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!

Apple Asks Court To Sanction Samsung; Samsung Fires Back; More iPhone Prototypes

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the in-the-next-act-they-fall-in-love dept.

The Courts 404

djl4570 writes "Samsung released to the press documents that had been excluded by Judge Lucy Koh. According to Samsung 'The judge's exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the full story...The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design,' An article at another site described judge Lucy Koh as 'Livid.' The defendant released exculpatory evidence that had been suppressed by the judge. This after many stories in the tech press portray the case as Samsung versus Lucy Koh instead of Samsung versus Apple." An anonymous reader sent in Groklaw's detailed take on the spat. Related to the trial, colinneagle sent in more info revealed about iPhone prototypes. One early design would have featured shaped glass, but materials weren't up to spec at the time.

cancel ×

404 comments

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

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856953)

I have a feeling this story will eat up all my mod points today...

Re:Hmm (-1, Troll)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857383)

The information that the Judge said was inadmissible to court was the idea that the iPhone copied Sony's designs. Apple created a Sony mockup (labeled JONY) and Samsung wants to use that as evidence Apple stole from Sony.

The problem is that iPhone prototypes (one called "Purple") from a year earlier than the Apple made JONY mock-up look much more like the iPhone of today. This makes the entire JONY thing moot since 1. Apple created the Sony mockup, Sony never developed any product that looked like JONY, ever. 2. It shows Apple had the design for the current iPhone before they were accused of stealing it from Sony.

No, the information was the F700 (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857449)

Which isn't a Sony mock-up, it's Samsung's design.

Along with 9 other samsung designs.

Re:Hmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857539)

I know it's not fashionable to RTFA, but even /. mentioned that rejected and the press-released evidence in this case refers to Samsung's own 2006 design prototypes.

Do try better.

Re:Hmm (1)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857673)

Did you look at the PDFs? The first PDF is all about the JONY design.

The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857001)

The judge's job is to judge the case in court.

She has bugger all to say other than as a private citizen about Samsung's speech to the media.

Inside the court, a different matter, but that's not what's got her livid. If she's emotionally involved then she is not an impartial judge any more.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (3, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857025)

But this is normal for judges; they think they're little demigods, in or out of court.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (5, Interesting)

jxander (2605655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857115)

Bingo. Samsung already has a no-lose case going. Either they win, or they appeal the ruling based on the obvious biases of the judge.

The cynic in me can't help but wonder if that's really the plan. She'll rule in favor of Apple, Samsung will appeal, this whole thing will drag on for years... meanwhile the lawyers and judges in the case are making $$$ and both Apple and Samsung get to keep their names in the headlines for a good long while.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (5, Funny)

Andrio (2580551) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857627)

Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857133)

I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says [allthingsd.com] the whole point is to influence the jury:

The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (3, Insightful)

syngularyx (1070768) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857233)

so why the Samsung Lawyers were so late in presenting this "extra evidence"????

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (3, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857575)

maybe they didn't think they'd need it until apple used f700 as an example of how they copy.. despite it being an example of the designs obviousness in fitting to pocket.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (5, Insightful)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857243)

I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says [allthingsd.com] the whole point is to influence the jury:

I don't see how. That was their statement about being pissed that the evidence didn't get admitted. As the Groklaw article said, Samsung is fighting Apple in two courts now, and one of those is public opinion. I think this side of things requires they make their arguments in public. In addition, the judge denied sealing all the documents, so what else to do be release them yourself.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (5, Insightful)

geoskd (321194) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857251)

I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says [allthingsd.com] the whole point is to influence the jury:

The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.

There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest. The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality, but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist), and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded, and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business. Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.

-=Geoskd

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (0)

bongey (974911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857353)

Mr. Quinn(Samsung lawyer) is one of the best. He is setting this up to have very easy appeal if Apple were to win. Mr. Quinn response to the Judge Lucy Koh on groklaw , he basically made Judge Koh look like emotional fool.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (3, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857499)

There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.

What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".

The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality

I don't know about that. She's made many rulings against Apple, too, so questioning her impartiality would require some specific evidence.

but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist),

As you note, Quinn was trying to "rile up" the judge. That's the very definition of contempt of court, and it's certainly within her authority to demand explanations in such cases.

and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded,

Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over. Why did Samsung withhold information on their own product until the eve of trial when Apple wouldn't have a chance to respond, let alone investigate? Samsung certainly can't claim they didn't know about the F700, and that's exactly why it was properly excluded.

and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business.

Yes and no. Factual statements, yes. Statements about the judge, no.

Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.

I think not. She made the proper decision, Quinn screwed up by trying to fight this in public rather than saving it for his appeal, and Appeals Courts don't look kindly on litigants who try to go around judges. Even if they may have reversed on the excluded evidence, they're not going to say that his attempt to "rile her up" was reasonable.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (1)

geoskd (321194) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857595)

I think just about any bookee will give long odds on Samsungs evidence remaining excluded on appeal, and if it is allowed on appeal, it is essentially an admission that Koh shouldn't have excluded... They weren't so late as to justify exclusion, there is plenty of precedent for evidence being introduced later than this and being allowed.

In any event, in a year or so, we can have a look back and have our answer, and you will be able to look back at your posting history and see that I was right.

-=Geoskd

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (2)

Rakshasa-sensei (533725) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857899)

Perhaps the judge just didn't like intentionally late submissions of evidence, as compared to actually hard to discover evidence submitted late.

If I was a judge I would also be pissed at such obvious attempts at gaming the system.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (2)

geoskd (321194) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857705)

There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.

What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".

Did you see what I did there? I never said there was any kind of conflict of interest, but somehow you came away with the impression that I did (which is why I included the original statement for reference). I made no false statements, nor did I Libel anyone, but to the general public it looks like I did in fact say that she was behaving unethically. That is exactly the same maneuver Quinn is using against Koh, and she is falling all over herself in rising to the bait. Quinn is damn good at what he does, and she has badly underestimated him, and badly overestimated herself. She's in over her head, and needs to get out of the pool before she drowns.

-=Geoskd

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857201)

she's pissed off because it makes her look impartial.

(the evidence wasn't _that_ late, not that much more late than evidence in some other like cases, and arguably apple had access to f700 docs so it shouldn't have been such a big deal)

in a case like this isolating the jury from the real world doesn't serve much use anyhow.

this round isn't even interesting because it will go to appeals no matter who wins.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (3, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857219)

She has something to say if said speech can affect her case in a significant way - entire cases can go to mistrial for comments said out of the court room.

Slashdot seems to lack a basic understanding of law and the court process these days...

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857623)

1) the jury has already been picked and instructed to not read any news reports on this material, so releasing it now can't affect the jury. If you can't rely on the jury to follow instructions, then the process is broken anyhow.

2) the material itself was already public before Samsung released it. they just pointed out which publicly-available material the judge wouldn't let in

3) the judge herself said that this trial should be as open as possible, hence the material being available to the public in the first place

4) the judge did not instruct that this material could not be released so it's not like the lawyers were disobeying orders

IANAL, but it seems that Samsung outmaneuvered the judge on this one.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857319)

I don't know if Samsung is doing to push her buttons. As a judge, she has ruled on this particular subject numerous times and it has been appealed. Samsung's lawyers appear to be doing an end-around her orders. While technically she never ruled that Samsung couldn't release the information, they are getting close to breaking the spirit of her rulings. Most judges would not be happy.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (5, Insightful)

geoskd (321194) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857461)

I don't know if Samsung is doing to push her buttons. As a judge, she has ruled on this particular subject numerous times and it has been appealed. Samsung's lawyers appear to be doing an end-around her orders. While technically she never ruled that Samsung couldn't release the information, they are getting close to breaking the spirit of her rulings. Most judges would not be happy.

You've missed a few important details: She specifically ordered the court documents unsealed That means that by HER orders, the very documents Samsung released are PUBLIC. The spirit of her rulings is being upheld by Samsung, and their lead counsel. She is mad because in the court of public opinion she is going to be crucified (and rightly so) With all her mis-steps and outright blunders, many people will be questioning her fitness to serve. Her only way out now is recuse herself because of her bias and declare a mistrial (start over). God forbid one of these judges should admit their mistakes and pony up. They're human, they make mistakes, but as my father always told me, its not whether you make mistakes that demonstrates your greatness, its how you handle your mistakes. Stepping aside is the only way for her to save any face, and if there were any real justice, it would be the only way to save her job.

-=Geoskd

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (0)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857657)

You missed important details. She's ordered some of the documents unsealed. Not all. Just the other day she was going to rule whether royalty rates of third parties to be unsealed. She's chided both parties for trying to seal documents that are already public like SEC filings. But not all the documents and exhibits have been unsealed.

And the stuff is not being shown in court. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857593)

In court, against her rulings.

Out of the courtoom, her rulings have as much force as mine.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (1)

YesDinosaursDidExist (1268920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857347)

No - the judge's job is to ensure a FAIR and IMPARTIAL trial -- and releasing excluded evidence to the press completely undermines that. Jurors aren't allowed to talk about a trial outside the courtroom -- Samsung has an even higher duty to NOT discuss the case with the media, as does Apple. The attorney, if he did release the information, should be sanctioned not only for the leak but also for making the courtroom into a theater. Its hard as shit to get evidence excluded -- if it was, there was good reason for doing so. --Yeah--I'm a lawyer.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (5, Insightful)

bongey (974911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857563)

Judge order all court documents unsealed. Judge gave order Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open". So the media could have gone down to the court room and asked for a copy of the documents.Also Apple brought up the F700 first, which if you as you say are a lawyer allows defense to work through new evidence. Quinn isn't an idiot , he probably did it to push the judge to an emotional response and she fell for it.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857635)

So, Apple has the right to claim "Samsung slavishly copied us" before trial to determine this even begins, but Samsung isn't allowed to defend themselves?

That's a good, correct Apple fanboy answer.

BTW, shouldn't _jury_ be expressly prohibited from getting any information related to the case outside of the courtroom? Which means neither Samsung's press-release, nor Apple's statements, nor, for example, this your comment should be known and mean anything for them. So, how's non-existant for jurors information makes this trial UNFAIR and PARTIAL?

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (1)

sgrover (1167171) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857675)

Your argument doesn't make sense. If the Jury isn't supposed talk about the trial outside the courtroom, or even look up any news about the trial or the participants, then what does it matter what was said to the media? The Jury won't see that information until AFTER the trial. Therefore the Samsung's comments to the press have no bearing on the case.

Additionally, the only reason the subject evidence has been "surpressed" is because it was not revealed within the discovery phase of the trial. Either Samsung messed up on that, or Apple shifted their reasoning late in the process which made this evidence relevant, but late. So the evidence did not go through the proper procedure of counter examination. THIS is what the judge's position is - Samsung should not be allowed to reveal evidence that Apple has not had the opportunity to examine. HOWEVER, the evidence seems to clearly show that Samsung was designing iPhone like cases for their phones before the iPhone was released. Contrary to what Apple is saying.

The real issue is that Apple is trying hard to drag Samsung's name/reputation through the mud, and Samsung is trying to counter the assertions. Apple is doing this in the courtroom AND in the court of public opinion. So Samsung is only playing the game that Apple started, according to some.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (1)

bongey (974911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857809)

You are incorrect about the submitting after discovery, it was late in the discovery process, not after.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (1)

Mabhatter (126906) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857559)

You have the point.. What matters is what happens IN COURT. right or wrong, the materials were rejected as evidence because they were not filed on time. Therefore, the materials aren't part of the jury's decision.

The issue is that the lawyers orginally didn't want to release these at all, then under seal... Judge got tired of the nonsense and called them on the deadline. To take that information to the media after you LOST your turn in court is the judge's problem.

Is the lawyer trying to shame a judge into changing her lawful decision? You'll lose that one every time.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857565)

The judge's job is to judge the case in court.

And yet when Apple illegally showed the F700 which was equally non-admissible she did...what? Oh yeah, nothing. She's one crooked bitch.

Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857775)

lets understand what the F700 is

Article from the Verge (Good Read)

http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

the F700 was announced in Feburary 2007 at Mobile World Congress, after the iPhone was announced in January at MacWorld, and it’s actually a chunky 16.4mm-thick slider QWERTY that looks appreciably different than the iPhone. It also has a homescreen that’s quite different than iOS — what you’re seeing above is the function menu. (Remember, it was a dumbphone: no apps!) But that’s been hashed out all over the place. I want to point out something else. Let’s look at the F700 in a different context. Instead of looking at the similarities, let’s try to highlight the differences.

Well damn. (3, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857007)

What is the world coming to when I find myself cheering on a lawyer, one whose actions and defense of such is just so damn much fun to read. Its like, okay Judge, two can play at this game and your out matched.

As for Apple, why must a company with such great products because the new poster child for much of what is wrong with regards to Intellectual property. They seem hell bent to do what their competitors could not do, besmirch their name

Re:Well damn. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857183)

Because that was Steve Job's dying wish. Destroy Android at all costs, even if it takes every last penny. In fact the quote is...

I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion [£25bn] in the bank, to right this wrong.

Re:Well damn. (-1, Troll)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857885)

You must be an idiot.

Sitting on the board of Directors of another company while developing a competing project of your own. That's wrong, him (Google) not being legally punished with a fine for every cent he ever had or will make is what is wrong with intellectual property.

Apple fighting samsung completely legally within the confines of the system (and trouncing them because Samsung is a shit company that can't create anything in the consumer space worth owning) is not what is wrong with intellectual property.

Judge contridicted herself. (5, Interesting)

bongey (974911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857009)

Judge Lucy Koh ordered all the legal documents be un-sealed, but then complains when Samsung sends the unsealed , public information to the press , of which the press requested. If Apple wins, Samsung will win on appeal because the judge is digging her own hole.

Re:Judge contridicted herself. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857103)

"If Apple wins, Samsung will win on appeal because the judge is digging her own hole." I think this is probably the dirtiest thing I've ever seen in this argument, even if Apple is getting a smudged and dirty by stifling competition and attempting to create a monopoly on the smartphone and tablet markets...

Re:Judge contridicted herself. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857231)

some people live to hate and hate to live.

Re:Judge contridicted herself. (1, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857373)

No the judge ruled some documents to be unsealed especially those that were already available to the public like SEC financial statements. She never ruled any and all documents to be released and was leaning to keep the royalty rates of third parties not involved with the suit from being released.

Re:Judge contridicted herself. (3, Informative)

bongey (974911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857601)

Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open". Please read Mr. Quinns response. The excluded evidence that Samsung was trying to submit wasn't sealed. I know this is /. but did you even read the groklaw article? The judge made a fool of herself by getting emotional.

Re:Judge contridicted herself. (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857521)

Judge Lucy Koh ordered all the legal documents be un-sealed, but then complains when Samsung sends the unsealed , public information to the press

Actually, she complained about the press release that specifically called her out. That's a different issue.

Let's look at the dates (3, Interesting)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857039)

"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone [wikipedia.org]

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700 [wikipedia.org]

The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700, it had a real smartphone OS, a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard. So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine because the iPhone was in development long before 2006 and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device.

Re:Let's look at the dates (5, Insightful)

Gilandune (1266114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857121)

are you suggesting the F700 wasnt in development before the iPhone was released? If you look at a SGS and the F700 they are almost identical. There is no wrong to be pursued here, it is clear that both the apple and the samsung designs have well established histories that dont involve copying from one another.

Re:Let's look at the dates (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857323)

bullshit. it is patently obvious to anyone the Samsung blatantly copies everyone. Yes they have so many phones that some
are original, but look at the history - older "flagship" feature phones from Samsung where lookalike of the the popular blackberries
and when the iPhone comes out - boom they release iphone lookalikes. (see original samsung instinct - lame feature phone that
looked like an iPhone and was , briefly, marketed directly against it) and then the galaxy phones.

Now if your argument is that you should be able to have design patents, or patents at all, then fine, I am mostly in agreement.
If you say copying is fine, then ok that's a valid opinion to have.

But to say with a straight face that samsung isn't copying is utter nonsense.

Re:Let's look at the dates (2, Interesting)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857641)

Regardless of which came first (personally, I think it was a case of parallel, concurrent development and that neither side copied the other for those two devices) I think Samsung is playing up the F700 a lot because they want to win in the court of public opinion, not because the F700 actually matters. This controversy is good for them, both in terms of PR and in terms of helping to establish cause for a mistrial, possibly.

If you take an actual look at the F700 [theverge.com] , you'll see that it's nothing like the iPhone at all. The primary picture floating around is as staged as the much-lambasted images that Apple used to "show" that Samsung devices looked similar to the iPhone and iPad. The F700 was a dumbphone with a slider keyboard and a vastly different UI (the UI shown in the images floating around is not the primary one).

Even if the F700 was admissible (which it shouldn't be, since Samsung's lawyers tried to play fast-and-loose with the rules and got burned), I don't think it would be a big deal in the case, since it doesn't demonstrate the vast majority of the features discussed in the design patents (e.g. the bezel isn't what's described in the design patent, the glass isn't what's described, the icons aren't what's described, the indicators in the UI aren't what's described), which would need to be present to establish prior art by demonstrating that Samsung had had those ideas before the iPhone.

Re:Let's look at the dates (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857125)

No moron, they're just arguing that they couldn't have copied apple because they were already working on what is alleged to be a copy.

But the judge is saying "No, you can't show us that evidence." And making it so samsung cannot defend itself.

Re:Let's look at the dates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857737)

Article from the Verge (Good Read)

http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

the F700 was announced in Feburary 2007 at Mobile World Congress, after the iPhone was announced in January at MacWorld, and it’s actually a chunky 16.4mm-thick slider QWERTY that looks appreciably different than the iPhone. It also has a homescreen that’s quite different than iOS — what you’re seeing above is the function menu. (Remember, it was a dumbphone: no apps!) But that’s been hashed out all over the place. I want to point out something else. Let’s look at the F700 in a different context. Instead of looking at the similarities, let’s try to highlight the differences.

Re:Let's look at the dates (5, Insightful)

jabelli (1144769) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857155)

Yes, I'm sure Samsung developed the F700 in four months.

The point is that Samsung was developing the F700 before the iPhone was revealed, but were not allowed to mention that in court after Apple brought up the F700 as an example of copying.

If you're on trial for something and the judge tells the prosecution that they're not allowed to bring up your previous conviction, that all goes out the window if you mention it while on the stand, and they can then question you on it. This is supposed to be the same thing.

Re:Let's look at the dates (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857167)

Samsung's device was in development before the iPhone was announced (with a developed design). The point is that many parties often develop the same thing at once, and apple didn't change the industry in the way it has claimed.

Re:Let's look at the dates (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857173)

"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone [wikipedia.org]

"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700 [wikipedia.org]

The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700, it had a real smartphone OS, a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard. So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine because the iPhone was in development long before 2006 and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device.

Durr, it takes a lot longer than 4 months to get a smartphone from design to market. Given how secretive Apple is about their designs, their only excuse is "well someone stole the design when it was secret" even though they have no basis at all for that claim. The design patent for the first iPhone was way too late given that Samsung was done designing before that went through.

Re:Let's look at the dates (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857175)

Not what Samsung is saying in the slightest (did you even read the second sentence of the summary, or did you just jump into the comments?). What Samsung is claiming is that they developed the F700 independently of Apple. Apple is claiming Samsung copied them (in fact, they specifically point to the F700 as an example). In other words, Samsung is the one who would have needed the time machine, to make an iPhone-like device before the iPhone was ever revealed and possibly before the iPhone design was even finalized.

Re:Let's look at the dates - Yes. Please do look! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857179)

With a partial user name of Aristotle I would have hoped for better logic ...... but fuzzy buckets. No you are almost a parody of logic or drunk on willful stupidity and I can't figure out which it is.

Re:Let's look at the dates (1)

LodCrappo (705968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857227)

"The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700,"

sure

"it had a real smartphone OS,"

means nothing, as Apple's claim is not about the OS

"a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard."

all meaningless, as far as your argument that Samsung copied Apple goes..

"So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine"

no, they have not said that anywhere

"because the iPhone was in development long before 2006"

maybe it was, but what is your proof? simply the assumption that these things take a while? how then can you argue that Samsung's own device must also have been in the works for just as long?

much more importantly, where is your proof that the design elements specifically being claimed were copied were "in development" long before 2006? how long does it really take to make a square with round corners? I can do it in photoshop in about 3 seconds.

"and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device."

again, completely irrelevant.

How can you somehow think your statements support Apple's claims of copying? Are you so blinded by love for a corporation that all common sense and reason has failed you?

Re:Let's look at the dates (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857229)

Then you should look at all the dates. Not just the ones you carefully picked to make your argument sound more interesting. For example, from the same wikipedia entry you referenced the design patent for the F700 was filed in 2006 and before the iPhone announcement in 2007.

What would be more interesting would be to find evidence of industrial espionage where leaked prototypes and early previews of the iPhone were documented to have influenced the design patent filed in 2006.

Re:Let's look at the dates (5, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857359)

..are you suggesting that the first iphone which featured just web pages as "programs" had a real smartphone os? not by any definition used by anyone in the business in 2007..

technically f700 due to having midp support wipes the floor with first gen iphone. it also had hsdpa during time when apple was trying to argue to people that edge-grps is just fine.

maybe you're also suggesting that they built f700 in a month and they used a time machine for filing their design patent for it in 2006? just face the music, the form factor was on it's way from numerous manufacturers(others than samsung and lg too) during that time, due to tech for making such phones coming to favorable price range: that's the real reason for iphone surfacing when it did, they were in a hurry to get it out during that favorable time. that's why the first generation was half assed in many, many ways.

Incomplete timeline (4, Informative)

kervin (64171) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857523)

Your own wikipedia link Samsung_SGH-F700 [wikipedia.org] states that Samsung got a design patent for the F700 in December, 2006. Before the announcement of the iPhone.

Re:Let's look at the dates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857621)

This has nothing to do with the function of the iPhone, software that was on it, whether it was a 'real smartphone' or anything else like that...it's about a SHAPE! A freakin' rounded rectangle that appear in all manner & walk of life...Apple is claiming Samsung copied a freakin' rectangle moron! Samsung is simply saying that they independently developed their rectangle...what a load of crap that this is even at trial to begin with, and Apple Fan morons like yourself will continue to support Apple even when they come for YOUR rectangle...

Re:Let's look at the dates (1)

Kyusaku Natsume (1098) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857647)

Still, there was a windows of oportunity to Samsung to copy the iPhone design since they are suppliers of Apple. Still, the F700 could and should be fairly safe of any claims by Apple, but not the following models, there is a clear imitation of Samsung of Apple designs even from the packaging style and the design of the interface.

situation deteriorating (1)

LodCrappo (705968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857047)

This is obviously not a simple issue as evidenced by conflicting court decisions around the world.
In such a case, you really need a thoughtful and unbiased judge who can interpret rather than react.

I don't think Lucy Koh fits the bill, at least not at this point in time. This seems like the kind of thing that disintegrates into a fancy form of "I don't like you" instead of a rational process.

Re:situation deteriorating (4, Informative)

bongey (974911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857255)

Lucy Koh "worked as a litigation partner" in patent and trade secrets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_H._Koh#Professional_career [wikipedia.org] . I don't see how she is even being left to judge this case, she was patent troll lawyer for 6 years.

Re:situation deteriorating (2)

LodCrappo (705968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857369)

well, when you have billions and billions of dollars in cash laying around, maybe you have a little influence on which judge ends up handling your frivolous lawsuit? just a thought...

god damn it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857051)

i got banned from 4chan for two fuckin weeks and i'm in the mood to troll, this is like being in the mood to fap but you got no porn

American Justice At Its Finest (1, Funny)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857065)

Does this mean the judge will have to return all that Apple swag?

I don't see how this could be illegal (4, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857073)

A judge can "suppress" evidence within the courtroom. That's fine, that's even necessary. If evidence was illegally obtained, say through an illegal search and seizure, of course a judge should prevent it from being used in court. I may think it was wrongly suppressed in this case, but it's the law.

But Samsung isn't trying to release this evidence in court. They're releasing it for public knowledge. They may be doing so in an attempt to overturn the inevitable ruling, but a judge cannot prevent a company from releasing its own property in a case like this (national defense, maybe, or if it was "stolen" information, but that's not this case).

So it's logical to conclude that Samsung believes:
a) The judge is completely biased, possibly bought off, perhaps just a rabid Apple fangirl
b) That they cannot win this case, and will need to appeal, therefore:
c) Pissing off the judge cannot hurt them, as this judge would never rule for them anyways, and
d) Anything they can do to improve their odds on appeal is worthwhile

So Samsung is playing the long game. They've given up on this battle, and are already preparing for the next one.

In fact, if they can show that this judge ruled more harshly in retaliation for doing something that is completely legal, they improve their odds of getting it overturned on appeal. So they should actually be trying to anger this judge (through entirely legal means, of course).

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal (3, Funny)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857215)

So Samsung is playing the long game. They've given up on this battle, and are already preparing for the next one.

In fact, if they can show that this judge ruled more harshly in retaliation for doing something that is completely legal, they improve their odds of getting it overturned on appeal. So they should actually be trying to anger this judge (through entirely legal means, of course).

They overlooked one thing, the IOC is going to get them thrown out for not "playing to the best of their ability" since they are not fighting in this case like it's life and death.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857413)

In this case, though, being thrown out of court would be a good thing.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857283)

I think more people than Samsung believes this. And that Koh is probably on a power trip (like most judges) so that it makes her feel more powerful when she can bar the truth from being told over some technical matter of the law. Almost as bad as not allowing a smoking gun into a murder trial because of an illegal search and seizure... even if it proves guilt. Both circumstances suppress the truth. So why is one bad and not the other. No altruistic arguments now. We're strictly talking about suppressing truth in court of law so that the wrong party gets punished (relatively speaking: Samsung not Apple, and society not the murderer), whether directly or indirectly.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal (2)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857645)

Almost as bad as not allowing a smoking gun into a murder trial because of an illegal search and seizure... even if it proves guilt. Both circumstances suppress the truth. So why is one bad and not the other.

Because a murder trial features the full might of the State aligned against one defendant. Because of this, the Constitution and the legal process give criminal defendants additional procedural rights to help to level the playing field. The State is far more powerful than the defendant, so the State must play by the rules, dotting all the 'i's and crossing every 't'. Allowing the State to take shortcuts while prosecuting people is a serious threat to individual freedom. In contrast, a civil case simply involves two private parties, and the stakes at hand are financial; they don't involve jail or execution. The burden of proof is lower in a civil case, and it's reasonable for the rules of evidence to be somewhat more relaxed as well. I can see there being some of the same concerns as with criminal prosecutions if the trial involved a large corporation suing an individual (as in the McLibel case), but when you've got two large corporations going at it, there's no due process reason why you can't just have 'em strap on the boxing gloves and go at it.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857721)

You suppress evidence gathered from illegal searches because it is a huge discouragement to performing illegal searches.

Let's say I'm a cop, and I suspect someone is responsible for the murder I'm investigating. I've got zero evidence besides a really good gut feeling. Can't get a warrant.

If I break in and search the place anyway, I could find the evidence I need (or even plant the evidence I want found, because I'm a loose-cannon cop not playing by the rules). But it's illegal, and the judge will throw it out immediately and prevent the jury from seeing it. So I don't do that - I question witnesses, maybe follow the guy around a bit, until I have enough evidence for a warrant.

If I know the judge will just slap me on the wrist and say "bad cop, don't do it again", do you think I'm going to think twice about my break-in search?

That's why judges are allowed to suppress illegally-obtained evidence. Because that's the only way to truly enforce police evidence laws. Because it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be thrown in prison.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal (1)

Mabhatter (126906) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857779)

But as a JUDGE the technical matter of law is her only intention.

The lawyer is deliberately misleading the public here and trying to influence the case outside the court. THAT is highly frowned upon. The lawyer botched his chance to get these in court properly. This has nothing to do with "truth" either... Courts don't have months to wait on evidence when both sides are playing chicken with how much they open up. Apple cracked first with their stuff in line. Samsung came in late, they should have flinched first.

Besides, if she lets Samsung be late, then she has to give Apple time to review the evidence and enter their own rebuttal evidence. Then give Samsung another turn. The lawyer was probably gaming the system to get the evidence entered "at the buzzer" so it wouldn't reopen the gathering again... Trying to get one last "bombshell" in... And they lost.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal (1)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857303)

In fact, if they can show that this judge ruled more harshly in retaliation for doing something that is completely legal, they improve their odds of getting it overturned on appeal. So they should actually be trying to anger this judge (through entirely legal means, of course).

Yes, that's why it's so interesting to see what the judge will do next.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal (1, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857503)

First of all, you are confusing legal with court procedures. It's not illegal for a lawyer to show up in court wearing a bikini. I'm pretty sure all judges would issues orders of contempt if a lawyer did that.

Here's why the judge is mad. She's ruled on this subject repeatedly. Samsung missed their deadlines. While it might have helped them, that's too bad. Now it seems they are doing an end-around her orders.

As for not hurting them, I suppose that you've never gotten a judge angry at you. While they have to be partial, it's never a good idea to test someone's patience.

Re:I don't see how this could be illegal (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857841)

last time I checked on the subject contempt was illegal, hence it being something else than "goofing off".
what's there to confuse what's legal with what's court procedures? both are joined at the ankle, hip, knee, waist, stomach and shoulder.

it's going to appeals anyways, as long as they don't get actual sanctions from releasing material they own to the press it's not going to matter - if the judge starts being partial even more it'll be favorable for them in appeals. it's already ridiculous for her to say the she doesn't _like_ something without specifying how it was illegal for them to do what they did..

Hopefully Samsung's gig is up (-1, Troll)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857091)

because this is just ridiculous. I will no longer support any of their products - mobile or otherwise. Doesn't take much research to find how much Samsung blatantly rips off their competitors.

http://dcurt.is/chromebox-samsung [dcurt.is]

http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung-vs.-apple-e1313955567548.jpg [idownloadblog.com]

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up (3, Funny)

skipkent (1510) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857131)

Yes that's the spirit! Are you also not going to support products containing Samsung parts? I've heard Samsung is behing 1/4 of the parts used in some phones.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857191)

Including iPhones.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857161)

And I suppose you'll stop buying Apple products, Microsoft products and every other technology products for the same reasons. And well FOSS is all copies of commercial applications, so they're out too. Actually, I can't think of any company that didn't copy from a competitor.

That leaves you with just your brain - wait, it is kind of a copy of other simian brains and reptilian brains.

Nope, can't use your brain.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857221)

Nope, can't use your brain.

Well, we knew that from his post.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857247)

That leaves you with just your brain - wait, it is kind of a copy of other simian brains and reptilian brains.

Nope, can't use your brain.

He's clearly waaaaaaaaay ahead of you on that front.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857481)

And well FOSS is all copies of commercial applications, so they're out too.

I wonder what commercial application was the original for NCSA httpd (whose latest reincarnation is Apache, which started out as a series of patches to NCSA httpd). Or the original for sendmail. Or for BIND. Or for the BSD filesystem. I wonder why commercial UNICes included the BSD toolchain anyway, if there were commercial applications BSD copied from.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857193)

Welp, I'm sold. Only one company in the world should be allowed to use rounded corners on touch screen products. Only one company in the world should be able to...put a circle on a small-form factor PC. Fucking really? DIAF.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up (3, Interesting)

mkkohls (2386704) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857199)

As far as phones and tablets go the technology changed. Apple just wasn't going to do anything until It could make it the way it wanted to. Samsung was already making phones and tablets with the technology that was available at the time. It didn't allow for the designs that apple wanted hence they waited. Samsung did not copy they were infact just changing their designs to utilize the best materials and desgn that new research, parts etc, made possible. As they are showing they were already headed that way long before the iphone.

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up (1, Insightful)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857211)

What, exactly, is ridiculous? I see nothing ridiculous about SAMSUNG'S behavior in this case, only Apple's. And the judge. The only 'ridiculous' thing Samsung is doing is having the balls to defend itself against a judge that is very clearly in the wrong, and a patent troll (Apple in this case). I'm DEFINITELY buying a Samsung as my next phone after this...

Re:Hopefully Samsung's gig is up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857371)

I always like to show people Samsung's picture frames to help establish prior art in terms of design.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

It looks like the smooth glass panel with similar proportion, rounded corners, and chrome edges was used by Samsung in their products at least as early as March of 2006. It seems like a natural progression to take the design aesthetic of this picture frame and turn it into a computing device.

Jury Rules changed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857113)

Aren't Jurors supposed to avoid reading news on case they are on?

So much depends on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857165)

If judge Koh owns an iPhone, should she recuse herself?
If judge Koh doesn't own an iPhone, is she technically competent?

OUT OF CONROLL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857177)

Seriously. Show me product design specs around a phone with low power consumption ARM processor, with a custom OS
designed for novel access to the web and stored multimedia driven by novel touch interface.,

Show me the all inclusive patent for this idea.

Until then we are all standing on the shoulders of giants and all you "Lawyer Shills" can just *Fu(# 0FF

Signed Anonymous

Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judge (2, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857261)

Samsung was attempting to introduce evidence well past discovery. In other words, they were trying to "ambush" Apple. The honorable Judge wouldn't have any of such tricks.

There are rules to follow in court proceedings. Samsung clearly did not.
We saw this kind of behavior with SCO vs Novell and Oracle v. Google. It didn't work then and neither will it this time.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg (0, Flamebait)

Wildclaw (15718) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857355)

Ah yes, the US court system where truth doesn't matter.

Of course, that is pretty much like the rest of the US. The whole country is one big cesspool of liars.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg (4, Informative)

jxander (2605655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857439)

Incorrect. They were trying to submit evidence late in the discovery process.

I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating: They were trying to submit evidence late in the discovery process

As in, still part of the discovery process. To use a sports analogy, should we discount any late-game come-backs if the winning points were scored "late in the game"?

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg (1)

Rakshasa-sensei (533725) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857839)

You're trying to tell us the evidence was so hard for Samsung to find they couldn't get it submitted earlier in the discovery process?

Was the data stored in LEO and retrieving it involved launching a rocket with specially trained astronauts, or something of equal scale. By submitting it late when it was such an obvious piece of evidence it means Apple would be severely hampered in producing a counter, so there's really only one reasonable explanation for why they tried to pull that one and the judge obviously didn't buy what ever dog-ate-my-homework story they tried.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857493)

how do you ambush someone with publicly available vids and filed design patents?

moreover.. what the fuck does have to do with samsung re-releasing that information to press since it's their own company history shouldn't they be able to release and broadcast it as widely as they want?

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg (2, Informative)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857543)

And what did the judge so when Apple showed non-admissible evidence right there inside the court room? Not a damn thing. Just kidding, actually she did do something. She told Samsung to stop complaining about it.

Re:Samsung have themselves to blame...not the Judg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857853)

I'd have to argue that if Apple are confident that their IP has been damaged/infringed on, they shouldn't be possible to "ambush". They should already know about this F700 and every other phone Samsung has ever demoed.

In support of Sumsung, buy an Android device today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857301)

In support of Samsung in the Apple vs. Samsung case, buy a Android phone or tablet today. It can be a Samsung device or not.

Note, I do not work or have any dealings with none of these companies nor Google. I am a current owner of Apple devices who is tired of Apple causing trouble.

Re:In support of Sumsung, buy an Android device to (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857463)

WARNING: "Sumsung" is a Chinese knockoff of "Samsung", but you know, Samsung, Dimsum, Wangsung, they're all made in China.

obviously a paid off judge (or Apple fangirl) (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857529)

So, Apple shows evidence IN COURT that the judge said wasn't admissible and instead of declaring a mistrial, she complains that Samsung complained about it. Then Samsung releases non-admissible evidence OUTSIDE COURT to the media and she gets all pissed off? Either she is the most clueless, incompetent judge in human history and this is her first trial and she never went to legal school or this is a crooked as it gets. She's either some obsessed Apple fangirl or they paid her a hell of a lot of money to be this one-sided. I'd give her about 3 days before she's forcibly thrown off the trial by the DA or whoever does that.

Re:obviously a paid off judge (or Apple fangirl) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857847)

So, Apple shows evidence IN COURT that the judge said wasn't admissible and instead of declaring a mistrial, she complains that Samsung complained about it.

That evidence was admissible. It's the specific documents that are admissible and non admissible.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?