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.
Thread beginning with comment 474946
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Not about fairness so much..
by kristoph on Sun 29th May 2011 18:22 UTC in reply to "Not about fairness so much.."
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

Many things wrong with your understanding of this situation ...

1) Apple does not get to 'have' any unreleased products. They will be able to have their attorneys look at these products in a room with Samsung attorneys.

2) The Samsung products in questions have already been displayed and in some cases given to journalists and such so these are not 'secrets' of Samsung. I

3) Apple is litigating on the basis that Apple's current products are being copied by Samsung's current AND future products. You can't sue someone for copying a product that no one has seen unless you're claiming you trade secrets were stolen, which Apple is not.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple is litigating on the basis that Apple's current products are being copied by Samsung's current AND future products.


In that case - I'm suing you because in six months you might break into my house and steal my TV.

Reply Parent Score: 4

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I suspect a more sound basis is required, such as being in the business of house robbing.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Samsung has already been sampling these products.

To use your analogy you could sue me (as well as have me arrested) if you found me in your house holding your TV even though I did not remove it from your house at that point.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

2) The Samsung products in questions have already been displayed and in some cases given to journalists and such so these are not 'secrets' of Samsung.

You probably thought Minority Report was a great idea to catch future criminals ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24


1) Apple does not get to 'have' any unreleased products. They will be able to have their attorneys look at these products in a room with Samsung attorneys.


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


2) The Samsung products in questions have already been displayed and in some cases given to journalists and such so these are not 'secrets' of Samsung. I


There is a significant different between display and hands-on. Not to say that this doesn't weaken the point, but it does not obliterate it.


3) Apple is litigating on the basis that Apple's current products are being copied by Samsung's current AND future products. You can't sue someone for copying a product that no one has seen unless you're claiming you trade secrets were stolen, which Apple is not.


I specifically stated that Apple could make such claims to protect their case by claiming future Apple products had in fact also been copied. Samsung could not protect themselves from such a claim without like-access to Apple's in-development products.

If you deny Samsung access to the iCrap 3 then Apple can keep the case alive by claiming corporate spies are at play, to which Samsung could not answer. Judges are suppose to look forward to such shenanigans.

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.

Naturally, however, the judge can always deny now, and wait for Samsung to issue another request when the time is needed, but Samsung would likely prefer to use it as an excuse for another lawsuit of similar design as the one at hand.

Happens ALL THE TIME.

You must remember, you are not dealing with humans. These are lawyers. The outcome of a case all too often has scant connection with the merits of original complaint, though that depends on the judge.

--The loon

PS: You also must consider that there is a counter-suit, without it denial would be a given.

EDIT: oops...

Edited 2011-05-29 19:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

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'.

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.

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.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

The question I'm having though; are Apple's lawyers all engineers also who can fully comprehend the technical details in order to find valid patent infringement? Trusting a lawyer to review and report on technological matters seems like trusting a florist to diagnose human illness and prescribe proper medication.

A room full of laywers reviewing in-development technologies hardly seems like the basis for valid recognition and claim of infringement. Won't Apple still need an engineer in the room to consult with the lawyers?

Reply Parent Score: 4

looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

The question I'm having though; are Apple's lawyers all engineers also who can fully comprehend the technical details in order to find valid patent infringement? Trusting a lawyer to review and report on technological matters seems like trusting a florist to diagnose human illness and prescribe proper medication.

A room full of laywers reviewing in-development technologies hardly seems like the basis for valid recognition and claim of infringement. Won't Apple still need an engineer in the room to consult with the lawyers?


You don't understand how the court is REQUIRED to view the lawyers. They are to be viewed as the party themselves. Your argument only, legally, makes sense when a NEUTRAL 3rd Party is involved. That 3rd party makes the determination of similarity in a non-biased manner by making, essentially, cliff notes as to their commonalities and their differences.

Because lawyers are direct representatives, the court must assume that they possess all knowledge and skills as the party in question. The courts are not to give special exception to lawyers because of their presumed lack of knowledge or relation to the party, lawyers are YOU in every sense of the law. You can even go to prison for the things they do AS YOU.

Power of attorney is a MF!

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 2

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Many things wrong with your understanding of this situation ...

Certainly, someone's understanding of the situation is incorrect (probably clouded by the RDF).


1) Apple does not get to 'have' any unreleased products. They will be able to have their attorneys look at these products in a room with Samsung attorneys.

It is irrelevant as to who from Apple views the products. For this forced disclosure to make sense, the representatives from Apple will have to understand the essence of Samsung's products, whether the Apple reps are lawyers, engineers or janitors.

I would hope that a very restrictive NDA is implemented.


2) The Samsung products in questions have already been displayed and in some cases given to journalists and such so these are not 'secrets' of Samsung. I

If so, why does Apple need to see the products? They have already been disclosed.


3) Apple is litigating on the basis that Apple's current products are being copied by Samsung's current AND future products.

A lawsuit regarding what the defendant is thinking about the future has a very weak basis. However, with some of the crazy decisions that courts have made lately, any outcome is possible.


You can't sue someone for copying a product that no one has seen unless you're claiming you trade secrets were stolen, which Apple is not.

You can sue someone because their eyes are blue, but that doesn't mean you will win the case.

Furthermore, patents require disclosure, but copyrights do not. So, you could have a strong case by suing a second party for infringing on your copyright-protected software, that no one else has ever seen before.

In most jurisdictions, a patent gives someone the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission. So, if Apple is suing in regards to its patented technology, then it can stop Samsung from merely making any infringing prototypes or production models.

Ideally, the most compensation Apple could get in such a case would be limited to court costs and attorneys' fees. However, if Samsung sold/distributed infringing techonology or used the technology, then Apple could/should get additional compensation.

Design patents are probably a little different, because they rely on someone's subjective judgement on whether one design is like another design, and they also rely on the judge's sense of design history. I imagine that the judge(s) will have to be informed by Samsung about Apple's design banality and Apple's unabashed copying of others.

Don't really see ho Apple could win much of anything if it base its claims on Samsung's mere intent for future products (which includes drawings and other visual mock-ups). But, again, in these crazy times, anything is possible.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

One of these 'unreleased' products is the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 which was given away to thousand of people at Google IO.

It's by no means a secret product.

It's just not released and so Apple cannot legally obtain one and present it as a piece of evidence to support their litigation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

The judge ordered Samsung to hand over their upcoming products, despite such products already having been publicized, so that details about them can be entered as evidence. Web magazine articles are not suitable to the task - they need the real thing (so take off the tinfoil hats).

Further, Apple needs to know design details about upcoming products so they can ask the court for an injunction against their sale before they hit the market, rather than after. Apple's position is that they have been ripped off, and they want the court to stop the culprit from profiting by it. If Samsung's new batch of phones could escape the current suit without any relevant changes from the current models, what would be the point of suing? Apple can't ask the court simply to order Samsung out of the business. They need to know specifically which models (are going to) look how much like an iPhone. That's just how legal action works.

None of that was commentary on the actual merits, but I will say that while I don't think Apple should be the only company allowed to make a wedge that's mostly just a screen, I do think Samsung and Android are lazily copycatting. Microsoft makes software for screen-wedge-phones with a significantly different interface, while other Android phones have used a variety of physical inputs, Blackberry remains distinctive, and the Palm Pre is truly differentiated both in software and hardware as the rare vertical slider with a full keyboard. No one has to make something that's just like an iPhone for functionality's sake.

Reply Parent Score: 2