Apple demands Samsung flogged for 'unethical' court doc leak Apple has said it will file an emergency motion of censure against Samsung after its South Korean rival released information to the press that had been barred in court. "This deliberate attempt to influence the trial with inadmissible evidence is both improper and unethical," said William Lee, Apple's legal counsel. " …
Pretty much.
Can't imagine why Samsung felt the need to take the back door on this one. Btw, Judge Koh, since you already said this isn't evidence and the jury is already avoiding all coverage of the trial (you did instruct them to do that, right?), it's too late for you to have an opinion on who Samsung talk to about it. Two-edged sword, etc.
I love the guys with the "real knowledge" while the rest of us schmucks have to go by silly published facts.
First off, every single news article, including here on El Reg, specifically said the slides released were about the F700's design process (along with several other phones from both Samsung and others). If you don't believe everyone, just check out the first page of Google results for 'samsung leaked slides' and you'll see them for yourself. Here's one: http://1.androidauthority.com/wp-content/gallery/samsung-leaked-slides/87782.jpg
If you have evidence that a) the F700 was designed by Sony (which is the most sense I could make of that second rant) and b) the slides above are fradulent in some way then you should probably be contacting both Apple and Sony, not to mention Judge Koh, because none of them seem to be clued in to this. I bet Sony in particular would probably be pretty happy to learn they forgot Samsung owes them a couple million on the low end.
Second of all, since you've clearly never worked in any sort of serious profession where R&D is a thing, let me help you out on understanding timelines. Cellular phones aren't designed in a weekend. The F700 may have been released shortly after the iPhone, this has nothing to do with when it was designed. Just getting the FCC SAR testing for a new cellular body and antenna done takes months. The conceptual design for this phone would have been started back when Steve Jobs was swearing up and down to Walt Mossberg in WSJ that Apple would never enter the cell phone market.
and by the way the falsified evidence, introduced late, and then barred for being untimely did not have anything to do with the introduction of the F700... it was about a sony design, that turned out to be really an Apple design.... duhhh...
why do you think it was barred... Apple wished it wasn't barred, so that they could make fun of Samsung trying to make out that Apple CAD drawings were Sony's instead....
did you really think Samsung would sit on proof for two years when they were first sued, only to introduce it at the last second? the reason is because Samsung faked a story line that could not be backed up, and a time line that lived in only their imaginations....
You shouldn't loose them either. The judge should be impartial, even in a US court.
If there is nothing illegal about publishing documents that are not part of the court case then I don't see the problem. The jury should not be reading anything that might be related to the trial and must disregard and in-submersible or unsubmitted evidence they might pick up in the real world. It might cause bad PR for the US legal system and for Apple but the press is partly there to make stupid actions look bad so the laws get updated. Checks, balances and all that jazz.
Judge criticises Samsung, Fandroids read headlines begin tantrum, bury heads in soil screaming 'it's not right, it's not fair,' resulting in numerous upvotes.
Judge criticises Apple, Fanbois read whole article delve into the background give responsible considered arguments, resulting in numerous downvotes.
So who are the children and who are the adults?
- Future solution:
All R&D houses must submit a weekly overview of their week's work in sealed hard-copy to a bonded warehouse. These sealed envelopes are only retrieved in case of patent / design copyright disputes. It would settle the 'we thought of it first' arguments, thou alas not the subjective aspects of 'your X looks too much like our Y' or the meaning of 'non-obvious'.
Its got to be cheaper than paying these lawyers.
I was always trained to keep a log book with dates and continuous updates because it could be used as a basis for patents. I would then have to sear that the dates I had written corresponded to the items I had detailed. It is not infallible and it would be forgeable but getting a handful of engineers or scientist to record informal documents are well as formal ones builds a case that the dates are real.
Lol...you just proved his point that comprehension levels of children with unconsidered reactionary answers cannot be compared with adult responses that pose intelligent questions allied to real world facts.
eg. The judge is bent/paid by Apple/doesn't know the law etc etc
Only in America.
Hey, AC: Let's try an alternative. Judge criticises Samsung, after having already signed off on bans prior to any jury decision.
Perhaps Samsung has already determined that this is a screwed up parody of justice and there's slim chance they'll actually win with everything seemingly falling neatly in Apple's lap before a jury decision has even been reached.
Yeah Apple.... They completely lost any credibility with me a LONG time ago.
An external Apple USB HDD came in at about $750 from the Apple store, while 2 blocks away, an external USB HDD case went for $35 and an identical HDD went for $130....
There is a good video on Youtube of Steve Jobs saying how he steals other peoples stuff.
steve jobs - stealing ideas.mpeg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXx1wZc99gM
And someone left a comment there too:
Where is he buried? I'd like to dance on his grave.
"We invented the tablet" - No, you didn't, I had a Toshiba tablet int he late 90s back when you we're making shitty computers with missing mouse buttons. You stole it.
"We invented the smartphone" - Nope, that was Palm at the turn of the millennium, 4 years before the iPhone. You stole it.
"We invented the GUI..." - Actually no that was Xerox. You stole it.
"The galaxy tab looks like an iPad" - Cry me a fucking river.
Innovator my arse.
ilovepinkfloydyay 2 weeks ago
So I think this may mark the downfall of Apple somehow. They get too big for their boots and Corporation Apple kicks world in head and World kicks apple back....
They seem to have gotten to the high point on the see-saw and it's all downhill from here.
It does not surprise me that Caliifornia courts would be looking out for Apples's bottom line. When we left Caliifornia with our kids from previous marriage thirty previous cases were decided on the basis on who was staying in California and not who was the better parent - hence keeping money flowing into the sate. Koth is a hack and might as well be on Apple's payroll. There is so much prior art against the Apple patents this should never have gone to trial.... one thing to note is that in California there is ground to sue the judge under judicial malpractice.
If i have read right what samsung released was already in public domain to start with so they did nothing wrong. Apple are the guilty party by making false claims about a phone that predates theirs and also the judge for allowing them to do so and blocking the proof that apple is full of it.
no, it was not in public domain because it was a made up storyline.... unless you believe lies should be released to the media... as "evidence"..... take note this link is to an Android site.... who were none to pleased with the lying going on.....
http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/
http://daringfireball.net/2012/07/inspired
maybe actually reading about something that apparently you don't even want to know what was going on..., but just incase someone wants to improve their perspective on what really went down....
What the like does is point out that the story that the F700 was released befor the iPhone is a myth.
Samsung MAY have a design patent for something that looked a bit like the F700 dated late 2006, but sure as heck they made some changes prior to actually releasing it, and that was long after the iPhone debut. The fact that it was a keyboard slider design seems to be convieniently ignored also.
So by your logic, Samsung pulled out all the stops to redesign a phone to copy a product from a company that had absolutely ZERO experience in the mobile phone market and released a model that was highly controversial at the time for relying solely on a completely untested new OS based around a touchscreen interface that lacked the accuracy of a stylus input (common practice until then) all in a very expensive, minimalist body, that lacked many features found in similarly priced competitor phones. This product could just as well have been another flop like the newton before it, so why should Samsung or anyone else spend vast amounts of money trying to copy it?
@honkj, just because you repeat something over and over again doesn't make it fact mate.
I suggest you read the article you link to - with the incredibly dubious phrase "Truly debunked" in the title - which does nothing to convince me of either argument to be honest.
All it achieves is to point out that the first time the Samsung device was seen in the wild was 1month after the iphone was first demonstrated. This does not prove that either manufacturer was first. The article even ends up pretty much saying (and I paraphrase) "We don't really know, what do you, the reader, think..."
If you're going to link to something as "The Answer" - make sure it actually is...
No, you'd need to be a complete idiot to mistake an iPaq for am iPhone (and yes, I have owned both. The iPaq is still about somewhere). The two are completely unlike each other and Windows mobile lacks the UI features that Apple are asserting their patents on also.
Perhaps they could explain how an all silver device with many sharp edges, a recessed resistive touch screen and ornamental features all over the place could be mistaken for an iPhone. Go look it up on Wikipedia and see what it looks like. It has precisely non of the features that Apple are suing over.
And the F700 is related to how the iPaq looks just how?
Putting your own logo on someone else's design doesn't render your device free from IP infringement claims. You will also find people who don't know any better being told by salesmen (who should) "oh, it's the same thing but cheaper" which is where the problem lies.
Yes, there were versions with 3G IIRC, but Apple isn't suing Samsung for putting 3G data in their phones.
What they ARE suing them for is copying the iPhone case design (which the iPaq looks nothing like) and UI features like pinch to zoom (not possible on a single point resistive screen) and overscroll bounce back (you couldn't scroll past limits on Windows Mobile).
the F700 was introduced AFTER the iPhone in march 2007 and looked like it was cobled together even then, it had a patent in Dec 2006, unless you believe the iPhone was designed, built prototyped and manufactured in 9 days in Jan 2007, then it didn't come before the iPhone, and actually was ripping off the iPhone, because samsung had access to Apple's design, to build the main CPU for Apple.....
also the iphone was designed in 2005 and earlier, along with the iPad in 2002-2004....
and by the way, apple is producing actual proof in the form of prototypes, documenting that the iPhone was designed in 2005 and earlier, and along with the iPad and iPhone concepts in 2002-2004....
do a google search of the documents Apple is presenting from the evidence stream, just as the trial started...
Just want to point something out here honkj...
If your going to spam a comment thread with your version of events, which in this case are...well...frankly they scare me about your sanity. Anyway if your going to spam the thread and you post one as anonymous, you should probably not reply to your own post without hiding yourself behind the mask again. Just saying.
> Look at his posting history. There's something of a ... theme going on.
You mean 13 posts. Every single one rabidly defending apple. Every single one with more down votes than up votes.
I think he needs to work on his presentation skills. They seem to be lacking.
Paying shills like honkj to fill forums full of lies like this in the hope that if enough are put about they will get their own way. It's the only reason I can think of why him and others are spamming every forum they can find with the same already discredited bullshit
"the iphone was designed in 2005 and earlier, along with the iPad in 2002-2004...."
But it was designed in secret - Samsung did not have access to that design.
Their argument is that they developed a rounded corners* phone without copying Apple.
*asterisk because I think this is still the stupidest legal argument I've heard. Good thing no one designed a triangular phone, the descendants of Pythagoras and Isosoles could sue them!
seriously? it's like people just now heard of the case, the judge turned down Apple's request for injunctions, and pretty much tied up Apple's ability to get the products from off store shelves, but the judge was overruled by higher courts....
unless of course your "second shooter on the knoll next to big foot" believes all the higher courts are also slaves to the Apple master too....
geez....
I like a bunch of low paid help desk neckbeards talk like they're legal experts and clearly are the only people smart enough to see the truth.
All those smarts and yet you still manage to be a loser getting angry on the internet. At least your poor attitude will help ensure you guys don't breed.
Please disable comments on these articles in the future, the astroturfing and ad-hominems reflect very badly on the readership.
@Honkj - astroturfing using ad-hominem attacks simply doesn't work. If you're being paid to do this then your employers won't be happy, and if you're not then these posts make you sound like a fool.
If I were you I'd stop using that account and hope nobody ever links you to it.
@toadwarrior - Anyone vaguely technical should be very worried by these cases because we can clearly see that "Large screen, corners that don't slice your hands off and very few physical buttons" is as obvious as one can get the moment touchscreens become cheap enough and good enough to use in a mass-market product. Specific details of the implementation aren't, but that's not what this case is about.
We'll see what the jury think, then we'll see what the appeals court says - because no matter which way this goes, it'll be appealed - probably all the way to the top.
If you've seen Judge Birss' tongue-in-cheek UK ruling, it's fairly clear (reading between the lines) that he regarded the whole case as frivolous - which is how it should be. Apple are just trying to be bully boys and hate any competition that might undercut their grossly over-priced pretty-boy products. 8.8 billion dollars profit is obviously not enough.
all I can say is stuff apple and there frigging patents either way who ever wins this case weather its apple or Samsung its not going to stop Samsung one bit because the phones and tablets that apple is claiming is infringing will get round it buy releasing new ones simple as that. the more jealous apple get the more it just temps people to move to android I am with android and will never leave them.
"I'm with Android and will never leave them" - jesus - I'm with Apple but I would never say never. What happens in 10 years when something better comes along - you going to stick it out with Android once everyone had dropped it?
Why not get matching his (blue) and hers (pink) Android logos tattooed on your ass cheeks?
People just think it's 'ok' to copy Apple but if they copied your product or how about a near-exact copy of a Dualit toaster or Dyson vacuum then that would be wrong...?
Why do we bother protecting any IP - let the pharma companies spend hundreds of millions developing new drugs and just let anyone copy them right away - sounds fair.
Samsung rip off Apple's stuff and it's ok - there is a lot of money at stake here so unsurprisingly Apple will seek to protect it's IP and let's not forget it's not just Apple doing the suing.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm uncomfortable with the amount of force brought by both sides to fight an issue that is, well, almost driven by function.
If you have ever had a rectangular shape in your hand it's evident that it'll be more comfortable if you round the corners - heck, even a pack of cards has that (although the argument there is more to prevent wear). If you have ever used onscreen buttons you know there is a certain size below which nothing will be reliable. They're all design aspects anyone with half a braincell will eventually arrive at - independently. They do not constitute great contributions to mankind, sorry, and I say this with the greatest respect to designers, because I have seen them do great things to tech usability.
If either party had an absolutely groundbreaking concept they were seeking to protect, such as a battery that actually lasted longer than half a phone call, fine, OK, bring out the big guns. But all of the tactics and fighting over *this*?
They are seeking to gain a commercial advantage over the most trivial matter ever, and I fear the precedent this will create (either way) will be yet another massive stifler on innovation. Personally I would get both CEOs in one room and then smack both of them around the ears for wasting time in court and wasting corporate funds sponsoring lawyers.
Yes, I use Apple products, but also Samsung. Right now, I'm impressed with neither.
People think it's ok to register a design for a phone with a black face, large touch screen, single button in the middle at the bottom, slit at the top for the speaker, rounded corners and a silver edge before the iphone and continue to use variations of the design after the iphone. They think it's not ok for the legal system to give apple a monopoly on other people's designs.
Samsung's "deliberate attempt to influence the trial with inadmissible evidence is both improper and unethical" but I bet Apple's attempt to influence the trial by claiming that the only thing between Samsung's 2006 smartphones and their 2010 smartphones was the design of the Iphone will not be questioned by the judge. Are lawyers under the "Whole Truth" oath?
For the press to be able to report accurately on this case they need to know the facts, which they now have. Hopefully they will report that Apple is presenting a narrative it knows to be wrong. It won't help in the case but it will help the rest of the world understand that apple is not an underdog company that just likes to make great stuff.
Phones have changed in the past ten years. This is not a new idea. Technology changes its shape and form because people demand new things, and their taste change. Samsung's phone changing from 2006-2010 is nothing special. If phones didn't change, we'd all be carrying around 15# bags with a corded wireless phone in it.
So...Apple wants Samsung to stop making phones that the public wants because they are what the public wants?
I'm just waiting for an Apple lawyer to stand up in court and say, 'It's always about Samsung! Samsung, Samsung, Samsung!!' then twirl their hair and run out of the court.
And yet other companies (and even Samsung) are able to design popular phones with their own distinctive looks that don't infringe Apple's design.
Should other companies be able to copy all but the logo of Nike trainers because they are popular? Are other companies prevented from making trainers at all? THATs the point that you are missing.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
