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 474954
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

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