To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No, like the Juror selection, Samsung royally screwed up the entire process of presenting evidence and submitted it way, way, way past their deadline.
A Judge has to balance between the process of the trial and what the law is. That's their job. It happens every day in the US.
Evidence is ruled out on technicalities every day (For a real good one, look into the exclusionary rule with warrantless searches. You could find a room full of dead bodies and I could be red handed, but if the evidence is obtained illegally its inadmissible)
Nelson,
Yes, the evidence was late, but the schedule itself was disputed. Also apple changed the patents it was asserting against samsung in it's preliminary injunction to give them even less time to prepare. Given the tremendous scope and depth of a dragnet required to invalidate patents, it doesn't surprise me that samsung didn't have enough time to submit evidence for discovery. Still, the law is the law I suppose.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/apple-and-samsung-now-bickering-...
One thing that's still extremely troubling though is it was apple, and not samsung, who introduced F700 to the trial as evidence of samsung's infringement against apple. And yet somehow samsung were still not permitted to refute this with the fact that samsung was developing this very model even before the first iphone.
http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-apple-trial-leak-release-ev...
The judge just kept on tossing apple favors like this, it wasn't really a fair trial.





Member since:
2011-01-28
Nelson,
"Trials have a clear process, and its the job of the Judge to move the ball forward. Samsung had plenty of time to present the prior art using the correct process to do so, but didn't. That's their bad."
Actually I think they did, but the judge barred it? I don't have the energy to continue our debate, I'm just going to try to agree to disagree. Great, this saves us a lot of time doesn't it?