back to article Will Samsung's patent court doc leak backfire spectacularly?

Samsung's decision to leak evidence banned from court could hand Apple an automatic win in the warring tech titans' patent trial. The South Korean giant had prepared slides to potentially prove its rival was wrong to claim Samsung had copied the iPhone design - but after the judge barred the evidence from being put before the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    I will be the first to admit that....

    What i know about patent las could be written on the back of a stamp with a bingo marker, but is anyone else just sick to death of the massive waste of money and time this farce seems to be....

    Just get on with it or throw it out and let the designers design....

    Once again, the only real benificaries are the lawyers.....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I will be the first to admit that....

      Yes, the jury should decide that both sides should lose, and pay three times their own lawyers fees in damages (not to the other side, but to the state)

      1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

        Re: I will be the first to admit that....

        Why the state?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: why the state?

          Because the state pays for the court system that companies have become fond of (ab)using as a weapon in their commercial disputes.

          1. Eddy Ito

            Re: why the state?

            Actually the state doesn't pay for the court system. Aside from the court fees required from the litigants it is paid for by the taxpayers.

            1. AdamWill

              Re: why the state?

              "Actually the state doesn't pay for the court system. Aside from the court fees required from the litigants it is paid for by the taxpayers."

              Er...'Paid for by the state' and 'paid for by taxpayers' are basically the same thing.

    2. RogerThat
      Stop

      Re: I will be the first to admit that....

      As an Apple stockholder, I would be much more upset if Apple failed to defend its intellectual property from obvious theft.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I will be the first to admit that....

        As an Apple stockholder, you should pay attention to the evidence that Samsung has presented. Apple would rather eliminate the competition rather than invent. If you are worried about theft, look at the connection between Lisa and Xerox PARC.

      2. Marty
        Megaphone

        Re: I will be the first to admit that....

        "As an Apple stockholder, I would be much more upset if Apple failed to defend its intellectual property from obvious theft."

        I would agree but for one thing,....

        ROUNDED CORNERS AND WHERE THE FUCKING BUTTONS GO IS NOT REALLY INTELLECTUAL!!..

        1. James O'Brien
          Thumb Up

          @ Marty Re: I will be the first to admit that....

          You my friend owe me a keyboard. So many times I have thought of saying that exact statement but havent. Nice.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I will be the first to admit that....

      >Just get on with it or throw it out and let the designers design....

      Isn't that the point though? many of them aren't designing, they're just producing designs inspired by rival products.

      While Samsung isn't doing it now, their first Galaxy S was obviously iPhone inspired. I don't see how anyone could say otherwise looking at a picture of them side by side.

      http://cdn.mactrast.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Samsung-Galaxy-S-iPhone-Copy.jpg

      1. edge_e
        Meh

        Re: I will be the first to admit that....

        Maybe it was actually f700 inspired ?

        http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Samsung-F700-vs-iPhone.jpg

      2. Chet Mannly

        Re: I will be the first to admit that....

        "While Samsung isn't doing it now, their first Galaxy S was obviously iPhone inspired. I don't see how anyone could say otherwise looking at a picture of them side by side."

        I owned both phones (replaced the iPhone 3gs with a Galaxy S) and they weren't remotely alike apart from the general rectangular shape (I had windows phones way before that which looked just the same on that rectangular count).

        Not only looked different, felt different in the hand, the screens were markedly different, and of course from a software perspective Android v iOS are even more dramatically different.

        Its like claiming a patent on a laptop because it has a folding screen and a keyboard - patently (badoom tish - I'm here til Friday!) ridiculous.

        1. AntiPoser
          Happy

          Re: I will be the first to admit that....

          Apple has been awarded a patent like that for the wedge shape of a laptop....to me innovation is the apps I use not the shape of my buttons or phone....

    4. N13L5
      FAIL

      Anyone notice that Lucy Koh is biased...?

      I'm no fan of the Korean Samsung Chaebol, which is as much of a sleazy, dishonest corporation as Apple is.

      ...They kind of deserve each other.

      But Samsung's F700 phone, predating the iPhone surely has a bearing on the case, and the Jury should NOT be allowed to see it...?

      This is a court in the United States, the land of the free and the just...?

      Looks like we're just out to protect our shiny baubles corporation from the ones who build everything inside those baubles, like the processor, the memory, the chipset and the screen, later to be slapped together by the suicidal slaves at Foxconn.

      They should be put in a pinata bag together and beaten with sticks, not keep our courts busy with this shit.

  2. Turtle

    Part of a larger problem.

    "Vicki Salmon, solicitor and patent attorney of IP Asset and the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA), told The Register suggested these demands and acts of mischief are a spectacle to win over a jury that probably doesn't understand patent law very well. This is a case about highly complex patent and design issues, the details of which the parties may believe to be beyond the comprehension of the jury," she said."

    This touches on a very serious and larger problem: cases concerning issues, whether legal, financial, or scientific, that should NOT be decided by a "typical" jury for the simple fact that the complexities are far too great.

    There needs to be some mechanism to permit judgement to be rendered, not by a more or less random selection of people who happen to be in the jury pool, but by a jury composed of people actually competent to understand the issues involved.

    Unfortunately, I am not capable of devising a mechanism to accomplish this.

    1. Geoff Campbell
      FAIL

      Re: Part of a larger problem.

      No, the whole point of a jury is to provide a panel of non-expert people to whom the experts have to make their case, in plain and non-technical language. Loading the jury with experts would be very silly indeed, and a recipe for disaster.

      GJC

      1. 404
        FAIL

        Re: Part of a larger problem.

        I beg to differ.

        Supposed to be a 'jury of your peers' -> not somebody who couldn't find their asshole with both hands. I present my own dad for evidence, believes the Government (yes, Capital G), never should have let the public have computers.

        How would you like him on your jury?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Part of a larger problem.

          'Jury of your peers' is an interesting idea, who decides who your peers are?

          My peers would not likely be on a jury, they would refuse as they would loose too much money by being there, which means the people who do jury duty are the lower paid, and usually lower educated people. People who do not have the ability or knowledge to avoid the jury duty.

          If I was on trial, I would want the peers to be educated to degree level minimum, from varied backgrounds, with similar standards and ideals to my own...

          BUT I am likely to get a jury filled with people who failed GCSE's, work in low paid jobs and think Sky News is the oracle of truth...

          1. PsychicMonkey
            Thumb Down

            Re: Part of a larger problem.

            except of course that you can't just refuse. To avoid jury duty when selected you have to have a pretty good excuse.

            Is your excuse "I don't like oiks"?

            1. Monty Burns

              Re: Part of a larger problem.

              No, he's probably like me (not that I agree with him) but.... "I'm the Managing Director of a company that will suffer significant financial loss"

              I'd love to give jury duty a go but only between contracts ..... as it is, I've never been asked anyway :(

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Part of a larger problem.

                Indeed, getting out of jury duty is very easy to achieve especially if you are a contractor or sole trader. You merely have to show that financial hardship would result. Not getting paid and losing your house because the mortgage wouldn't be covered is likely to get you over the line so contractors will never find themselves doing jury duty. I certainly haven't and I have been requested. If you're a perm then your mileage may vary.

                1. Mike Moyle

                  Re: Part of a larger problem.

                  If your contract is closed-ended and has a completion date, explaining that limitation to the judge and saying that you will appear for service after that contract is up will likely get you a deferral. If you're on an open-ended contract, then that makes you, really, no different from a permanent employee. (I was called for jury duty -- and went -- while I was working on an open-ended contract, so I have some experience here.)

                  And it seems to me that if -- while working as a contractor or between contracts -- you can afford to take time off for a vacation, then you can afford to take time to serve your community.

                  But maybe that's just me...

            2. Fatman

              Re: To avoid jury duty when selected...

              I would not know about that; but these assholes seemed to have found a way out:

              http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/gossip-scuttles-dontae-morris-trial-hillsborough-judge-dismisses-jury-pool/1243583

              BTW, the defendant is accused of 5 murders, two of them being police officers.

          2. esque

            Re: Part of a larger problem.

            So you think that people with a high income can not afford to lose some of that, people with a lower income on the other hand can?

            Sorry, but your logic is flawed.

          3. Mike Moyle
            FAIL

            Re: Re: Part of a larger problem.

            "My peers would not likely be on a jury, they would refuse as they would loose too much money by being there, which means the people who do jury duty are the lower paid, and usually lower educated people. People who do not have the ability or knowledge to avoid the jury duty.

            If I was on trial, I would want the peers to be educated to degree level minimum, from varied backgrounds, with similar standards and ideals to my own..."

            Well then, the solution is to not let self-centered yutzim whose only concern is how much money they would lose by performing a civic duty avoid serving. Start off by making anyone who uses the old tricks of wearing offensive t-shirts, not bathing for a week before the date, etc. return the next day properly prepared to serve or be charged with contempt and go on from there. That way, you won't be limited to "People who do not have the ability or knowledge to avoid the jury duty."

            Make it harder to avoid jury duty and you have a larger, more diverse pool of potential jurors from which to select your "peers".

            1. Kevin 6

              @Mike Moyle

              Well I don't know about by you, but where I live Jurors only get paid $8(or was it $11) or so by the state...

              PARKING (yes they charge for it) is $10...

              Food last time I went 10 years ago was $2 for what was then a 50 cent candy bar in any other vending machine(hell I should know I used to OWN a vending machine)...

              So can you see why people ditch jury duty?

              last time my old man was sequestered for a week he got a whole $50, and the hotel they threw em in was so poor he got louses from the mattress which took a crap ton of work to get rid of after...

              So now if they at least give you minimum wage as pay, free parking, and reasonably priced food, or even free (seeing you are being forced to sit there), and a decent hotel room(not some crap that makes truck stop motels look high class) people might not ditch out on it as much as possible.

              1. Mike Moyle

                @ Kevin 6

                I guess the difference is that I see jury duty as a (frankly, small) shared sacrifice that citizens make as members of a society. No one pays me a living wage to study the issues in order to try to vote intelligently on election day either; it's just part of the job.

                I will confess that the parking wasn't an issue for me, since the courthouse was only a few blocks away from public transit, so I didn't consider that as a problem; others, obviously, would.

                Did I lose money when I went to jury duty...? Sure but, in terms of sacrifice in service to society, National Guard troops deployed overseas often lose a lot more money while risking their lives away from their real jobs, so my losing a few days' work seems to me like a pretty trivial sacrifice to make for civic duty. But that's just how I was brought up -- my dad was a member of the volunteer fire department in the town that I grew up in, assistant Scoutmaster in one of the town Boy Scout troops, etc., so I always had that unspoken "give something back to the community" example in front of me as a kid. Who knew that it would stick?!!?

                I'm not claiming any particular virtue -- I pissed and moaned about the money and the time, same as anybody else -- but I felt, in the end, that it was a fair exchange for what I get as a member of a society. YMMV.

              2. PT

                @Kevin 6

                You summed it up perfectly. What's worse, even salaried people in the US discover their employer will only allow them a week or so paid time, and after that they're up shit creek if it's a long trial. They sit there day after day watching five, sometimes ten or more, lawyers billing hundreds of dollars an hour cross-examine expert witnesses being paid $25,000 a day; with untold thousands already spent on jury consultants and strategists, while barely picking up enough money to pay for lunch, parking and gas. A (salaried) friend of mine nearly lost his home because of a trial that dragged on for weeks, while another, a contractor, got sentenced to 120 hours of community service when he explained he was on a deadline and asked to be excused. I'll accept it as a "patriotic duty" when the judges and lawyers agree to do it for free as well.

                For those needing to avoid service in criminal cases, the magic words are "jury nullification". Speak then to a fellow prospective juror where the prosecution can overhear. It's trickier in a civil suit, but "tort reform" works in a lot of cases.

          4. This post has been deleted by its author

          5. NB
            FAIL

            Re: Part of a larger problem.

            "'Jury of your peers' is an interesting idea, who decides who your peers are?

            My peers would not likely be on a jury, they would refuse as they would loose too much money by being there, which means the people who do jury duty are the lower paid, and usually lower educated people. People who do not have the ability or knowledge to avoid the jury duty.

            If I was on trial, I would want the peers to be educated to degree level minimum, from varied backgrounds, with similar standards and ideals to my own...

            BUT I am likely to get a jury filled with people who failed GCSE's, work in low paid jobs and think Sky News is the oracle of truth..."

            You sir, sound like a pompous arse. Also, it would be to 'lose' too much money, not 'loose'. The next time you arrogantly cast aspersions about the likely level of education of the men and women performing their civic duty you might want to consider being less of an absolute cock about it.

        2. Gideon 1

          Jury of Your Peers

          A Jury of Your Peers is an outdated form of justice, where a Lord would be tried before a jury of Lords, avoiding being automatically found guilty by a jury of serfs. A juries are now selected from lists of voters.

          1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

            Re: Jury of Your Peers

            > juries are now selected from lists of voters.

            Is the definition of peer someone who votes?

            That's a definition of people who are eligible for jury duty not of peerage.

            If I were a woman I'd want women who had my experiences rather than men who didn't in for example a Muslim country. Or if I were a negro in a Southern US state, I'd insist on a black jury. And not just black but people with my religious and political ideologies.

        3. Kevin 6

          Re: 404 :Part of a larger problem.

          Honestly seeing how society has changed with how stupid people have become, also how dependent on the things like facebook, and twitter I can't really argue with his point of view...

          Now if you would have asked me 10 years ago I would have said he was insane.

        4. Someone Else Silver badge
          Coat

          @404: Re: Part of a larger problem.

          I guess it depends on what I'm accused of...

      2. Euchrid

        @ Geoff Campbell

        This is something that Private Eye has been covering for years - specifically, in complex financial fraud cases that require very long court cases.

        With these types of trials, it’s been argued that the details of such cases are so complicated that when they are explained in a broad way, in order a lay person can understand, a lot of the wrong-doing is lost. In other words, you need to look at the fine details to be able to properly examine if the law was broken.

        Here’s a director of the Serious Fraud Office speaking about his in 1997:

        "The prosecutor strives to present a complex commercial fraud to a jury of lay people in a way that enables them to understand the intricacies of the commercial transactions and understand the documents, often the most convoluted and intricate sets of accounts," she said. "But this means having to prune a case to its bare essentials, losing, in the process, substantial elements of the total criminality alleged."http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sfo-wants-to-end-trial-by-jury-in-complex-financial-cases-1239577.html

        This has been long debated in legal circles – for example:

        “In 1986 Lord Roskill's Fraud Trials Committee did not find trial by a random jury a satisfactory way of achieving justice in cases of long and complex fraud. Lord Runciman's Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which reported in 1993, was more cautious. It pointed out that no-one really knew how juries reached their verdicts because it was against the law to ask them. It recommended a change in the law to enable research to be carried out. Lord Justice Auld was quite clear, however, in his Review of the Criminal Courts in 2001. He said, in line with Roskill's favoured option, that in serious and complex frauds the nominated trial judge should have the power to direct a trial by himself and two lay members drawn from a panel established by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose, or, if the defendant so requests, by himself alone.“

        http://www.barristermagazine.com/archivedsite/articles/issue25/staple.html

        1. slhilly

          Re: @ Geoff Campbell

          Private Eye also regularly points out that the Yanks don't seem to have this problem -- they cut through the complexity and get their convictions. We have a lot to learn from them on this count...

        2. TheOtherHobbes

          Re: @ Geoff Campbell

          When the High Court quashed the billionaire Tchenguiz brothers arrest warrants recently, the judge said that it was because the SFO didn't have a hot-shot financial lawyer on its team who could package up the evidence and argument to a high enough standard.

          The ruling says - literally - that the warrants were thrown out because the SFO were under-resourced compared to two billionaires.

          I mean - hey. Good luck with that justice thing, yr'honour.

          Doesn't really apply to the the Fruity Tech Titan [tm] vs Samsung etc, but I thought it was an interesting example of the legal process being far out of its depth.

      3. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: Part of a larger problem.

        In the U. S. the argument was made successfully that a specific appeals court should be established that had expertise in patent matters - the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal court in the Eastern District of Texas, by virtue of considerable experience in adjudicating patent law cases, presumably has developed expertise as well. See where that got us, then discuss further whether we need specially knowledgeable juries here.

        I claim the outcome was better in Oracle v. Google, in the Northern District of California, and Apple v. Samsung, dismissed recently by Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Part of a larger problem.

      I guess the true test to see if a jury is any better than a random decision is to see if they can tell "is there 4 lights or 5?".

      It would be great fun to put a case through court to see what silly things you can get juries to side on if you make "computerz lookz complicatedz".

    3. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Peers

      Yeah, the idea of being tried before a 'jury of your peers'. If I am accused of stealing your TV, my peers are the men and women on the street- fellow citizens or subjects. I feel this to be fair enough, when my reputation and liberty is at stake.

      Who is the peer of a multi-national, multi-billion dollar company? Not me.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      And in an international court

      Samsung might feel aggrieved that a dispute between them and a very large Californian company is being heard in a Californian court with a Californian jury. Business as usual for USA Covert Protectionism Inc., though.

      1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        Re: And in an international court

        If the idea of inadmissable evidence is to stand it needs to be verified that the case is compromised by the "other" client not knowing in time to prepare for the court appearance.

        That some evidence was barred from court on the grounds it was too late to be accepted, it aught to be shown that both parties were in ignorance of the evidence at the time of going to court or its sell by date.

        That the evidence was a well known product most likely studied by the opposition is fairly obvious to all, even those not concerned. Therefore having the evidence thrown out on a point of law was injustice.

        So yes, you are right.

        I'd bet even Kim.com would lose in a US court of [s]illegal[/s] lawless.

    5. Maty

      Re: Part of a larger problem.

      May I suggest that the reason for a lay jury is because it should not require a specialist to recognize criminal behaviour. If a law needs an expert to determine right from wrong, then that law lacks any sort of moral underpinning in the first place.

      One of the basic requirements for a criminal law should be if an ordinary citizen can easily tell if its been broken. (Which is different from deciding if someone broke it, which is why we have juries in the first place.).

      Our legal system is diabolically complex as it is, and one if the few things that stops it getting worse is the fact that you can't get juries to convict on laws they don't understand.

      1. mrfill

        Re: Part of a larger problem.

        It's not a criminal case, it's a civil bash...

  3. Mike Judge
    Stop

    "Running off to reporters could hand Apple an easy win"

    No, because if it does, then it just reinforces the view that it was never about copyright infringement, and the whole shebang was fixed in American Apple's favor from the outset.

    The only thing it's likely to achieve, is a new and unbiased judge that allows a new jury to see ALL the relevant evidence rather than only the stuff Apple wants them to see.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Unethical?

      Though I'm not a lawyer, the point of disclosure is to allow a fair trial where both sides and the jury can see how the other's design process. Handing out that information to the public when a judge has ruled it's irrelevant is at least not cricket (not that there's much of that in this trial) and at worst leaking confidential trade secrets (not in this case since the documents were from years ago).

      I'm slightly surprised Samsung aren't in the dock for contempt of court.

      1. Al 6

        Re: Unethical?

        You might have had a point if the court hadn't previously ruled that this information had to be available to the public.

  4. Tom7
    FAIL

    Balance?

    I'm used to better balanced reporting than this from El Reg. You missed the fairly basic fact that everything Samsung released was already on the court docket. All they did was package up various bits of evidence already in the case and already public. And for this Apple want the court to hand them victory?

    1. Steve Todd Silver badge
      Stop

      El Reg balanced? Stop it, you're making me laugh too much

      They have a habit of taking a very partisan view from one side or another, rairly balanced.

      Samsung's presentation certainly wasn't in the public domain before they emailed a large chunk of it to the press. The outline of their case was, but not the detail. Releasing it in the way they did was definitely a bad move.

      Saying that, Apple's request for summary judgement is wildly optimistic and unlikely to happen.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @ Tom7

      And you missed that U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal ruled that Samsung not disclosed this information in time for it to be considered, so Judge Koh said it couldn't be used in the *opening argument* (not the entire case, but the opening argument).

      See http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=53590&terms=%40ReutersTopicCodes+CONTAINS+'ANV' for more details.

      1. Shagbag

        Re: @ Tom7

        ...and the point that it was Apple that raised the original objection to the use of this evidence.

        Everyone can see that this trial is no longer about the validity of any purported intellectual property rights. It is about using the law as a weapon to deal with a strong, credible competitor.

        1. Steve Todd Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: @ Tom7

          And this is in any way unusual in trials?

          One side tries something that is borderline or outside of the rules. The other side objects. The judge rules which is correct and they move on. They're not playing a game of patty cake here, they are arguing over billions of dollars, which is why each legal team is paid big bucks to get it right and present their case in the best possible light. Samsung's lawyers stuffed up here. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind. Move on.

    3. Peter 39

      Re: Balance?

      No - this evidence had been proposed for inclusion but the Court had rejected it on the basis that it was not disclosed in a timely fashion.

      I suspect that Samsung's lawyers were trying for a Perry-Mason moment and were caught. Either that or they/Samsung didn't know about it or discover it until too late. In which case they're incompetent, if this is so important.

    4. cosmo the enlightened
      Megaphone

      Re: Balance?

      Agreed. I wonder if some of CNet's independent journalism techniques is beginning to cross into this once fine organ.

      This information was not leaked it has been in the public arena for a while now.

      Come on El Reg you can do better than this.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nothing to see here...

    ... all this drama is just leading up to the appeal. Tweak the judge, make them do something unreasonable out of emotion, rinse and repeat with new judge and courtroom.

    Lawyer Games.

    (do a lot of work for the 'justice' system, I secretly hate them but they pay well - makes me a hypocrite and a coward due to being anon, eh? <heavy sigh>)

    1. I Am Spartacus
      Megaphone

      Re: Nothing to see here...Except for Lawyers

      We've got seven hundred thousand

      Attorneys at law

      Nobody can tell me what we need them all for

      We should throw them in chains

      Chastise and rebuke them

      If that doesn't work

      We should take them out and nuke them

      Blow a lawyer to pieces

      It's the obvious way

      Don't wait for a thesis

      Do it today

      Take him to the court

      Of your final appeal

      When you're fresh out of lawyers

      You don't know how good it's gonna feel.

      Al Stewart - License to Steal

      Guess he didn't like his lawyer!

      1. peter 45
        Big Brother

        "Blow a lawyer to pieces"

        Oooooh. Thats Malicious Communications Act 1988 that is.

        The helicopters are commming to geeeeet you

        1. Vic

          Re: "Blow a lawyer to pieces"

          > Thats Malicious Communications Act 1988 that is.

          Nah. We're talking about lawyers, not people.

          Vic.

  6. Hasham

    Justice is about truth, not timescales

    So what if Samsung filed the evidence two minutes too late, or even two days or two weeks late? Facts are facts, and my understanding of the law is that new evidence is always admissible in the courts, so long as the other party gets to study it too.

    If patent Nazi Apple gets their way in this, it would be a pretty big injustice.

    1. 404
      Thumb Up

      Good Point!

      Be a helluva thing if dna evidence, proving the poor bastard didn't do whatever they say he/she did, was inadmissible in court and therefore had to stay in prison.

      Upvoted.

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: Good Point!

        Unfortunate example. In such cases the prosecutor nearly always argues, often successfully, that the convict should serve the time, and don't bother anyone with the DNA evidence.

    2. slhilly

      Re: Justice is about truth, not timescales

      Your understanding of the law is pretty broken then. You're thinking of CCRC case reviews or some such. Civil law in the US certainly does have time limits for introducing evidence, because if it didn't then litigation would be dragged out forever as arbitrary bits of information were presented as newly discovered evidence.

      All this is leaving aside that the information being discussed is something immediately accessible and obviously relevant to Samsung's case. What on earth was going on that they didn't think of it until so late in the day?

      1. hayseed
        Facepalm

        Re: Justice is about truth, not timescales

        Are these the same lawyers who actually could not tell the difference between a Samsung and and Apple tablet?

      2. Paul Shirley

        re:What on earth was going on that they didn't think of it until so late in the day?

        You're ignoring the possibility that Apple engineered the situation. The F700 was in Apples initial claims as an iPhone copy but voluntarily dismissed when Apple realised the claim was false and easily proved false.

        It's not surprising that Samsung did not expect Apple to claim it as an example iPhone copy in the case, or have 'Perry Masoned' it on them so close to trial. And it really should have opened the door to Samsung over this evidence. Especially since it's pretty clear Apple are lying to the jury.

        The puzzle is why Samsung hadn't already introduced the evidence in their planned defence anyway, it would seem to be a killer blow. I can only guess that the harsh time constraints of US trials force ruthless culling of weaker claims, that this wasn't considered strong enough. If true that should scare Apple. Except Apple are so disconnected from reality nothing seems to scare them. Not even lying in court.

    3. vagabondo

      Re: Justice is about truth, not timescales

      But this is about law and commerce; nothing to do with justice, everything to do with lawyers.

      I have never understood why we allow the Justice system to be about the administration of Law and not the delivery of Justice. I also fail to understand why judges necessarily need to be lawyers. If their job was about justice, a formal training in logic is what is required, and that can be found in the study of general philosophy/logic, branches of mathematics, etc.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Justice is about truth, not timescales

        "I have never understood why we allow the Justice system to be about the administration of Law and not the delivery of Justice."

        Well clearly you don't understand much at all.

        "Justice" is whatever anyone thinks is right or wrong in any particular case for any particular reason. Law is a strict system of definitions and procedures, so that anyone potentially subject to the law has or can have a good idea in advance what is permitted and what is actionable. "Justice" as delivered by a court of law means that everyone is subject to decisions made according to the one and the same set of definitions and procedures. Any other kind of justice would be classified as arbitrary rule.

        Judges and courts apply the law. Fools think that they should do some sort of vague and undefined "justice' instead.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Justice is about truth, not timescales

      "my understanding of the law is that new evidence is always admissible in the courts"

      I never cease to be surprised by how many things people think are true that, in fact, have absolutely no points of contact with reality.

  7. heyrick Silver badge

    Hang on a mo...

    Three points...

    1. If the so-called evidence was rejected by the court, it is not under any sort of judicial privilege, so can Apple and the Judge complain if Samsung wish to pass it on to the hacks? Or are they just getting a bit blatant with their interpretation of all your base are belong to us?

    2. "This is a case about highly complex patent and design issues, the details of which the parties may believe to be beyond the comprehension of the jury". That's sweet. Imply that the jurors are incapable (stupid, even). You might call it a highly complex patent and design issue, but it probably comes down to two things: firstly, can such broad design ideas as "rectangular device with rounded corners" even be patented or is it too inspecific as to harm any prospect of competition; secondly, if it can be patented, is it a valid patent (non-obvious, no prior art, etc).

    3. "Running off to reporters could hand Apple an easy win". Well, I think we can see the way this is going...

  8. M Gale

    Pretty much what others are saying.

    "I know the F700 predates the iphone, but you didn't follow my diktats so I'll rule in Apple's favour".

    That would be a judge straight out of kindergarten, if it went down like that. I'm hoping it won't, as the Judge wouldn't be punishing Samsung so much as every single entity that gets sued over rounded rectangles from here on in, because the patents have been "proven valid", even though plainly they aren't.

    Hopefully Judge Koh has more sense than to throw all her toys out of the pram in a fit. That wouldn't be good for anybody, and Samsung do have a point. The F700 does look an awful lot like an iPhone, and does predate the iPhone. Surely that's game, set and match to Sammy?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pretty much what others are saying.

      I'm going to get downvoted for this, but:

      http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php

      Announced Feb 2007 (that'll be a month after the original iPhone), launched December 2007.

      SlashGear's hands-on of the preview model at CeBIT in March 2007:

      http://www.slashgear.com/slashgear-at-cebit-samsung-f700-hands-on-154328/

      And Gizmodo's teaser video from March 2007:

      http://gizmodo.com/241642/samsung-f700-video-tease-look-but-dont-touch?tag=gadgetscellphones

      So, no, the F700 doesn't pre-date the iPhone, but the design might, but announcing it a month after the iPhone and then taking ~10 months to get it to market does rather imply they weren't that far along in the development.

      1. g e

        Re: Pretty much what others are saying.

        It takes a bit longer than a month to bring a phone to market from no prior design, copying your competitor's newly released gadget, you know.

      2. Chet Mannly

        Re: Pretty much what others are saying.

        "So, no, the F700 doesn't pre-date the iPhone, but the design might,"

        Samsung's evidence is that it was under design in 2005. Release date isn't so relevant, just that they came up with that type of phone without referencing the iphone.

        Its not like Apple are the only ones that are capable of producing a rectangular touch screen phone, I think this has all the hallmarks of Apple using the legal system to keep their competitor's devices off the shelves for as long as possible, so Apple get more people committed to itunes, which is the long term goal

        Besides, the F700 looks exactly like a HTC phone made back in the day - rounded corners, slide out keyboard. Not saying Samsung copied it, but that this patent is silly given the number of rectangular touch screen phones that have been made over the years.

    2. g e

      Re: Pretty much what others are saying.

      She'd get sacked in the UK for behaving like that, or, the political alternative here which is such public humiliation and disgrace that they 'retire'

      Which in Koh's case could only be a positive outcome for the US judicial system, methinks.

    3. RogerThat
      Happy

      Re: Pretty much what others are saying.

      First of all, Apple's phone "look" was unique when it came out. Now I see dozens of Androids that look so much like iPhone I can't tell them apart without a close look. If that look was so obvious, how come no smart phones looked like that until Apple made one? Android: "I passed for iPhone." Apple: "That's not allowed." Second, the supposed Sony drawing was actually an Apple drawing of what a Sony phone "might look like." It was, as such, bogus. It was not what Samsung said it was. Third, the drawings showing that Samsung had already started designs that looked like iPhones were believed to be faked for two reasons: First, Samsung argued that it had designed phones similar to iPhone before iPhone was introduced. Had that been the case, they would have presented drawings months or even years ago to prove their case. But they did not produce the drawings until the very last minute to get them entered into evidence. They could not argue that they designed iPhones before Apple did at trial without the design drawings, so they made some. Samsung's drawings look suspiciously like drawings Apple provided early on to Samsung for purpose of Samsung producing some of the chips Apple would use in the device. And fourth, Samsung has been caught lying before on other matters.

      In a recent survey, 60 percent of Chinese consumers said they bought their iPhones because of the way they looked. Only 30 percent cited functionality and ease of use. Darned right people who can't afford iPhone will buy Android look-alikes to obtain equal coolness factor.

      Samsung contends that it had drawings that looked like iPhones long before iPhone was introduced. That contention is believed to be false. So are the drawings offered at the very last minute by Samsung to back up its claims made months ago. So that would-be evidence has been rejected by the judge.

      If Apple hadn't done the iPhone, there wouldn't be any Samsung Android phones. Android would have been a Blackberry knockoff, which it was at one point, before Eric Schmidt, then Google's CEO and Apple board member, became aware of iPhone development. Trying to educate Android zealots is hard work. So I quit: This is my last post on this thread.

      1. Mark .

        Re: Pretty much what others are saying.

        There were rectangular phones with rounded corners before Iphone 1, just as there were phones with touchscreens, including full size ones. And there have continued to be a variation of phone styles since 2007 too. I'm not sure what you mean by a "Blackberry knockoff", or have against Blackberry anyway - I'd rather draw from that OS, than IOS. Thankfully Android did follow in the steps of the existing mainstream platforms like Symbian, not IOS. As a result, it didn't lag years behind in basic things like 3G, copy/paste or apps, and became the successful number one platform, unlike IOS.

        As for looks, companies were well aware of people buying phones based on looks or coolness long before Apple. I mean for heaven's sake, that's business and marketing 101. There were plenty of good looking phones before 2007, and there have been plenty of ugly looking phones since (including Apple since Iphone 4 - it has an ugly profile, tiny screen, and the obvious logo looks like a tacky fridge magnet, one that exists only to be a commercial advert for Apple).

      2. Chet Mannly

        Re: Pretty much what others are saying.

        "First of all, Apple's phone "look" was unique when it came out. Now I see dozens of Androids that look so much like iPhone I can't tell them apart without a close look. "

        Then get your eyes checked - there were dozens of rectangular touch screen phones out before the iphone - just have a look at HTC's windows mobile offerings in the 90's - the only reason HTC aren't getting sued here is because Samsung are selling more phones.

        "Samsung contends that it had drawings that looked like iPhones long before iPhone was introduced. That contention is believed to be false."

        They had actual working prototypes - only people such as yourself believe its false.

        "If Apple hadn't done the iPhone, there wouldn't be any Samsung Android phones. Android would have been a Blackberry knockoff,"

        Android is an operating system, it has had qwerty keyboard phones, slide out keyboard phones, and pure touch screen phones. their only sin is being a serious competitor to Apple who is choosing to compete through courts instead of innovating and producing a more compelling product.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pretty much what others are saying.

      "I know the F700 predates the iphone, but you didn't follow my diktats so I'll rule in Apple's favour".

      Yep. That's pretty much how the law works: you adhere to its procedures, or you suffer. That's why people hire lawyers - and why lawyers cost so much to hire. And although you might think that the judge being childish - which only shows your stupidity, really - the fact is that courts take deadlines and orders very seriously, because when these deadlines and orders are not taken seriously, the administration of justice becomes unnecessarily difficult. As an example in this case, why should Apple have it rights to a fair trial diminished or a decision in this matter delayed by Samsung's failure to adhere to orders and procedures? (I mean, other than the fact that you don't like Apple.)

      You know, "justice delayed is justice denied". Oh, right, you don't know...

      Samsung has one of, if not the best patent litigation law firms in the world defending them. If this screw-up happened because of the lawyers, let Samsung sue the lawyers for malpractice. And if Samsung messed up by themselves, without any outside help, then they have no one to blame but themselves. The law foresees these problems and makes provision against them: the judge is allowed to exclude evidence that is not produced in a timely manner - this provides the incentive for the matter to proceed instead of being stalled forever.

      1. M Gale

        Re: Pretty much what others are saying.

        "As an example in this case, why should Apple have it rights to a fair trial diminished or a decision in this matter delayed by Samsung's failure to adhere to orders and procedures? (I mean, other than the fact that you don't like Apple.)"

        I didn't say don't smack Samsung on the wrist for being naughty boys and girls. I said that if the judge rules in Apple's favour it would punish more than just Samsung. Think about it:

        "You were naughty, so Apple's patent is magically valid, even though it plainly shouldn't be".

        How is that justice? At all?

        And again, hopefully Koh isn't that childish.

  9. nematoad Silver badge
    Meh

    It's not the judge who decides.

    "...is likely to incur the court’s wrath."

    Maybe so, but it is up to the jury to decide.

    O.K. the judge might feel that Samsung have been disrespectful but in the end it is up to the opposing lawyers to try and convince the jury of the rightness of their case.

    As Tom7 posts above, the facts are already in the public domain. If Judge Koh's nose has been put out of joint that may make Samsung's job harder but in no way is it a done deal on Apple's part.

    Take a look on Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/ for an alternative and I think unbiased account

    1. hayseed

      Re: It's not the judge who decides.

      > the facts are already in the public domain.

      The jury is not allowed to consider facts not presented in the courtroom.

      1. Chet Mannly

        Re: It's not the judge who decides.

        "The jury is not allowed to consider facts not presented in the courtroom."

        So re-releasing it in the public domain is no problem then. Jurors are told not to read media coverage in any case.

        Perhaps the judge is worried that if she finds in favour of Apple now she will look silly (or possibly biased?) because of the seemingly key evidence that people outside the courtroom knows she disallowed.

  10. Naich
    FAIL

    Better sauce

    Groklaw has better and fairer coverage of this case, for anyone who is interested.

  11. Interested_Observer

    Pot: Kettle you are black !! you should be sanctioned

    The comments of the "Apple legal Eagle" are dripping with irony and hypocrisy. Given that Apple has access to the material concerned, and knows full well that this evidence would destroy the credibility of their arguments on the innovative nature of rectangles with rounded corners, it may be said that what Apple is actually doing is nothing short of wilful deception and lying on a grand scale. To describe this as "sticking to the moral high ground" is no less than astonishing to the observer with a modest sense of fairness and justice.

  12. Dave 124

    Crooked Judge!

    Clearly the judge is biased for both Cupertino and the portfolio of the people who selected her. The patents should be thrown out as Apple lied when they submitted them by failing to provide proper prior art and on the obvious nature of their content. I personnaly will encourage my company and coleagues from buying from Apple until they clean up their behavior.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Crooked Judge!

      The judge has already sanctioned Apple for not responding correctly to one of her orders, but for some reason that didn't get this level of coverage. If the press only report the decisions that go Apple's way the judge is bound to seem biased.

    2. mrfill
      Headmaster

      Re: Crooked Judge!

      discourage surely....

  13. Mark .

    I find this very worrying.

    If Samsung broke some court rules, fine them for that (though I still find it unethical that they were forced into this farce in the first place, I'd add - and it's unclear why putting their own documents into the public domain is wrong when they aren't court evidence - why should they be censored?). But granting Apple a win has far reaching implications.

    I mean seriously, let's do a reality check here - "Samsung broke the rules, therefore let's give Apple a monopoly on rounded rectangles"?!

    Firstly it is an immensely disproportionate punishment, considering the billions at stake from losing. It is also a punishment for users, the tens of millions of us who buy Samsung products (more than Apple). I don't want the products I love banned, nor do I want *my* money going to Apple (well, I'm in the UK, but it isn't fair for US Samsung users). And what are the implications for other companies that Apple might demand money from, because they also have rounded rectangular devices?

    A fair trial is already impossible for Samsung, due to the endless Apple hype we've had for the last 5 or more years. E.g., last night on the TV[*] I noted that practically *every other advert* was giving a free advert to Apple, whether it was "Get this app on your Iphone/Ipad" or showing the obvious tacky light up Apple logo on a laptop, or mentioning Apple products by brandnames whilst other products are generic (Iphone vs phone, Ipad vs tablet, Mac vs PC or laptop), or obligitary mentions (one insurance advert goes to mention "your Ipod" as an example they'll cover, and then follows that with "your Iphone" - sorry, like most people, I don't have an Iphone). All this, despite Android having the largest smartphone share, over 50%; despite even one Android phone company alone outselling Iphone; despite Iphone never having been number one (it was Symbian before); despite Windows laptops being more common than Ipads; despite the outrage we get if a company dares to only cater for the mere 90% of Windows users, but forgets the 10% of Mac users - but apparently, catering for the 10% of Iphone users only is okay.

    There is simply no comparison to criminal trials - it would be as if every other advert on TV was saying "This guy [defendant in a case] is a great guy!", with the near entire media going on about how he's innocent. That would already be contempt. Yet we're meant to believe that whilst that's okay, the jury will be biased instead from one single Samsung document?

    [*] Sorry, "on my LG TV" - I need to start speaking like an Apple user.

    1. Chet Mannly

      Re: I find this very worrying.

      "I mean seriously, let's do a reality check here - "Samsung broke the rules, therefore let's give Apple a monopoly on rounded rectangles"?!"

      Well said!

      Surely breaking court procedure (if it even is when it was public information...) deserves a fine, contempt of court charge at worst, but it should have zero effect on the validity of a patent.

  14. shade82000
    WTF?

    As each day passes I become more convinced that I will never give a penny of my cash to Apple so they can fuel their increasingly outrageous actions.

    All of this is has just one cause: they, like many other tech companies, got caught up in their desire to stifle progression so they can cream as much as possible out of mid-range products.

    They realised too late that most other companies will simply produce and sell the best products that they can using currently available hardware and software, and they don't like it when they finally realise that they can't control the market that way and start losing market share. It's nobody else's fault but their own.

    They are not the first and they won't be the last. Give it a few years and they'll be right back where they were in the mid-90's.

  15. Dave 126 Silver badge

    I'm liking the 'SONY' concept that looks like an iRiver SPINN

    http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-1533ExF.pdf

    Mmm... iRiver... makers of the finest MP3 players before someone else greedily snaffled up all those Toshiba 1.8" HDDs.

  16. John G Imrie

    Manfully, he said the fruity firm was not seeking a mistrial, just a judgment that Apple was right about Samsung's alleged infringement of its phone design patents.

    Translation

    We don't want to do this again, just hand us the win Judge.

    1. Paul Shirley

      Yes, I was starting to wonder if Samsung are now playing for a retrial, with a fairer judge. In principle they don't want any delay while injunctions are in place but it's looking like the whole case is heading straight for appeal, don't stop at justice. with the injunctions intact for the 2 years that's likely to take.

      At this point provoking Koh may look like a quicker route to justice via retrial. Samsung seem to be doing slightly better fending off Apples sales injunctions in other courts as well, this might well remove Koh from future battles.

  17. Dr. Mouse

    I don't quite get it. Maybe I'm missing something, so anyone who wishes to help me to undestand would be appreciated.

    First off, the court has excluded evidence (by the look of it, quite important evidence) based purely on bureaucracy. This has important consequences for the outcome of the trial. What if a man was on trial for murder and evidence turned up that proved his innocense after a "deadline" for submitting evidence? I know we are talking about two very different situations, but even evidence brought to light in the middle of a trial should be considered.

    In addition, AFAIK the situation is this: The judge has excluded the documents from evidence, and the jury has been selected and instructed not to read the press. Therefore how can the release of this material have any impact on the case (unless the jury break the rules, but that's a separate matter)? I could just about see Samsung being held in contept of court and fined (although it would only be fair if they had been instructed not to release the info, or if it was a rule, written or unwritten, that they mustn't), but as it doesn't affect the case there should be no sanctions which affect the case.

  18. Paul Shirley

    worth reading Quinns declaration to the court

    Just read John B. Quinns declaration to Koh and Koh is trussed up like a Xmas turkey, caught between her own court policy on public disclosure and legal rules. Quinn obviously either prepared for this or simply knows the rules better than the judge, it appears there's no basis for any sanction other than the judge being 'livid'. Which is a good basis for a mistrial but not much more.

    This is getting interesting. I can see this trial not surviving into next week if Koh decides to fight.

    1. Mephistro
      Thumb Up

      Re: worth reading Quinns declaration to the court

      Totally agreed. Here is the link to Quinn's declaration in Groklaw's site (PDF). Recommended reading for anyone who wants to have an informed opinion on this brouhaha. Note this is a sworn declaration, 'under penalty of perjury'.

  19. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    None of this bollocks would be necessary had the judge not been a total dick about the evidence. Excluding it based on the time it is submitted to the court alone is not a path to justice. The issue should be "is the argument sound based on the facts" not "is the argument defensible based on an arbitrary subset of the facts".

    Nor is a settlement based on a judge's ire a path to anything but an appeal and the start of woes for Apple in Korea.

  20. David 138
    Flame

    These cases are just because Apple is a one trick Pony and has no idea about innovation or forward thinking. Look at the iPhone 4, 4S and 5 they are pretty much identically IOS hasnt changed since release and neither has OSX. Steven Jobs stole ideas, polished it slightly then patented it.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "It appears to be me to be disrespectful to the judge.."

    From all of the material emminating from her, I can think of no-one more deserving of disrespect than this particular Judge!

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well, the "pictures" wasn't the only evidence not allowed as evidence. My question is why?

    I'm not taking sides, but it seems to me that if if Samsung was indeed working on a design prior to the IPhone, and they have proof of this, then this should be included as evidence.

  23. RogerThat

    The judge rejected Samsung's fishy drawings because she believed, based on several obvious facts, that they were faked.

    1. Grikath
      Facepalm

      yeah... And of course the Fruity "Intellectual Property" is of course the pinnacle of innovation, and not using anything that anywhere else in the world would class as "too bloody obvious to be even considered for a patent".

    2. peter 45

      Evidence? Citations?

    3. mhenriday
      FAIL

      And, pray tell,

      just what were those «several obvious facts and to whom were/are they «obvious» ? You wouldn't care to cite any sources, would you, «RogerThat» ?...

      Henri

  24. Jurassic
    Thumb Down

    Samsung is doing everything it can to lose this case

    "The divulged information included a few Apple internal memos and the designs for Samsung's F700 mobe, which predates the iPhone."

    Point 1: Those "Apple internal memos" actually support Apple's case, since the "Sony influenced" design was actually contracted by Jony Ive (Apple's designer) in 2006, and the design was not used for the iPhone. Apple also has shown an earlier 2005 design they had that WAS used as the design for the iPhone.

    Point 2: Samsung's F700 phone is NOT anything like the iPhone's patented design, and the interface is nothing like the iPhone UI. Even if it was similar (which it is not), Samsung's F700 design came out in February 2007... one month after the iPhone was introduced.

  25. David 45

    More sour grapes

    Surely if the judge didn't actually instruct Samsung to keep the information under wraps, then Samsung are free to do with it whatever they want? Apple are still on the bully-boy track, trying to keep competition at bay, it would seem. Not doing their reputation any good at all. I certainly wouldn't buy any of their pretty-boy, grossly over-priced kit.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Trollface

    Wait, I have prior art too!!!

    I just checked my old college work from 2003, guess what I found?! Yep, a phone design (Made in Cenima4D) with a single touch screen, chocolate bar type with ROUND EDGES!

    Ok, so, where do I cue up to sue Apple and Samsung!?

    Does this mean I'm due for millions?

    1. applepie
      FAIL

      Re: Wait, I have prior art too!!!

      I sugest your consult with an Attorney, and good luck.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Wait, I have prior art too!!!

        Nah, consider it my gift to them, under the proviso they stop playing like school kids.

  27. David Hagan
    Thumb Up

    Patent Fraud

    I think that to introduce a criminal offence of patent fraud applicable where a party knowingly makes a civil claim for compensation were it can be proven there is obvious prior art or otherwise no legitimate grounds to proceed would prevent this circus of litigation.

    1. P. Lee

      Re: Patent Fraud

      Hear Hear!

      Both sides submit all their evidence (prior art, etc) and argument in written form to each other and their own lawyers make a decision as to whether the patents are valid.

      If litigation then proceeds to court (still no agreement), new evidence & argument may not be introduced and if the plaintiff loses, the plaintiff-requested damages are automatically awarded to the defendant.

  28. petrosy

    The fundamental difference between the 2 companies are....

    Samsung is not trying to prevent anyone from buying an iPhone.

    Apple is trying to prevent everyone from buying anything else. If you Apple fanbois are so upset with Samsung ... don’t buy their products its that simple.

    I think Apple are just upset that people look at them with their iDevice as Neanderthals .... The phone looks dated and feels dated. I always see people on the subway using that crappy keyboard to send text messages and click on an interface that looks like a Fischer-Price toy. Instead of dwelling on what Samsung is doing maybe you should be worried about what Apple is not doing.... like innvovating!

  29. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Megaphone

    In the Year 2000!!!

    FABULOUS FIGHTS over WHO DREW A RECTANGLE FIRST on a SHITTY PIECE OF PAPER like retarded SCHOOLBOYS!

    BILLIONS upon BILLIONS OF US DOLLARS INVOLVED!

    See high-powered LAWYERS ARGUE!

    See FANBOIS RAGE! See JUDGES 'SPLODE! See JURYS INFLUENCED!

    Starring: STEVE ("DEAD JESUS") JOBS! KOH THE BEAK! Perfidious KOREAN MANUFACTURERS rubbing HANDS! Supporting Roles: USPTO BUREAUCRACY in its renowned DUMB&DUMBER SUPPORTING ROLE!

    NOW IN POINTLESS DISCUSSIONS IN MESSAGE THREADS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!!!

    1. N13L5
      Devil

      Re: In the Year 2000!!!

      Fabulous Summarization... should make a fine Postcard to send to the jurors :D

  30. Maryland, USA
    Thumb Down

    Gene Roddenberry's daughter learned a similar lesson the hard way

    In his will, the late Star Trek creator stipulated that anyone who challenged their inheritance was to receive nothing. Roddenberry's daughter was awarded "only" $10 million and no residuals. She felt she deserved more. Acting on what must be the worst legal advice in history, she challenged the will. The judge wasted no time in awarding her nothing.

  31. mhenriday
    Big Brother

    After having waded through the material

    released by the Samsung team to journalists (http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1257891/Samsung_unredacted_trial_brief.pdf), I can understand why Apple is up in arms - they obviously haven't got a leg to stand on in this case - but how Lucy Haeran Koh can keep this evidence from the jurors and then assert that this is a fair trial is quite beyond me. Here we have proof positive that not merely the patent system, but also the (in)justice system in the USA is in dire need of reform - but that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone, now does it ?...

    Henri

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021