Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:31 UTC
Legal Lots of news about Apple vs. Samsung (and vice versa) in both the US and Europe today. In the US, judge Koh dealth two blows: one to Samsung (no retrial based on juror misconduct), the other to Apple (no permanent sales ban). In Europe, in the meantime, Samsung announced it will cease all lawsuits injunction requests against Apple... But only in Europe.
Permalink for comment 545825
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: Corrupt Court
by jared_wilkes on Wed 19th Dec 2012 05:03 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: Corrupt Court"
Member since:

Reread my post and check your facts, *apple* submitted a picture of the F700 as evidence that samsung was changing it's own products to look more like the iphone. Samsung was prohibited from telling the jury that the F700 model was designed before the iphone. Koh deserves plenty of notoriety for that judgement.

Yes, Apple submitted a document surveying the landscape of phones being pushed before/after the iPhone announcement which included a page that provided a screen size dimension comparison between the F700 and the iPhone. This evidence was presented to show a market shift, not to establish prior art.

Yes, Samsung attempted to make a new argument of prior art using new evidence a few weeks before trial using a new document as evidence, and they were barred from doing so.

No, there is absolutely no notoriety to this decision.

Look. Apple too wanted to file a few extra pages and exhibits (it did try quite often)... Apple had more patents that it wanted to sue for infringing (that it dropped to please the court and expedite proceedings), more witnesses it wanted to call, more evidence it would have liked to submitted, more arguments it would have liked to make, arguments it would have liked to change or bring up anew, etc, etc. It tried often, and Apple too was denied, sanctioned, scorned, mocked, chided, had its knuckles wrapped, had its minutes and pages counted, etc.

You don't see much lingering on Apple being denied any of these opportunities to improve their case. No moaning and gnashing that Apple was denied the opportunity to present what Apple thinks is its most effective and persuasive case. Both parties acted (rightfully) aggressively, and shop was kept very clean. The decisions for and against both parties are evident and show a fair proceeding. Apple tended to err on the grandiose which actually hindered their efficacy; Samsung presented more futile and redundant claims that wouldn't have been very effective even if they were permitted.

Once apple submited evidence, samsung should have been allowed to counter with their facts, otherwise why bother having a trial at all after discovery? The court's failure to allow jurors to hear the truth about samsung's design predating the iphone may very well have tainted the verdict.

Why? Why should Samsung be allowed to present new evidence along a new argument outside of the discovery schedule simply because Apple had appropriately entered evidence on a completely different argument and seemingly it inspired some inept lawyers to attempt to pull some last-minute lawyering? Do you have a legal basis for this? Or did you just want something to be good for Samsung?

The F700 as prior art is the second most pathetic argument, second only to the juror misconduct argument.* Claiming the F700 as the magic bullet that could-have, would-have, should-have gets tedious. These arguments are the last refuge of a loser.

* Wait. There's still the photoshopping/evidence tampering argument and a few more weak offerings I had put out of mind... I'll have to think about this...

Edited 2012-12-19 05:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3