares are US citizens).
The TyTN had a hardware keyboard that slid out - as a result it was a lot fatter. The screen was also slightly recessed so the front surface wasn't flat. It also required the use of a stylus. It ran WinMo 6 / 6.5 IIRC.
T'was an awesome phone for its time though! I loved mine while I had it.
I am confused. Rectangular phones existed before iPhone. What did not exist was a multi-touch phone. Apple should be happy to stop others from making multi-touch phones. Other phones can still be rectangular. It appears that I could have represented Apple better than their million dollar lawyers - they are all caught up in the rectangular debate.
Qoute "The Judge’s exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone. The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence."
That's low of Apple. If Samsung have evidence the F700 was designed before Apple claims it was, then it's unfair not to consider that.
Eactly how do you get from a judges decree on a point of procedure (admissibility or otherwise of a piece of evidence in the specific case) to it being "low of Apple"?
The judge made the decree, not Apple. Samsung failed to lodge on time, and tried to force its inclusion late and the judge wasn't having it. Apple is not in a position to make decrees, that is the judge's domain.
Please try to stop your anti-apple bias from infringing on the small part of your brain that might be able to comprehend the basics of the adversarial court system.
"Koh had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2010. She received some questions from Republican Senator Jeff Sessions regarding her writings in law school where she said that minority judges must maintain the "disguise of objectivity" or face challenges. Sessions expressed concern about what that might mean about her own objectivity on the bench. Koh responded by saying that she'd forgotten that she ever wrote the passage and that "I completely disagree that there is no objectivity. Our rule of law would break down if everyone were to insert their own personal biases."  The Committee voted to forward her nomination to the full Senate on March 4, 2010  and on June 7, 2010 the Senate voted 90 - 0 to confirm Koh as a federal judge."
I all honesty, Samsung had to do this. The judge may be exercising her power, but unless your apple's lawyers, she appears to be unfairly biasing Apple.
I don't give a damn if it was "unethical". She had the power to delay the case for Apple to counter. At this point it looks like she is just being pissy, even though this shit happens all the time.
"Samsung has enraged the US judge overseeing its patent battle with Apple with its leak to reporters of evidence she had previously banned from court."
""I want to know who drafted the press release, who authorised it, who released it and I want a declaration from Mr Quinn [on] what his role was," she said, giving Samsung until 9.00 PDT (17.00 BST) on Wednesday to answer her."
Uhhhh, how/why would El Reg construe a press release as a "leak?" I know I'm probably splitting hairs, but in my vernacular a "leak" is something that is passed through back channels. A press release is hardly a back channel.
I'll also observe that based on the information presented in the article (which of course could be incomplete information) it sounds like this Judge is being a might bit disingenuous - could Apple not be granted additional time to respond to the "new evidence" that Samsung would like to bring forward regarding the F700. It isn't like this is an hour before closing arguments - this is the beginning of the trial AND it very much sounds like the design of the F700 could be right at the heart of the plaintiff's (Crapple) complaints against defendent (Sam'sHung).
This post has been deleted by its author
Like some others said, I am confused as to why Apple products are not banned while the suit Samsung has brought against them is handled? I am an American and generally would stand up for American companies as I would like to see our country/economy bounce back from the disaster the past few years... but that said, I am a believer in fairness.. and thus far I haven't seen much fairness applied to Samsung. I don't have the time to read the pages and pages of documents surrounding the various patents and what they actually mean, but from the few articles regarding all these suits, it seems as if Samsung owns a patent (or patents) that dictate how phones can access the internet.. (is it 3G/4g, wifi, all of the above if anyone knows)? That said.. if Samsung is now suing apple over this, why are apple's devices not banned until the case is resolved... that seems only fair?
This bond that apple had to put up doesn't come close to covering the amount Samsung will lose if they should actually win the case. The Nexus Galaxy is one of the best phones on the market now and being banned not only stops the sales, but tarnishes their reputation which you can't put a dollar amount on.
Many have said our patent system is messed up.. agreed.. it was established LONG before technology came along and it needs a serious overhual which sadly will never happen. The same could be said for our court system.. as many said..if this F700 is identified by apple.. why can't the evidence Samsung tried to admit be used as a counter to that? Not one person can agree that it's fair to Samsung that just because they dug it up late (or are playing some game with it..whatever it may be) that it should be blocked. There is no reason why the trial couldn't be put on hold for a few days or longer if need be to allow Apple time to do something with this evidence. What it sounds like to me is Koh knows it could turn the odds to Samsung's favor and/or Apple knows this and are abusing the obviously bad US court system rules to block it.
This is why you read about all these people being put to death who later are found innocent. Ooops.. you mean there was evidence that could have proven they were innocent.. nope..sorry.. admitted too late.. this dude is going to fry!
It's unbelievable that this sort of thing happens.. where the hell is our morals, our human compassion for being fair, instead of about defeating the other side for money or whatever it may be. I for one would NOT want to win a race if evidence showed up that I broke a rule or cheated or that there was an error in some way that proved I did not win. I would want to win fairly and would gladly give up my win title in the name of fairness. It's the moral and honorable thing to do. Despite this.. I know it's not how companies work.. it's all about money, bottom line, profits, etc.. not fairness.
Have a look at the Ars Technica article and the comments here:
Keep in mind that this is only the lawyers' opening statements. The real scrap hasn't started yet.
From the preliminary complete injunction based on rectangle ownership to denying Samsung the right to present to the Jury proof that the F700's iPhone-like design pre-dated the iPhone by a couple of years, it really seems like she is playing for the Peninsula home team.
Check the history of the case. Judge Koh *refused* to issue an injunction against Samsung until her decision was overruled on appeal. On the whole she has not displayed any bias in the case, IMO, as she is liely aware that every legal professional the land (and many abroad) is following the case and that it is likely the most important in her life and almost certainly fated to be a landmark decision.
"Apple's McElhinny relied on slides showing Samsung phones from 2006 and then ones from 2010, saying that the key question for the jury was how the South Korean firm's engineers leaped from one to the other."
Is it because they are so dramatically different? Take the 1st Gen iMac, then the 2nd Gen and finally the 3rd. Each is totally different from one another. How did Apple "leap" from one to the other? Using Apple "logic", they must have copied.
I thought the whole point was that virtually none of us understand the law?
What we understand is the products, the sector and the broader context, and this allows us to get to the conclusion (Apple's case is idiotic, no novel ideas are at stake here, etc) with much more ease than the legal system (which may yet screw it up to boot).
I understand why a complex system of precedent and procedure is in place to decide if someone should hang for a murder. Figuring out if billionaire company A knocked off "the style" of billionaire company B in a market where physical constraints mean all devices look pretty much the same (and neither of the devices in question looked the least bit novel at release time) could be decided by your average consumer for the cost of a six pack.
That's without touching the no doubt over-complicated legal issue of "since when the hell is style a novel invention that's subject to patent without grossly distorting the well known original intent of the patent system?"
But again, I'm not a legal expert, so I'm sure that I'm just too dim to understand why making a rectangle and then rounding the corners a bit so it doesn't poke my jomblies when it's in my pocket is on par with curing cancer.
Honestly, just the fact that Samsung was banned from selling goods with an extremely short shelf life during the course of the trial - rather than being instructed to pay damages for what was sold during the trial after the fact should they lose - was all the evidence we needed of Koh being horribly biased. This is icing.
"Honestly, just the fact that Samsung was banned from selling goods with an extremely short shelf life during the course of the trial..."
That's one of the reasons why Koh refused permission for Samsung after they failed to produce the documents in a timely manner: because she does not want the trial delayed until the potentially-infringing products under discussion are no longer merchantable.
Apple's opening play was to give a historical comparison of real products with real products. In response, Samsung waits until after the court deadline and then starts talking about their alternative history based upon design sketches -- ideas for products that never existed. Isn't that kind of a distraction from the issue?
This lawsuit is about the design of really-existing product X infringing on the design of really-existing product Y. It seems more than a bit sketchy that Samsung waited until after the deadline for evidence to be submitted and then starts talking about their alternative history of smartphone design.
Question: did Samsung's legal team *deliberately* wait until after the deadline to introduce this evidence, to (a) try and box in Apple's response and, if they got whacked by Judge Koh for this move, then they try to make her look partial to Apple? Think about this kind of move in a game of sports. Somebody kicks the ball after the bell and then says their kick was fantastic. Fair?
Second question: their "evidence" is a bunch of PowerPoint slides. How do we verify the age of a computer file? It's not too difficult to cook up some slides, change the file's creation date, and hey presto! you've got prior art.
Sure the evidence showing the iPhone aesthetic design was not original could be excluded.
However if the judge is permits Apple to commit perjury by arguing the aesthetic design was original, that it outrageous and would criminal, except judges don't convict judges. And that is what the judge would be doing if the judge allowed Apple to argue independent creation after she learned that was not the case.
Lawyers are the ones who get rich, while innovation, consumers and the country suffer -- one click ordering, rectangles, only a lawyer could live in a world so tiny and sheltered, and possess a brain so mundane, as to see such normal things as innovations -- assuming they truly believe the words they utter in court.
Forget "Girls Gone Wild" the real obscenity is "Lawyers Gone Wild," lawyers destroying innovation, industry and the economy like a bunch of London Bankers and Wall St stock promoters, bent on making personal profit regardless of the economic and military down-ranking their personal greed brings upon their nation.
a blatant attempt to copy the iPhone, the design of which is protected by a very detailed design patent for this very reason.
Anyone who cannot reach the unaided conclusion that the Galaxy is indeed Samsung's blatant attempt to capitalise on the success of Apple's product is a fool, and a pretty pathetic one at that.
The only question here, and the reason that the parties are in litigation, is whether Samsung's product technically infringes Apple's registered design patent and whether Apple will be given redress. It is that easy. There are a zillion phones which do not infringe, the manufacturers of which are unsurprisingly not being sued, so it is certainly possible not to infringe Apple's design. Did Samsung infringe? That is for a court to decide, and that is the reason we have the courts.
Samsung's counter-suit is about payment for FRAND patent royalties which Apple has not paid, apparently because Samsung attempted to extort Apple and Apple wasn't having any of it. Moto has attempted the same thing, and both of them are in trouble over this behaviour.
Do I really need to link to side by side pictures of the two products, their accessories and packaging yet again to demonstrate this fact?
The number of people with serious mental defects who demonstrate their defects on this web site through their astoundingly bizarre posts is astonishing. Luckily I do not have to deal with such people on a daily basis, and my almost 30 years in the tech. industry suggests that stupidity is not the defining characteristic of most people within the industry. My experience with lawyers and judges, doubly so. It is really hard to get a law degree, and the lawyers I know are all very very bright people.
My understanding is that it's not just phones that are being compared. It is the way Samsung packaged and presented their phone in a highly similar way to Apple. I think it's called trade dress.
Taken individually, the two phones may be similar in looks, but no infringement. Add in though the presentation and packaging and bingo: lawsuit.