Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th May 2011 17:23 UTC, submitted by John
Legal In order to not overwhelm OSNews with even more legal news, I didn't report on the recent developments in Apple v. Samsung until we had some more stuff to consolidate. Well, since the goings been getting good lately there, let's talk about it. Samsung was ordered to hand over a slew of unreleased products and materials to Apple, and now, Samsung, for its part, has demanded that Apple hands over the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 to Samsung. If they exist. This is gettin' good.
Permalink for comment 475028
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
looncraz
Member since:
2005-07-24

" A sneak peek is a sneak peek is a sneak peek.


No, it's not. The Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 is one of the products, for example. It's already in the hands of 10's of thousands of people (their giving it away for free to developers). It's just 'unreleased'.
"

Yes it is so. We are not talking logic, we are talking court procedure. The product in question is an unreleased piece of hardware by a competing company. Providing direct access through the courts is actually non-standard. The standard is a neutral 3rd party.

Samsung could not protect themselves from such a claim without like-access to Apple's in-development products.


That makes no sense. If Apple were to add something to IPad 3 that the current Samsung product has then Apple could not claimed anyone copied it.
[/q]

We are not talking about items to which Apple has laid complaint in exclusion to all others. That is to say that if Apple receives access to unreleased products from their rival, via the court, the court has then opened up a POSSIBLE case in which a rival is given an unfair advantage which the court itself mediated.

In practice, it is customary to consider unreleased products as wholly protected entities. It does not matter one bit that Samsung has been giving these away to select customers. It only matters when sale restrictions are released and they then become governed by the laws of the market-place. Then a court order is not needed, of course.

If you deny Samsung access to the iCrap 3 then Apple can keep the case alive by claiming corporate spies are at play


Now your in tin foil hat territory.
[/q]

Nope, this stuff happens all the time. Do some research. It is the duty of the court to prevent themselves from being an enabler for this kind of activity, though it is not a determiner for the ruling. The issue normally just ends up in further lawsuits, so it is something to be considered.

Further, it is likely that Samsung devices could be copied by the iCrap 3 given such accesses without a display of status for in-development iCrap products. This is like the court ordering you to give up your product development DETAILS to a rival company, without any benefit of protection.


All the Samsung products in question can be seen on any decent tech blog. Thousands of people already have them. It's one thing to be able to see the thing though and it's another to legally use it as a piece of evidence in litigation. [/q]

As mentioned, to use it as evidence in litigation the customary procedure is an uninterested 3rd party reviewer/mediator. Apple is asking to be given direct access to their competitor's unreleased products. Everything else surrounding that is not very important.

This is not to say that I expect the court to provide Samsung access to the unreleased iCrap, I wholly expect the opposite, it is to say that I would anticipate a cause for the judge to require a 3rd party reviewer. It is also possible the judge will look at it in the view that at some point Samsung would have to submit their devices as evidence anyway to disprove meaningful similarities, so Apple can either wait - or they can have it now, because they'll end up with it later anyway.

The flip side is Samsung getting their request granted ( unlikely, but not impossible ).

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 2