Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung Admonished For Releasing Rejected Evidence

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the we-control-the-horizontal dept.

Android 354

New submitter zaphod777 writes with an update on Samsung's release of info on pre-iPhone designs. It seems the additional information released relating to the F700 was actually rejected from the trial, and the judge isn't too happy: "Samsung has already appealed the rulings denying the evidence, but that didn't stop the company's lawyers from trying again today after Apple briefly showed the F700 on a slide during its opening statements. Claiming that Apple had 'opened the door' to discussion of the F700, Samsung asked the court to reconsider. That didn't go so well with Judge Koh, who noted that 'Samsung has filed like 10 motions for reconsideration,' and asked Samsung lead attorney John Quinn to sit back down. At one point in the exchange Quinn told Koh that he was 'begging the court,' and desperately asked 'what's the point in having a trial?' — but Koh simply wasn't buying it. 'Don't make me sanction you,' she said. 'Please.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841227)

WTF? The summary should have made it more clear that these are pre-iPhone *Samsung* designs, showing pretty clearly that they were considering very iPhone-like designs before the iPhone had even released. It's the cornerstone of Samsung's case that Apple didn't invent the idea of a rectangular phone with a touchscreen and that they had been developing the same design idea at the time.

Not sure how a judge can prohibit someone from releasing their own designs. But, then, gag orders have a long history of infringing on areas that would clearly otherwise be considered free speech, and judges have a long history of abusing them.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (3, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841267)

And before you anal-retentive grammar Nazi's pile on, yes I know the difference between its and it's.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841323)

And before you anal-retentive grammar Nazi's pile on, yes I know the difference between its and it's.

Of course. The difference is the apo'strophe.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841383)

Lol. Well, at least one person is paying attention.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841581)

That'd be "Nazis" - no apostrophe for the plural form.

Sorry, but you were basically asking for it.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841301)

Not sure how a judge can prohibit someone from releasing their own designs. But, then, gag orders have a long history of infringing on areas that would clearly otherwise be considered free speech, and judges have a long history of abusing them.

The judge is known to be a pro-Apple shill. She's made illogical rulings favorable to Apple before.

In short, Samsung is in trouble if they expect a fair trial (given the history, they probably expect the trial to be anything but fair).

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841439)

Then they need to put their PR machine on it. Smear the judge in the media, smear the whole damn thing. make it exceedingly embarrassing for the judge to do anything but be fair.

A dirty bought off judge needs to have their character attacked in the public eye, They deserve nothing but contempt.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (4, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841803)

How do you think Apple's marketing department will respond? Marketing is far and away Apple's strongest department, so it'll simply be spun as Samsung being sore losers. I'm not sure why the judge would necessarily care either, some just simply don't. Look at The Pirate Bay trial for example, the judge was part of a music industry lobby group, was exposed as such, but simply didn't give a shit and carried on.

Unless it stops her getting her paycheck, which it wont, then she has no reason to care or change course.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (-1, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842073)

How do you think Apple's marketing department will respond?

By reminding the judge that if he doesn't back apple that nasty video of him and the apple fanbois in the public restroom will be released. Which is it judge, look at though you are unfair of have everyone know that you are a bum bandit?

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841855)

Are you a scientologist trying to test the Fair Game rule against Judge Koh?

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (4, Insightful)

MrMickS (568778) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841977)

Then they need to put their PR machine on it. Smear the judge in the media, smear the whole damn thing. make it exceedingly embarrassing for the judge to do anything but be fair.

A dirty bought off judge needs to have their character attacked in the public eye, They deserve nothing but contempt.

Ah, that's it. The judge has been bought off. There's no point in a having a trial, the result is forgone.

Why does this stuff get modded as insightful on slashdot? Have we all become a bunch of in-grained idiots cheering for our favourites, without paying even lip service to the facts? How about, rather than pre-judging everything, and accusing judges of being crooked, we wait a little while and examine the facts that are revealed? I know its a lot to ask, but aren't we supposed to be geeks? Aren't facts and logic what we deal with?

There is a misconception here that this is a trail before the court of public opinion. This is not the case. This is a trial before the law. It doesn't matter what we believe is fair and just, frequently the law isn't to all parties, it matters what can be proven in law. Of course if you're backing Samsung, because Apple is evil, none of this matters. They are guilty and should just cease trading and give all of their IP to Google for the benefit of mankind.

Call me old fashioned but I'd like to hear the evidence before making a judgement.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842057)

I would like to hear how apple can show an pre-iPhone device and not let Samsung present the fact that this is a pre-iPhone device.

That seems like Samsung must allow a lie to go unchallenged.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40842125)

>Call me old fashioned but I'd like to hear the evidence before making a judgement.

Call me old fashioned but I'd like the jury to hear all of the evidence before they make a judgement.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40842141)

Have we all become a bunch of in-grained idiots cheering for our favourites, without paying even lip service to the facts?

Seriously? Seriously? Slashdot has become a cesspool of wanna-be intellectuals who almost all horribly suffer from penis envy and group-think. Yes, seriously. Hell, the vast, vast, vast majority of comments which are moderated up these days are ignorant, wrong, half correct, or emotionally charged drivel. And if you start reading at 0 and -1, you'll find many a factually accurate post which has been censored because its contrary to the all too often wrong group-think mentality around here.

Sorry, but slashdot is dead. Its now a proverbial cesspool of wanna-bes.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40842017)

I wish you were running Samsung's legal efforts because this plan would totally work. No way that sort of thing would backfire horribly, probably leading to sanctions against the lawyers and probably worse. Nope. This plan is AWESOME!! ...

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841447)

In short, Samsung is in trouble if they expect a fair trial (given the history, they probably expect the trial to be anything but fair).

here's actually short: "Samsung can't and likely doesn't expect a fair trial."

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841817)

The judge is known to be a pro-Apple shill.

Yes. As we now EVERYONE who does not rule in favor of Android MUST BE a pro-Apple shill and paid by them.
Android/Google is ALWAYS right. We GooFans now that. Everyone else is just a joke and stupid. Right?

She's made illogical rulings favorable to Apple before.

Oh yes. We GooFans and forum dwellers know everything better. Every ruling against Android is illogical by definition.
It is a rule of this universe that Google/Android can do no wrong and are never guilty. Everything else is biased and FUD.
It must be 'cause we GooFans say it so. So it must be true as everyone else is just a joke and stupid. Right?

In short, Samsung is in trouble if they expect a fair trial (given the history, they probably expect the trial to be anything but fair).

You are so right. The trial should have taken place in South Korea. Hell even North Korea would have been better right? At least we would know that the judge would favour Samsung and be biased against Apple. Only that is fair and square. Every decision against Android is not fair by definition. All those other people are just stupid. Only WE, the true bearers of light and knowledge, those who have been blessed with the possession of an android powered device know the absolute truth. In fact, us GooFans should rule the world as WE are the only sane people on this planet. Everyone else is biased, stupid and a joke.

Gosh, histrionics much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841895)

There are far more options than you profess here.

For example, someone COULD be an apple shill and decide for them, right? This is a possibility, right?

Now, someone could disagree with Android and not be a shill, since this is not precluded by the OP, right?

And if someone were an apple shill, they WOULD profess a predestined belief in apple's correctness, right?

In this case, it may be just that the judge is slavishly following the patent office, which whilst not being an apple shill, STILL makes the actions of the judge wrong, right?

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (5, Insightful)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841951)

Yes. As we now EVERYONE who does not rule in favor of Android MUST BE a pro-Apple shill and paid by them.

As an AC it is hard to take you serious, but let's jsut try for a minute:

Samsung tried to enter early designs of their into the trial.
Even though that seems to be reasonable, the judge did not allow it.

Later, Apple mentioned these designs during trial.
Normally, that should open the door for Samsung to talk about these design.
But no, the judge won't have any of this.

If it was the other way round, can you honestly say that you wouldn't have doubts whether the judge might be biased in some way?

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40842123)

Not sure how a judge can prohibit someone from releasing their own designs. But, then, gag orders have a long history of infringing on areas that would clearly otherwise be considered free speech, and judges have a long history of abusing them.

The judge is known to be a pro-Apple shill. She's made illogical rulings favorable to Apple before.

In short, Samsung is in trouble if they expect a fair trial (given the history, they probably expect the trial to be anything but fair).

The judge is clearly using this as a posturing move to show her distance from Korean-based Samsung (Lucy Koh is Korean-american) and to win favor on the home-turf of Apple. If this judge "does things right" she will have a long and successful career, if not she will probably be sidelined. It's a shame that a case with this high of stakes can't be settled by an uninterested third party (on the international stage), but then again the US has never been in favor of that sort of justice. It's our way or the highway.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841351)

It's a common part of the legal process while you're in it. For example, there's a gag order [denverpost.com] around the Aurora, CO shootings that prevents many people involved from discussing the case.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841471)

Exactly what I mean by abuse. I don't recall an asterisk after the First Amendment leading to:

* Unless some random judge says you don't have the right to free speech.

There was a particularly egregious case [cbsnews.com] in Kentucky recently, where a teenage girl was almost charged with contempt (and probably would have been, if not for the press attention), for daring to name her rapists in public.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (3, Insightful)

bgat (123664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841629)

Exactly what I mean by abuse. I don't recall an asterisk after the First Amendment leading to:

* Unless some random judge says you don't have the right to free speech.

WTF are you talking about? To suggest that a gag order uniformly constitues "abuse" reveals that you have an anti-understanding of due process and the USA legal system. You are speaking nonsense.

As for your "egregious" cite, let me assure you that my work with more than one ACTUAL judge at the federal and state levels shows that they are so far above influence by the press, to suggest otherwise will get even the press laughing at you. In the case you mention, the girl clearly violated a Court Order and also well-established law. The judge showed the girl mercy by not charging her with contempt, likely because he didn't want to make her life any more miserable than it already was.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841733)

Exactly what I mean by abuse. I don't recall an asterisk after the First Amendment leading to:

* Unless some random judge says you don't have the right to free speech.

WTF are you talking about? To suggest that a gag order uniformly constitues "abuse" reveals that you have an anti-understanding of due process and the USA legal system. You are speaking nonsense.

As for your "egregious" cite, let me assure you that my work with more than one ACTUAL judge at the federal and state levels shows that they are so far above influence by the press, to suggest otherwise will get even the press laughing at you. In the case you mention, the girl clearly violated a Court Order and also well-established law. The judge showed the girl mercy by not charging her with contempt, likely because he didn't want to make her life any more miserable than it already was.

So, why'd John Roberts flip-flop his Obamacare vote?

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842033)

You have to have an established starting position in order to flip-flop on it. I am not aware of any statements made by John Roberts prior to his ruling that indicated a different stance than the one issued in his ruling.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (3, Informative)

SaroDarksbane (1784314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841781)

the girl clearly violated a Court Order and also well-established law

Not as clear cut, actually. Here's Eugene Volokh's take: [volokh.com]

An order barring a victim from revealing the names of her assailants is, I think, clearly unconstitutional, even when the assailants are juveniles. Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court (1977) expressly rejected the notion that courts or legislatures may bar the publication of the names of juvenile offenders; that case involved a newspaper's publishing the name of the juvenile offender, which it learned from a court hearing, but the rationale applies at least as strongly to a person's publishing a name that she learned from the attack itself. Likewise, even when it comes to grand jury proceedings - probably the most historically secret part of the criminal justice system - Butterworth v. Smith (1990) held that, while a grand jury witness could be barred from revealing what he learned as part of the grand jury proceedings, the witness could not be generally barred from revealing information that he had learned on his own (even if that was the subject of his testimony).

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40842107)

And it was a bullshit court order.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (2, Informative)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841407)

This design was created by Apple by an Apple designer aiming at what an iPhone would look like if Sony made it. It was excluded from evidence because it isn't relevant to the case, and it was designed by Apple. This is not a Samsung design, it is an Apple design created by Apple designer Shin Nishibori. Apple has already shown court documents with prototypes from 2005, predating any F700 designs from Samsung by a year.

This design was created by Nishibori as a personal project when he was speaking with Jonathan Ive. Ive basically said

"Well, Shin, I have something to talk to you about." He said, "You can do this as an aside of your job and enjoy - I want you to enjoy doing this. But if Sony were to make a iPhone, what would it be like? Would you make it for me?"

Apple had already established it's iPhone design and has images of such from 2005. This unfulfilled prototype was from 2006.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (4, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841523)

You need to RTFA. The designs that they released were 10 pre-iPhone *Samsung* designs. The Apple design is part of the case too, of course, but they were releasing their own designs in this instance.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841591)

Yes, from a site who's other story's include:

- Samsung outsells iPhone, breaks shipping records
- The Mac App Store's future of irrelevance
- How Apple and Microsoft intend to destroy Android

You should probably get your news form a less biased source. The information is easily found on the web, from people who are actually in the court room.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841999)

Yes, because reporting the news obviously makes one "biased." I'm not saying they are not biased - I don't know. But those headlines are not he least bit misleading. That is, unless you are purposely trying to hide your own biases.

So you're saying Samsung did not set a shipping record and that its not outselling the iPhone. It was widely covered to be true on both counts.

So you're saying that given a much smaller maket share in the future, Apple's AppStore becomes more relevant? Sorry, but that's not how economies work.

So you're saying Apple and Microsoft don't want to displace Android? Sorry, but that position is widely proved to be idiocy.

Sorry, but the only thing we KNOW from reading this exchange is that you are both ignorant and very pro-Apple biased.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841603)

Don't try to use actual reasons and logic, it will be lost anyways on the rabid Apple fanboism.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841613)

Here's a story directly related to TFA.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407919,00.asp [pcmag.com]

Samsung is also not allowed to bring up a reference that Shin Nishibori, an Apple design inventor, made regarding Sony's influence on the iPhone. In a deposition, Nishibori referred to a conversation he had with Apple's design chief, Jonathan Ive, in which Ive reportedly asked Nishibori what a Sony-made iPhone would look like.

Perhaps you should get your news from more than one source?

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (5, Informative)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841943)

You're both confused because there are two separate issues here (notice the word "also" in the quote you pasted)

Issue 1) Samsung wants to show it had designs of iPhone-like phones predating the iPhone. In particular the designs predating the F700, which is a Samsung Phone
Issue 2) Samsung wants to show that Apple looked toward others, i.e. Sony for inspiration on the iPhone. This would be what you quoted.

Samsung wasn't allowed to do this in trial, so they sent out a bunch of slides (linked here [allthingsd.com] ) to the press which do the same, and the Judge is mad at that.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (2)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842261)

Unfortunately Samsung they failed to convince the judge that their evidence was relevant, which is why it wasn't allowed. The article and image, linked in the summary are from 2006. Apple had already submitted design prototype images into evidence for the iPhone dating back to 2005, and iPad prototypes dating back to 2003.

Remember that Samsung would have already been involved in producing iPhone components by 2006 since the iPhone was released in June of 2007. They would have engaged Samsung long before the release date (obviously in order to have the phones for sale in 2007), meaning sometime predaiting the 2006 timeframe. That also happens to correspond to the timeframes that Samsung's designs morphed from their older pre-iPhone designs, to designs that were decidedly very similar to the iPhone design.

When you have a company producing the handsets you are going to sell, and that same companies products suddenly take change in design direction and begin to look very similar to the designs it is currently manufacturing, it tends to look a bit suspicious.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (4, Informative)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841593)

You're conflating issues. I believe you're thinking of this [allthingsd.com] phone, but what samsung wants the Jury to see is this [allthingsd.com] , and this [allthingsd.com] , which are Samsung designs for a clearly iPhone-like phone, predating the iPhone.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

dbraden (214956) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842045)

But, the iPhone design images are from 2005, a year before the Samsung sketches. Samsung's design could have been created independently, but it could have also been based on information leaked by hardware suppliers in Asia. Who knows.

Not according to the evidence... (1)

MiniMike (234881) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841651)

From TFA:

One of these phones (the bottom-right one) became the Samsung F700 - a product Apple once included as an infringing product, but later withdrew once it learned Samsung created it and brought it to market before the iPhone

It seems the F700 was a Samsung design. Is the article incorrect in this claim?
 

Apple had already established it's iPhone design and has images of such from 2005. This unfulfilled prototype was from 2006.

From the article again:

This is what Samsung was considering putting to market in the summer of 2006, six months before the unveiling of the iPhone.

It would seem reasonable to assume that if they were considering putting it to market in 2006, they would have had the design well before then. The article is lacking in enough details on the dates to determine who which was actually first, but the first quote above implies that Apple thought the F700 predated the iPhone

Re:Not according to the evidence... (2)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841767)

You are confusing what was disallowed by the judge and the images that Samsung actually leaked. The information released by Samsung that pissed off the judge was showing a prototype that Apple created.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57483967-37/judge-chides-samsung-for-handing-nixed-evidence-to-media/ [cnet.com]

The F700 is being discussed because Apple was allowed to argue that the F700 was a copy of the iPhone design. Samsung said they intended to release information which would 'prove they did not copy the iPhone design' but the judge had disallowed it. Instead, Samsung went to the media with the image you see in the link above. The image shown is actually an Apple design.

Re:Not according to the evidence... (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841973)

From the very article you linked to (emphasis mine):

In response, the South Korean manufacturer has decided to release its evidence to the media: two slides showing Samsung phone designs and an excerpt from the deposition of former Apple designer Shin Nishibori, who said previously that he would not testify in court.

Re:Not according to the evidence... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40842131)

Did you notice the [2006] date on those Samsung designs? They are a year later than the earliest prototypes submitted by Apple as evidence which was dated in 2005.

Re:Not according to the evidence... (5, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841777)

It should not matter which was first. The fact that Samsung had this design before they had seen the iPhone design means that they clearly came up with it independently. Patents are broken. They currently serve to do the exact opposite of what they were intended for.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (2)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842011)

Apple had already established it's iPhone design and has images of such from 2005. This unfulfilled prototype was from 2006.

The prototypes from Samsung could still be relevant if Apples design where not released by that time. In that case Samsungs designs could show that two parties where having the same ideas independently.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841521)

The judge ought to be charge-sheeted and sentenced for prejudicial misconduct. Sadly, it appears she has already decided in favour of Apple. So looks like this is headed for the Appeals court, all over again.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841543)

Not sure how a judge can prohibit someone from releasing their own designs.

Even more unsure how this evidence can be dismissed by a judge. It's important.

Seems to me like we need a better judge.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841723)

this is a: the same judge that filed the injunction against samsung and b: says things need to be public. Samsung releasing one of it's own designs? Questionable that there can be any judicial influence on the topic.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1, Insightful)

Danathar (267989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841597)

Although I agree that Samsung might have been considering iphone like designes before the iphone came out, one has to consider if Samsung's designs were based on what they saw when Apple came to them for manufacturing as opposed to when it was released.

Samsung would have known the design of the iphone FAR before the release date due to the fact that they had to manufacture it.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841867)

I don't think Samsung manufactured any of the iPhones, they just sold Apple the constituent parts.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842059)

yea, but a good set of engineers could see what Apple was building if Samsung had the parts even prior to full assembly at a place like FOXCONN

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841725)

Lucy Koh is Apple biased, she used to do work for them at her previous employer. Why act suprised?

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841873)

Conflict of interest. Demand a new judge citing her work history.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841821)

It's the cornerstone of Samsung's case that Apple didn't invent the idea of a rectangular phone with a touchscreen and that they had been developing the same design idea at the time.

If it's such an important piece of evidence, why did they wait until after the deadline to submit it ?

Either their lawyers are incompetent or they wanted Apple's lawyers to have less time to prepare their case based on this evidence and gambled that the judge would allow the evidence anyway. I expect Samsung to have hired a bunch of very expensive lawyers so I'm assuming they just gambled and lost.

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841899)

WTF? The summary should have made it more clear that these are pre-iPhone *Samsung* designs, showing pretty clearly that they were considering very iPhone-like designs before the iPhone had even released. It's the cornerstone of Samsung's case that Apple didn't invent the idea of a rectangular phone with a touchscreen and that they had been developing the same design idea at the time.

Not sure how a judge can prohibit someone from releasing their own designs. But, then, gag orders have a long history of infringing on areas that would clearly otherwise be considered free speech, and judges have a long history of abusing them.

Isn't this submission talking about the F700, which is not a Samsung design?

Does anyone RTFS anymore? Why are summaries even accepted with so man links and no clear subject?

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40842009)

I don't get it. I know some nerds designing their own mobile phones and computer in one with a touch screen back before 2006. They didn't have the capital and maybe inclination to follow through with their projects and/or mass manufacture them. It's a pretty obvious development of technology. More functions in smaller devices, and the design of the smartphone was pretty much there even in 2002. It's a pretty small evolution from the cell phone. So how is all this IP noise even justified in the first place?

Aren't a lot of "inventions" today easily envisioned by folks in the industry years or decades in advance, and bringing it to market is simply a matter of when it becomes economically balanced between risk, profit, motive, etc. for some company?

Re:Samsung can't release it's OWN designs?!? (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842321)

WTF? The summary should have made it more clear that these are pre-iPhone *Samsung* designs, showing pretty clearly that they were considering very iPhone-like designs before the iPhone had even released. It's the cornerstone of Samsung's case that Apple didn't invent the idea of a rectangular phone with a touchscreen and that they had been developing the same design idea at the time.

Not sure how a judge can prohibit someone from releasing their own designs.

Because that shows the "obviousness" of certain design elements. Just compare pictures of a (switched-off) HP TouchPad and an Apple iPad, they are freakishly similar up to the one button at the bottom center (though it's shaped differently).

LUCKILY these designs are all over the net, so everyone knows that the general appearance is not a Revelation Given To Humanity by Apple.

Samsung should be thanked (4, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841303)

for showing what a mockery the courts make of the law so they can arrive at their predetermined ruling.

If evidence that supports the defense is excluded then I have to agree with the attorney for Samsung as to what point is there for a trial?

Re:Samsung should be thanked (4, Informative)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841409)

IIRC, the evidence was rejected because it was submitted after the deadline has passed. That may sound petty, but the other side in this case should have a chance to examine the evidence and prepare a response. That's how these things work, and should work.

Re:Samsung should be thanked (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841461)

"Politicians are like babies' diapers; they should be changed often, and for the same reason."

same goes for judges.

Re:Samsung should be thanked (2)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842093)

In most places, judges *are* politicians.

Re:Samsung should be thanked (0)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842181)

And people who refer to themselves as "Lumpy" on slashdot.

Re:Samsung should be thanked (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842201)

So a judge following rules of evidence should be removed because you disagreed with the ruling?

Re:Samsung should be thanked (5, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841419)

for showing what a mockery the courts make of the law so they can arrive at their predetermined ruling.

If evidence that supports the defense is excluded then I have to agree with the attorney for Samsung as to what point is there for a trial?

If Samsung can spring surprise evidence on the other side on the eve of trial, having withheld it during months and months of required disclosure and discovery, then what point is there for due process? The federal courts don't actually work the way you see in Boston Legal.

Re:Samsung should be thanked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841511)

The thing is...their theory on the subject has validity. Just because they didn't provide it, doesn't mean that Apple didn't do a bit of it themselves on the subject (Hint: they did at that...)- and their broaching it in passing either opened the subject back up or it needed to be shown to not be considered. Since it wasn't on either count- it's the possibility of an appeal that they're staging things with now.

Oooh an apple fanboy (0, Troll)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841557)

Typical Apple fanboy, the one who kept evidence hidden for months was Apple in this case, making it impossible for Samsung to get this evidence any earlier. As can be read clearly in Samsungs appeal. Mind you, facts never get in the way of an Apple fanboy.

Oooh, a troll (3, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842003)

And yes, you are a troll, when you jump to calling someone a fanboy for pointing out how federal rules of procedure work.

But, troll, for others in the audience, let's examine your alleged point:

Typical Apple fanboy, the one who kept evidence hidden for months was Apple in this case, making it impossible for Samsung to get this evidence any earlier. As can be read clearly in Samsungs appeal. Mind you, facts never get in the way of an Apple fanboy.

Last I checked, the F700 was a Samsung phone. You're claiming that Apple hid Samsung's own product history from them, making it impossible for Samsung to get it any earlier. Why exactly should we find you credible about anything?

Re:Oooh an apple fanboy (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842015)

Not that I care* since the full face touch screen phone is clearlhy obvious, but Apple must be really tricky if they can keep evidence of Samsung's own designs from Samsung.

* Heck I wrote the code for a "phone" running on an iPAQ (oh look a non-apple i* name) PDA in 2001 or so. Not a useful thing, a prototype that used SIP/RTP for making actual calls over wifi (the device itself actually did the RTP part with yet another layer hiding the SIP stuff since the phone portion was a minor part of the overall setup). It was obvious then, and it's obvious now - just back then the touch screen hardware wasn't good enough, at the price points we were dealing with anyway.

Of course most of the draw backs from back then still apply now, the joys of trying to use an on screen dialer UI in direct sunlight for example.

Re:Oooh an apple fanboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40842037)

As can be read clearly in Samsungs appeal

Wow, way to show 'em! The complete, objective facts in the brief compiled by Samsung's hardworking attorneys are sure to send the fanboys sulking away, tail tucked between their legs.

Re:Samsung should be thanked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841631)

Did you read 10 motions to reconsider rejection of the said evidence? Thanks for your nonsense.

Re:Samsung should be thanked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841735)

Boston Legal...do people still watch that? I thought Apple fanboys were supposed to be ahead of the curve or hipsters? Oh, I get it...Boston Legal is retro now?

Re:Samsung should be thanked (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841813)

I don't know enough about the situation, but why wasn't it raised earlier? I understand they said deadline was passed, but when was apple's complaint raised prior to samsung introducing this evidence? Would they know that prior to apple raising a complaint, for example?

Re:Samsung should be thanked (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841427)

Sounds like you have already predetermined that Samsung is right. Have you considered that the judge actually reviewed the "evidence", and you have not?

Ooh an AC Apple fanboy (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841605)

In the US, it is up to the jury to decide who is right. Not the judge.

Re:Ooh an AC Apple fanboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841989)

That depends on the case - not all cases have juries.

Here, though, the Judge decides what is legally relevant to the case, part of which is the evidence being presented by both the plaintiff and defendant legal teams.

Re:Ooh an AC Apple fanboy (1)

thefinite (563510) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842345)

In the US, it is up to the jury to decide who is right. Not the judge.

I think it would help for you to understand the law better. In jury trials, judges determine issues of law and juries determine issues of fact. Whether or not evidence should be barred because Samsung failed to produce it (their own design they had for years) during a months-long discovery period is an issue of law determined soley by the judge.

Re:Samsung should be thanked (2, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841583)

I suspect the real reason the judge is "furious" is because now the entire world knows she's in Apple's pocket.

Disallowing these pre-iPhone designs as evidence proves it.

Re:Samsung should be thanked (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842287)

If you had been following the case, Samsung made an appeal to have this evidence added past deadline. This was their designs which they could have submitted earlier. The judge said no. Samsung filed appeals. Now they are asking again to submit it even though they've been told repeatedly no. If you were the judge, you'd be pissed too.

Well clue one should have been... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841309)

...when the judge was on the bench playing around on her iPhone. And had been spotted saving a spot waiting for the iPhone 5.

Typical lamedroid actions. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841369)

A company doesn't want to admit that it wholesale STOLE the design for its terrible phones from Apple and now they petulantly ignore a judge's orders not to release their fake "proof". This is an obvious attempt to make an end run around the courts in order to undermine Apple's air tight case against them. I hope the judge smacks them down HARD by tripling the damages when Apple wins.

Think different.
Think BETTER.
Think Apple!

Re:Typical lamedroid actions. (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841485)

Nah, I'd rather just plain think. It's quite good, try it sometimes.

wtf judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841375)

Guess the judge is owned by Apple or has some interest in keeping them happy

Re:wtf judge (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841421)

Or, you know, the judge is tied by the rules about submitting evidence?

How do we, as consumers, benefit from all this? (5, Insightful)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841391)

I don't really care that much how the trial pans out... But I do care about the fact that it seems like this trial is hurting my choices as a consumer. I like choice. From what I can see Apple is trying reeeeally hard to show that they should own a bunch of really nice UI ideas. Or that a touchscreen filling most of the user facing side of the phone is their idea? Frankly, the whole thing seems ridiculous.

Recently I've been looking at buying an IP67-grade Android phone. AFAIK Apple has no plans to make the iPhone waterproof and dustproof. So if Apple has it's way either I buy a UI-crippled phone, or an iPhone which doesn't fit my requirements?

Legislation should exist to benefit society, not to maximize profits for a select few corporate entities.

Re:How do we, as consumers, benefit from all this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841437)

Legislation should exist to benefit society, not to maximize profits for a select few corporate entities.

Unfortunately, these corporate entities are buying the laws.

Re:How do we, as consumers, benefit from all this? (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841465)

Someone is going to make some really good designs, designs that are way better than Apple's. That's the benefits we are going to get if Apple wins.

Re:How do we, as consumers, benefit from all this? (0)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841509)

And the problem is based on old outdated phones. The galaxy 3 is a turd compared to the nexus. Fat honking chunk phone that if you squint looks like a iphone if drawn by salvador dali....

Phones like the Nexus HSPA+ is where samsung is going and only a blind man would mistake it for an iphone until they touched it. I have many iphone fanboy friends and they all lust after my nexus phone. a couple have said, "that thing makes the iphone look and feel like a outdated phone from 5 years ago."

All this patent bullshit needs to be thrown out. no patents allowed that last more than 5 years.

Re:How do we, as consumers, benefit from all this? (1)

bgat (123664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841683)

So if Apple has it's way either I buy a UI-crippled phone, or an iPhone which doesn't fit my requirements?

Correct, and correct. Hint: the Apple phone is both UI-crippled and not IP67.

Re:How do we, as consumers, benefit from all this? (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841889)

"How do we, as consumers, benefit from all this?"

With patent litigation, the direct answer is that we almost never do, and the system isn't really intended to provide an immediate benefit: it's explicitly a temporary monopoly granted to an inventor, and monopolies (even temporary) generally raise prices and reduce options.

The theoretical long-term justification is that a patent system incentivizes both innovation and public disclosure of innovations (vs. keeping them as trade secrets), thereby making us all better off in general, with better, cheaper, technology and more options if you view it over a longer timeframe than the timeframe of any one patent.

I suspect that it often fails to work out that way, though.

Re:How do we, as consumers, benefit from all this? (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841901)

Legislation should exist to benefit society, not to maximize profits for a select few corporate entities.

The problem here is not the legislation so much as the regulation. Different parts of the American economy need different patent policies and quite a bit of judgement needs to be applied to achieve that. That is we need an expensive, well staffed powerful patent office with strong congressional support.

Re:How do we, as consumers, benefit from all this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841965)

That's what's odd about the case. The phones are all out there now. It's too late. I can only imagine Apple is suing for damages at this point.

Re:How do we, as consumers, benefit from all this? (0)

joeflies (529536) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841997)

This trial is about consumer choice, namely having Samsung develop new ideas rather than recycling old ones. You should get better innovation when there are more innovators

Re:How do we, as consumers, benefit from all this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40842159)

Unfortunately, everyone can be bought with a price. So technically, legislation inherently supports maximizing profits for those who can afford it than it does to the benefit of society.

I don't really care that much how the trial pans out... But I do care about the fact that it seems like this trial is hurting my choices as a consumer. I like choice. From what I can see Apple is trying reeeeally hard to show that they should own a bunch of really nice UI ideas. Or that a touchscreen filling most of the user facing side of the phone is their idea? Frankly, the whole thing seems ridiculous.

Recently I've been looking at buying an IP67-grade Android phone. AFAIK Apple has no plans to make the iPhone waterproof and dustproof. So if Apple has it's way either I buy a UI-crippled phone, or an iPhone which doesn't fit my requirements?

Legislation should exist to benefit society, not to maximize profits for a select few corporate entities.

Apple will prevail, unfortunately. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841405)

Despite what device you think is better, this is a homegrown good ol' USA free market enterprise vs. cold, emotionless communist giant. Samsung never had a chance.

Re:Apple will prevail, unfortunately. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841443)

(I realize they're not actually communist, but nobody's gonna see it that way). South Korea is China-light to most North Americans.

Re:Apple will prevail, unfortunately. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841851)

What are you talking about? North Korea is China-heavy. South Korea is one of the capitalistic giants of the world. It is proof that capitalism encourages democracy (South Korea was a military dictatorship that evolved into a democracy as its middle class expanded as a result of its capitalistic economy--partially imposed by the U.S. on the government as a condition of defense against North Korean aggression).

Sanctions in the court? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841415)

Quinn told Koh that he was 'begging the court,' and desperately asked 'what's the point in having a trial?' — but Koh simply wasn't buying it. 'Don't make me sanction you,' she said. 'Please.'

Somehow I see a future Rule 34 submission for this interchange.

*scampers to collect brain from gutter*

Done reading about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841425)

The trial is a circus and both sides are a joke.

The monetized version of Calvinball sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40841519)

I much prefer the amateur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes [wikipedia.org] version.

2003 model of motion controlled touchscreen phone (1)

colordev (1764040) | more than 2 years ago | (#40841809)

A little know finnish start-up [theregister.co.uk] made in 2003 a motion controlled touchscreen smartphone. Combine that with Samsung's designs and you get an iPhonish thing.

LOOK INTO THE JUDGE'S STOCK INVESTMENTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40842173)

obviously the FBI should look int any relationships that the judge or the familiars of the judge have with Apple, especially the banking and stock ownerships that there may be

And in the center ring... (2)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 2 years ago | (#40842209)

The summary missed what is probably the most important line of the article:

"The Apple vs. Samsung trial was always destined to be a circus, "

It's clear that neither Apple nor Samsung is going to look good PR wise after all is said and done.

So the question becomes, who will get screwed over the hardest? Right now I'm betting on Samsung, simply because Apple has way more... um... "thermonuclear" experience.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?