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!

Unredacted Documents In Apple/Samsung Case, No Evidence of 'Copy' Instruction

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the you-can-see-clearly-now dept.

Patents 178

another random user writes "Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case seem not to offer actual evidence that Samsung told its designers to copy the iPhone. Documents that have now been unredacted seem to show that there was never any 'copy apple' instruction. There was a push towards things that would be different, such as what is now seen in the Galaxy S3: 'Our biggest asset is our screen. It is very important that we make screen size bigger, and in the future mobile phones will absorb even the function of e-books.' Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."

cancel ×

178 comments

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

Case Reset... (5, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#41586089)

Given that there was some serious misconduct with respect to the Jury Forman and his "creative" opinions about prior art and patent law, this case will be appealed and start all over.

Re:Case Reset... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586147)

Whilst I'm very much an Apple fanboy, I hate this kind of patent nonsense. The whole case seems to be a very odd affair especially since the companies are so closely tied. Reminds me of NetApp vs SUN and the whole COW patent issue with ZFS. Those two settled their differences to stop hurting their customers. Apple really doesn't need to do all this as they have the better (imho) product and let's face it if we got rid of patents like this we'd be all be much better off.

Actually... (1)

copb.phoenix (1976866) | about 2 years ago | (#41587501)

Everyone is at risk of becoming marginalized by none other than Android, and the risks associated in general here suggest to fight to not become marginalized. One way to do that is to slap your entire body on Android's business table and get in their way - which, basically, with trade blocks and so forth Apple has done in many cases across the globe with this.

It caused a dent but didn't slow it down much (please remember that the presented figures are net average across quarters):
http://www.businessinsider.com/mobile-platform-market-share-2012-8

Yes, Apple has some solid - if at times overpriced - products and has a market spread. That doesn't save them from the dangers of getting swallowed like RIM as Android grows seemingly unbounded.

Re:Actually... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41588525)

Marginalized? lol

Apple somehow managed to be a 700m+ company based off at best...20% market share success.

The problem isn't marginalization, it's that Apple is the biggest tech bubble we have operating as a publicly traded company, and is actually only marginally worth more than the bubble that is Facebook.

But of course, here comes the flood of Apple fans denying it all, whilst quoting esoteric reasons for why it's worth more than it can produce.

Re:Case Reset... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41588397)

If Apple had the better product, they wouldn't be hemorrhaging market share,

Re:Case Reset... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587707)

When Groklaw started covering this, they pointed to several cases of juror misconduct including a juror being drunk during a trial. These verdicts still stood.

I hope there is a new trial (or better, the whole damn thing gets thrown out), but that is anything but a foregone conclusion.

Re:Case Reset... (-1, Troll)

dimeglio (456244) | about 2 years ago | (#41587741)

What are you talking about? There was no misconduct. If there was, the judge would have kicked the guilty juror out. I think you've only seeing the fandroid [cnet.com] perspective. Perhaps the question is, what will you do once the appeal's court confirms the judgement?

Re:Case Reset... (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 2 years ago | (#41588387)

Given that there was some serious misconduct with respect to the Jury Forman and his "creative" opinions about prior art and patent law, this case will be appealed and start all over.

Not necessarily. First, the "misconduct" appears to be regarding his disclosure of prior litigation. Whether that's enough for a full mistrial is questionable, and even moreso if Samsung knew about it prior to trial. Second, jurors are allowed to bring their life experiences into the jury room - that's why they have voir dire in the first place. He brought in his patent experience, the programmer on the jury brought in his experience, etc. If Samsung was so concerned about someone with patent knowledge being on the jury, they could have had him kicked off pre-trial. And finally, as others have noted, it's really hard to get a unanimous jury verdict thrown out over questions about the jury's conduct.

Shock. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586115)

You mean Apple built their case on a fantasy point? Well isn't everyone just super surprised at this.
It's almost like that's what they always do in court or something.

It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run... (5, Interesting)

laudunum (585188) | about 2 years ago | (#41586149)

Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers? That was their job after all. They seem better at managing public perception before, after, and outside the classroom and fairly incompetent in the courtroom itself. Yes, the patent system is highly dysfunctional. Yes, the law seems highly dysfunctional. But isn't the job of a high-powered attorney to factor all those vectors, and many more, into their presentation and execution?

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586169)

Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers

That's funny, I thought our legal system was "Innocent until proven guilty."

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (5, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41586241)

That's for criminal cases, and only if you actually exercise your right to a trial (most people do not, and if they did, the system would be overwhelmed and utterly incapable of handling that many cases).

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41588059)

The presumption of innocence still applies to civil cases. A judgment cannot be entered without meeting the burden of proof. That burden of proof just happens to be the relative measure of "perponderance of the evidence" (ie, a superiority of evidence, which ever side is more convincing/believable) and not "reasonable doubt", which is meant to be an objective standard.

Even if the defendant were to not respond to a lawsuit, one cannot obtain a judgement without evidence because zero evidence versus zero evidence does not a perponderance make.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (5, Funny)

Rosy At Random (820255) | about 2 years ago | (#41586405)

Guilty until proven wealthy, I thought.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 2 years ago | (#41587981)

Guilty until proven wealthy, I thought.

But I thought Samsung made so much money? Wasn't that the Fandroid talking point for the last week?

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 years ago | (#41586223)

Exactly. its not Apple's lawyers job to make a case for samsung. It would be like the District attorney talking about the murder suspects charity work, how stupid the crime lab can be and how difficult it is to really know, like anything for certain.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586317)

Despite the reputation lawyers have, it's not their job to lie through their teeth and actively misrepresent the truth either.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 years ago | (#41586621)

I'm pretty sure it actually is to present the truth in the best light for their clients. A criminal lawyer may actually know for a fact that their client did actually commit the crime, but he still is required to represent him as best as possible even if his client is pleading not guilty. They really cannot do anything other than misrepresent the truth in that case.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (1, Troll)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#41587213)

"Redacting" a document is altering evidence.

It's pretty blatant really.

It's much like faking video evidence.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (2)

Shagg (99693) | about 2 years ago | (#41587503)

Or photoshopping an image of their competitor's tablet to make it look more like an iPad. Oh wait...

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 2 years ago | (#41588057)

Or photoshopping an image of their competitor's tablet to make it look more like an iPad. Oh wait...

Or holding up two devices and asking the Samsung lawyer which one supposedly didn't look like the other.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#41588179)

At the time of that they did that, I could not have told you which one was the Iphone and which one was the Samsung. Heck, at the time if you had held up a Blackberry and an Iphone, I could not have told you which was which. I didn't know what either one looked like. The fact that Samsung's lawyer did not know which was which does not really tell us anything other than the fact that he did not know which was which

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 2 years ago | (#41588309)

At the time of that they did that, I could not have told you which one was the Iphone and which one was the Samsung. Heck, at the time if you had held up a Blackberry and an Iphone, I could not have told you which was which. I didn't know what either one looked like.

Ladies and Gentleman: a Samsung patent lawyer, specialized in design patent cases.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#41588351)

So, because a lawyer specializes in design patents, he should spend his time familiarizing himself with various devices out there, rather than, perhaps, the law on such issues?

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587871)

Actually a criminal defense attorney can not say anything they know is factually incorrect in court, if they do they a guilty of misconduct, and likely disbarred.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41588505)

That's true, to an extent. However, there's a significant difference between "best possible light" and "active misrepresentation". Come on, you're a smart guy, you know that.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (0)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 2 years ago | (#41588035)

Despite the reputation lawyers have, it's not their job to lie through their teeth and actively misrepresent the truth either.

So when the Samsung lawyers didn't point out "the truth" that the Samsung document actually said the opposite of what the Apple lawyers said, what was that?

That wasn't the screed earlier. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587941)

What we got earlier were a lot of apple apologists proclaiming the "Copy instructions" as proof of Samsung's perfidity.

At that point, there wasn't anything about "I had a look at Samsung's rebuttal", just swallowed the load.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586289)

You think that Samsung is doing a better managing public perception after the trial? You mean those lame ads that are trying to make me feel bad that I can't 'bump' my cellphone and copy someone else's play list? Did they really do that bad in court?
 
Seriously, when I got my first generation Motorola Droid I heard tons of people talking about the whole 'bump' app thing. I installed it on my phone and never had a single person actually 'bump' me their contact info. I don't even know anyone else who's done it, for that fact.
 
If this is a big feature and Samsung's goal is that "future mobile phones will absorb even the function of e-books" then all I can say is thanks but no thanks. I don't want to carry a no-so-mini tablet as a phone. Bump is more hype than anything.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 2 years ago | (#41588097)

You think that Samsung is doing a better managing public perception after the trial? You mean those lame ads that are trying to make me feel bad that I can't 'bump' my cellphone

After those drop tests, I wouldn't recommend "bumping" a Samsung phone.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586665)

"A legal MATTER, baby", at least if you're referencing The Who. And yeah, that's all I've got to add. Sorry.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (1)

laudunum (585188) | about 2 years ago | (#41587155)

Doh! Yeah, that was the reference. I can't believe I misremembered that. (Not that it was one of their greatest songs and I should remember it that clearly.)

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586861)

Wouldn't the job of refutation fall upon the shoulders of Samsung's lawyers? That was their job after all. They seem better at managing public perception before, after, and outside the classroom and fairly incompetent in the courtroom itself.

Yes, the patent system is highly dysfunctional. Yes, the law seems highly dysfunctional. But isn't the job of a high-powered attorney to factor all those vectors, and many more, into their presentation and execution?

You might as well say (if you are familiar with football) "Why, those players know the referees are terrible, why don't they just play to win anyway?" and be completely OK with the fact that the refs make horrible, sometimes even random calls for plays and fouls. Just because it's theoretically possible to get a good outcome from a situation like that, doesn't mean that it's not totally fucking broken and therefore every outcome is suspect. Or, if football isn't your thing, it's like a poor person asking a Republican for career advice.

Re:It's a legal problem, baby, got me on the run.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587725)

The Republican would tell them: "Get a job, work hard, and don't depend on other people for handouts."

I'm not sure that's particularly bad career advice, honestly.

It isn't any sort of advice at all. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41588217)

If you go to the doctor and he said "You shouldn't get ill if you want to live long", would that be good medical advice?

Leave no evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586181)

As if they would have put it into writing!

The irony... (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41586207)

The irony of Apple suing people for patent infringement is how little work Apple actually put into developing the technologies in the iPhone and in iOS (compared too all the other companies and research labs that developed said technologies)...

Re:The irony... (-1, Troll)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#41586381)

The irony of Apple suing people for patent infringement is how little work Apple actually put into developing the technologies in the iPhone and in iOS (compared too all the other companies and research labs that developed said technologies)...

Ah, I remember when I was that naive. It was bliss!

Re:The irony... (-1, Troll)

jader3rd (2222716) | about 2 years ago | (#41586833)

The irony of Apple suing people for patent infringement is how little work Apple actually put into developing the technologies in the iPhone and in iOS

I'm no Apple fan, but to say that they didn't put work into them is lying to yourself. If it was so effortless to create the iPhone/iOS experience, the existing players would have done it before the iPhone was launched. But the existing players didn't, and are either just getting around to it, or have died off.

Re:The irony... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#41587089)

Thanks, but I'd rather they didn't do it (as they didn't) - I don't care for the iPhone/iOS "experience" and I am not alone.

Re:The irony... (2)

lexman098 (1983842) | about 2 years ago | (#41587105)

I guess you haven't been paying attention. The galaxy s3 came out months before the iphone5. There are also other very nice, high-end android phones on the market. As far as the software goes, iOS is a personal preference. I like the tweakability of android.

Re:The irony... (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41587599)

so? everyone has different shipment schedules. the galaxy s3 has 2 or 3 versions. apple had to wait on the new qualcomm LTE chip

not like the iphone 5 was thought up, designed and tested only after the S3 came out

Re:The irony... (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | about 2 years ago | (#41588963)

The galaxy s3 came out months before the iphone5.

I was referring to the effort that went into creating the first iPhone.

Re:The irony... (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41587159)

Compared to all the other companies who created the technologies in the iPhone? Apple doesn't have a team of voice recognition or natural language processing experts, they don't have a materials science team, and even the core of iOS was developed outside of Apple. All Apple has contributed is making things look smooth and pretty.

Re:The irony... (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#41587267)

Apple does the last 5% or 1% of tweaking. They do it very well. While it's amazing how much a few lines of code can add to the usefulness of a large project, hat doesn't mean that the one percent-er should be able to come along and claim ownership on everything and lock every one else out.

That's Apple in a nutshell. Tweak that last %1 and claim that they invented and own the whole ball of wax.

Re:The irony... (2)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 2 years ago | (#41588257)

Apple does the last 5% or 1% of tweaking. They do it very well. While it's amazing how much a few lines of code can add to the usefulness of a large project, hat doesn't mean that the one percent-er should be able to come along and claim ownership on everything and lock every one else out.

That's Apple in a nutshell. Tweak that last %1 and claim that they invented and own the whole ball of wax.

Errm, mind telling us who wrote the other 99%?

Re:The irony... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587841)

Yeah, you're totally right!

Oh, except even the most cursory examination of jobs.apple.com shows them hiring materials and mechanical engineers, natural language processing experts, mapping experts, computer vision scientists, and other similar types of jobs. I guess they only "don't have them" if you assume that these job openings are the first ones that have ever existed at Apple.

Which would make you dead wrong, but I guess we're all allowed to live in our own fantasy worlds if we want, eh?

Re:The irony... (3, Insightful)

hierophanta (1345511) | about 2 years ago | (#41587271)

what he is saying, is that the existing players put in 95% percent of the work that created the final product, not to say apple didnt contribute their own development. car analogy: but if you buy a car, and paint it red, you shouldnt be given credit for building the entire car.

you are lying to yourself if you think the existing players werent creating an 'iOS experience' before apple came along.

Re:The irony... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41588673)

But they weren't. You can even look at Android prototypes just prior to the iPhone being released and it looked like the same old shit available at the time.

Re:The irony... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587525)

Let's rephrase then - it's funny how little effort they spent *inventing* the ideas they then patented. They stole *everything* from others, put it together in a highly breakable piece of garbage wrapper, stuck a huge price-tag on it, then hyped it until it was the hippie thing to do.

So let's not pretend that Apple was a Tech company, or even an idea company, it's a hype company pure and simple.

Global thermonuclear war? Hell, they ripped that off from War Games.... idiots.

Re:The irony... (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 2 years ago | (#41588503)

Let's rephrase then - it's funny how little effort they spent *inventing* the ideas they then patented. They stole *everything* from others, put it together in a highly breakable piece of garbage wrapper, stuck a huge price-tag on it, then hyped it until it was the hippie thing to do.

You are talking about Samsung, aren't you? The "highly breakable piece of garbage wrapper" gave it away http://www.informationweek.com/byte/personal-tech/smart-phones/iphone-5-crushes-samsung-galaxy-s3-in-cr/240008197 [informationweek.com]

Bad summary (3, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 2 years ago | (#41586331)

Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance.

... except that the entire document was presented to the court and the jury. Apple made arguments presenting it in a light favorable to them, and I'm sure Samsung made counterarguments presenting it in a light favorable to them. That's how trials work. The jury gets to see the entire document, hear both interpretations, and figure out who they think is more credible.

Re:Bad summary (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586677)

LOL - you think the jury looked at *any* of the documents? They already had their biased leader who knew all about patents and such to interpret - why read? The jury didn't understand squat in this case - they just decided they liked Apple better and went with it. Wonder how they found 12 people without cell phones to be on a jury so as not to be influenced by what they had - or how the patent master was left as foreman. I can't understand how either side saw him as a plus.

Re:Bad summary (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41586823)

Don't forget that some of the jury even made their decision on day 1 of the case who they sided with. which right there IMO is valid grounds for an appeal.

Re:Bad summary (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 2 years ago | (#41588555)

LOL - you think the jury looked at *any* of the documents? They already had their biased leader who knew all about patents and such to interpret - why read? The jury didn't understand squat in this case - they just decided they liked Apple better and went with it.

I still don't get the argument that because somebody has a patent it makes him biased towards Apple? Is it because Apple also has patents? Or because Samsung has more patents? Or is it because Samsung lost, and there must be a "better" reason than "they shouldn't have copied Apple".

Re:Bad summary (0)

Solandri (704621) | about 2 years ago | (#41587655)

except that the entire document was presented to the court and the jury. [...]. That's how trials work. The jury gets to see the entire document, hear both interpretations, and figure out who they think is more credible.

Given how quickly the jury returned with a verdict, it's pretty clear the jury didn't actually look at the entire document, and based their judgment solely on the interpretations. So yeah, that's how trials are supposed to work. But obviously it wasn't how it actually worked in this case.

Re:Bad summary (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 2 years ago | (#41588323)

except that the entire document was presented to the court and the jury. [...]. That's how trials work. The jury gets to see the entire document, hear both interpretations, and figure out who they think is more credible.

Given how quickly the jury returned with a verdict, it's pretty clear the jury didn't actually look at the entire document, and based their judgment solely on the interpretations. So yeah, that's how trials are supposed to work. But obviously it wasn't how it actually worked in this case.

How quickly compared to what? The musings of media analysts in a vacuum on how long it "should" have taken? The jury in the previous-"biggest patent law case", Microsoft v. i4i, took only a couple days. Do you have any comparable trials to this one that you can point do with juries taking longer?

Re:Bad summary (0)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41588003)

The jury gets to see the entire document, hear both interpretations, and figure out who they think is more credible.

Who are then told what to think by a blatantly biased and arrogant fellow juror.

Still; no doubt in my mind Samsung opted to keep him in the final jury selection as a poison pill to guarantee a succesful appeal if they lost.

Re:Bad summary (1)

Jerry Atrick (2461566) | about 2 years ago | (#41588691)

You completely miss the point. This wasn't just a court battle, it was a PR war. It had to be because the legal side is bogus and courts around the world are waking up to that. The PR war will survive longer than the legal one.

Yes, the jury saw the unredacted version. The court saw it. The lawyers saw it.

We didn't. The tame journalists Apple fed a pack of lies to before, during and after, didn't.

The jury didn't seem to fall for it, if rejecting Apples design patent claims means anything. Now we see the pack of lies is exposed and perhaps some of the idiot journalists will realise they were played.

Lawyers will be lawyers, but judges... (1, Insightful)

geoskd (321194) | about 2 years ago | (#41586335)

Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance.

Thats not at all shocking. The problem is that Judge Koh (pronounced "Doh") failed to do her job, and keep the trial fair. She was a walking disaster on this trial. She pushed the trail far faster than it should have been, she failed to keep her personal feelings out of it, and apparently didn't even take the time to read the un-redacted documents she was presented with. The whole thing is going to appeal (of course), and will be turned over just on the failure of process alone. If there's any justice at all, Koh will be out on her ass for costing a fortune in legal expenses for all parties involved (including the tax payers), and producing nothing but fertilizer.

-=Geoskd

If you're pissing off the judge, they should say. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586541)

You can then moderate your actions. As an ordinary citizen, we can be done for contempt of court. Lawyers should face even stiffer penalties.

And if they're pissing off the judge, then the judge, rather than gritting their teeth, should damn well SAY SO. At least then if they continue to do the assinine tricks it is now known that it is done to disrupt the court and, as officers of the court, the lawyers responsible can be barred from practice and even fined.

Re:If you're pissing off the judge, they should sa (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#41586671)

Why should the judge get to allow his personal feelings and emotions to decide what is or is not allowed in the room he presides over?

For the same reason any professional should. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41588031)

And you're already falling foul of the misinterpretation.

Do you know what contempt of court is?

Re:Lawyers will be lawyers, but judges... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586709)

Out on her ass? No way will that happen, no matter how poorly she did, if she even did. Just doesn't happen. Appeal, overturn or confirm...but not accountable or responsible.

If Apple had its way... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586369)

They would claim they patented the wheel and demand payment for any conveyor that uses round objects to get around.

Bad Apple evil apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586453)

Can you Apple fanboys change the battery these days? Are your accesories working with latest iPhone?
Brace yourself for more iinnovation from faied evil Apple.

Samsung marketing hard at work... (2, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | about 2 years ago | (#41586563)

Is it just me or does it seem like Samsung is hard at work trying to sway public opinion with these stories of late? I mean seriously, where's are the Slashdot stories talking about the report that shows Samsung's labor violations in China [thedroidguy.com] ?!?

Re:Samsung marketing hard at work... (3, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#41586867)

I mean seriously, where's are the Slashdot stories talking about the report that shows Samsung's labor violations in China [thedroidguy.com]?!?

The problem is that virtually all consumer technology has this issue, and since we would like to keep our toys, we conveniently ignore abuses like these. There's really no pleasent way around it.

Re:Samsung marketing hard at work... (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 2 years ago | (#41588015)

Because it was reported on months ago, around the same time the stories came out about the iPhone production facilities and work loads on workers.

Re:Samsung marketing hard at work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587151)

yeah, the best course of action "to sway" people's opinion (read: steal Apple's market share) is too convince nerds that understand the patent system and bring to light misconducts in the trial...because nearly everyone gives a damn about that stuff and not teh shinnies.

Re:Samsung marketing hard at work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587549)

At first I thought you were being a numbskull who didn't see the relevance a non-biased legal analysis of previously redacted evidence used in this trial and were just trying to make a lame ad hominem attack in order to get people to ostracize Samsung into being at fault on account of being disliked. But, I thought about it, and I'm sorry. You're totally right.

Samsung is copying Apple's manufacturing ethics and needs to be sued for everything they have for some sort of infringement, right now, before they get too competitive.

I tell you, they won't stop until they're just like Apple, will they?

Re:Samsung marketing hard at work... (4, Informative)

quacking duck (607555) | about 2 years ago | (#41587719)

Note that Samsung owns and operates 6 of the 8 plants that China Labor Watch inspected and reported on. Samsung, unlike Apple, is directly responsible for working conditions at their respective supply/assembly plants.

CLW also claimed in an earlier report that working conditions at Samsung (or supplier) plants were much worse than Foxconn.

Samsung also ships far more phones than Apple does iPhones.

Taken all together, Samsung is a far worse labour rights violator than Apple is. We'd better see grass-roots petitions and condemnations against Samsung pronto.

Re:Samsung marketing hard at work... (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about 2 years ago | (#41587785)

I'm also quite baffled. I'm seriously questionning the integrity of this site.

Something is wrong with PJ (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586571)

IAAL.

I must confess I enjoyed reading Groklaw during the SCO-vs-linux days (well technically those aren't over, but you get what I mean). But the whole echo chamber of support seems to have gone to PJ's head and she's gone full-on anti-Apple, and in so doing betrayed her lack of knowledge in quite a few legal matters - for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less than what Apple wants for its patents, exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how FRAND operates.

I guess it's true that eventually you live long enough to see all your heroes crumble, and reading Groklaw's extremely one-sided (and often inaccurate) coverage just makes me sad about the old days, when SCO was just this laughably bad adversary.

(It's like how WWII was the "golden age" for war movies because the Nazis were such simple, no-need-to-think-too-hard enemies you could gun down by the thousands without restraint... SCO provided that when it went after Linux with it's incredibly futile attack).

Groklaw is, I see now, no longer an unbiased cut-through-the-bullshit critique of what's going on on the legal side of tech. Groklaw has an agenda - understand this and you can read it safely.

Re:Something is wrong with PJ (5, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#41586893)

for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less than what Apple wants for its patents, exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how FRAND operates.

I think you misunderstood the point. Samsung's patents have clear value and pretty much everyone who makes a smart phone has to license them, typically by cross licensing their own patents. Apple's patents are about design elements, may well be invalid or unenforceable and they are not interested in licensing them anyway. It's a problem for Apple because then they have to pay cash to license FRAND patents, and when looking at their net worth and assets such patents are generally worth very little if anything.

Mod Parent Up (0)

thefinite (563510) | about 2 years ago | (#41587097)

IAAL, too, and I completely agree.

Re:Something is wrong with PJ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587103)

What's strange about it is that she did an excellent job when covering the Apple v. Psystar.

Re:Something is wrong with PJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587495)

Just 1 question: Do you own a iPhone? ... Yeah thought so.

Re:Something is wrong with PJ (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587713)

Hello pot, kettle here!

I don't think you understand how FRAND operates. FRAND patents have to be put in a pool available to all for a set fee. They are essential in order to be able to operate in the space, things like communicating with cell towers... whereas a rounded rectangle patent isn't.

What PJ has pointed out was the stupidity of the current patent system where Apple is able to argue a patent for tapping the screen is worth an order of magnitude more than a patent -- if removed -- would render a device unable to function in any way with any modification, such as its radio transmitter.

Basically, you either have a strong bias for apple, are intentionally trying to slur groklaw, or are ignorant. There isn't anything wrong with being ignorant, but you shouldn't point firngers at others because of it.

Re:Something is wrong with PJ (1)

hardtofindanick (1105361) | about 2 years ago | (#41587747)

What if I told you it really is one sided and Apple has really little to no ground to stand on?

Re:Something is wrong with PJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41588051)

Apple Corp's PR department slanders Groklaw and PJ on Slashdot.

Really, you either lack any shred of reading comprehension, or you are a paid shill for Apple Corp.

The Groklaw coverage has mainly been a ton of quotes by respected law professors, and other known and respected lawyers, and the actual evidence presented in the trial.

Interestingly, parent comment is almost word for word a comment that appeared when /. covered Groklaw's first posting on this trial. I call paid, Apple Corp shill.

Re:Something is wrong with PJ (5, Funny)

blind biker (1066130) | about 2 years ago | (#41588083)

IAAL.

I must confess I enjoyed reading Groklaw during the SCO-vs-linux days (well technically those aren't over, but you get what I mean). But the whole echo chamber of support seems to have gone to PJ's head and she's gone full-on anti-Apple, and in so doing betrayed her lack of knowledge in quite a few legal matters - for example, complaining about how some of Samsung's patents are "standards essential" while Apple's aren't, yet the licensing $ on offer to Samsung for those patents are significantly less than what Apple wants for its patents, exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how FRAND operates.

I guess it's true that eventually you live long enough to see all your heroes crumble, and reading Groklaw's extremely one-sided (and often inaccurate) coverage just makes me sad about the old days, when SCO was just this laughably bad adversary.

(It's like how WWII was the "golden age" for war movies because the Nazis were such simple, no-need-to-think-too-hard enemies you could gun down by the thousands without restraint... SCO provided that when it went after Linux with it's incredibly futile attack).

Groklaw is, I see now, no longer an unbiased cut-through-the-bullshit critique of what's going on on the legal side of tech. Groklaw has an agenda - understand this and you can read it safely.

I bolded the part of your text that is actually relevant to the topic at hand.

That's how it is supposed to work (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 years ago | (#41586589)

Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."

That is pretty much what each side is supposed to do in the US legal system. Each side presents the evidence in the way they think best favors their case and then the judge/jury decides between them. Samsung has access (or is supposed to have access) to the same information and can present it if they think Apple is leaving out important details. Neither side has any obligation to present the opposition's case in a favorable light. If Samsung's lawyers didn't do their job well then it isn't surprising that they lost. I have no idea if this is a fair verdict or not but I don't see anything unusual in the process here.

Re:That's how it is supposed to work (2, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#41586723)

A car that is in good working order is still going to crash if it has a bad driver.

Similiarly, if you get a jury foreman who lies through his teeth just to get a chance to get even with the defendant, you are going to have problems.

There are decisions that can only be made by people, and people are also good at manipulating things. That is why no system will ever be perfect as long as people are involved.

Why were the documents redacted? (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about 2 years ago | (#41586657)

It seems like it would have been in Samsung's interest to post the documents online from the get-go.

Groklaw has jumped the Samsung (2, Insightful)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 2 years ago | (#41586689)

Yeah, right "unredacted" documents suddenly show they say the exact opposite of before - but why Samsung didn't show them in court remains a "mystery", it were originally theirs (just like the prior art they couldn't hand over in time - a looong time). Somehow nobody noticed that Apple had the "un" blacked in "We must make something more unlike the iPhone"

Are you fucking kidding me?

But hey, PJ proves it - by selectively only quoting what fits her agenda. And what has actually been in the "redacted" documents all along.

Lawyers (3, Insightful)

jwthompson2 (749521) | about 2 years ago | (#41586693)

"Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."

Lawyers presenting evidence in a way that is beneficial to their clients? Outrageous!

Wait...Isn't that their job? And isn't the job of the other party's lawyer to do the same and, if possible, poke holes in their opponents line of argument?

Apple is a cunt (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41586741)

Anyone who buys Apple products is a cunt. Don't be a cunt.

all art of taking things outta context (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41586747)

When you take things outta context it can sound very bad. I mean look at sports announcers, listen to with a certain mind set and if you pick out little clips and phrases they can sound very dirty.

No COPY instruction?? (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#41586903)

Nothing equivalent to
COPY A to B
?

Try something like this instead:
STORE 0 to B
ADD A to B

Coming up with a proprietary implementation is left as an exercise for Samsung.

Bigger. BIGGER! (0)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41586911)

I hear the next Samsung phones will come with free large pizzas because the phones are shipped in similar sized boxes.

Patent has no copy requirement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587129)

A debate on whether or not Samsung actually copied Apple is not needed. Patent protection doesn't require the plaintiff to show the defendant actually copied their work. A patent protects against anything which infringes it no matter how it is derived. It is a much stronger protection than copyright.n Evidence of copying can help support a claim of infringement.

A copyright holder has to show the infringer copied the work. Two artists which independently created nearly identical works inspired by some other subject matter have no cause of action against each other. It doesn't mean they won't sue each other and it becomes a question for a jury (ie question of material fact) as to whether the work was copied.

Re:Patent has no copy requirement (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#41587455)

That's the real problem with patents.

I can "re-invent" something trivial and violate a patent and not even be aware of it.

Patents are supposed to ease the burden rather than make it greater. That is something lost on patent boosters that have this misguided idea that society should be more open to granting 20 year long monopolies (especially on trivial things).

Patents are toxic waste treated like candy.

Re:Patent has no copy requirement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587781)

This case is not just about utility patents. There's also that bit about "slavishly copied Apple's trade dress" or however it's phrased. Evidence like this is meant to show that a) it's indeed a copy, not a coincidental similarity, b) and even in case of utility patents, it might be used to prove wilfulness of infringement.

What did you expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41587293)

You present a case which tries to summarize a multi-year, team effort that is laden with deep technology issues within a large corporation to 12 random people who have been screened so as to have no particular knowledge of the subject matter - and one expects a rational outcome? Really?

Taking this to a trial case is just a joke. There is no way that 12 random people are going to be able to make heads or tails of the "evidence". In the end, it will boil down to which lawyer dressed more to the jurors' liking...

Patent is different than copyright (2)

Ibhuk (2747977) | about 2 years ago | (#41587423)

Evidence of Samsung copying Apple could have been useful to support a showing of intentional infringement, but is unnecessary to support a judgment of infringement of a patent. Patent protection is a strong IP protection. It protects against any infringement of the patent no matter how it is derived. Copyright gives the IP holder protection from copying, so it is relatively week. If copying can't be proved there isn't a case for copyright infringement.

So the conlcusion is (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 2 years ago | (#41588263)

that Samsung had shitty lawyers?

Of course Apple's lawyers are going to slant the everything towards their argument, that is their job after all. They can't rip out the pages that goes against their case before they supply the evidence to the other side, but these are Samsung's documents so surely Samsung's lawyers had access to them anyway.

Re:So the conlcusion is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41588411)

Alternatively, that possession of all the facts does not preclude bias in interpretation.

However it pains me to say, I noticed a while back that Groklaw wasn't quite as neutral is I originally (and possibly somewhat foolishly believed it to be). They're not aggressively slanting one way, but I did start to notice that as soon as Pamela had come to an opinion the reading of evidence became affected by that polarity.

I wouldn't have noticed it if it wasn't for something I happened to have the facts on myself, and I found it impossible to make them see the light. It's a shame, because there isn't another site that does such a good job in explaining the law behind the events..

Since then I haven't logged in much.

Groklaw isn't thinking straight (1, Insightful)

tgibbs (83782) | about 2 years ago | (#41588889)

Groklaw suggests, rather shockingly, that Apple's lawyers might have been a little selective in how they presented some of this evidence to the court, by picking little parts of it that offered a different shade of nuance."

The primary thing this tells us is that Groklaw is so biased on this matter that they aren't thinking straight. Let's apply just a bit of common sense:

These are Samsung documents. Apple obviously does not have the power to hide the contents of Samsung's own documents. As is commonly the case, some court documents were redacted for the public to protect the proprietary interests of the companies involved (Samsung, in this case). That does not mean that the jury did not get to see them. It appears that Samsung now thinks it is in its interest to make the documents public.

Groklaw is trying to get us to believe that the jury's decision that Samsung intentionally copied Apple was based entirely on an out-of-context quite from this document. There's something a bit fishy there. If Apple quoted something from Samsung's documents out of context, wouldn't Samsung's lawyers have been at pains to quote the correct context? You'd think so, wouldn't you? Unless, of course, this document was not actually as pivotal as Groklaw (and presumably Samsung) now would like us to believe. Could it be that the jury did not base its judgment solely--or even primarily--on this document? Could it be that the jury saw much more compelling evidence that Samsung's copying was intentional?

Say for instance a detailed Samsung report comparing Samsung's product to Apple's feature by feature and recommending that Samsung emulate Apple's design choices? [scribd.com]

Or perhaps emails showing that Google warned Samsung that its products were infringing upon Apple's designs? [bloomberg.com]

This is kind of sad. Groklaw did some nice reporting on the SCO lawsuit. But when it comes to Apple and Samsung, they seem to have gone off the rails.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?