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.
Thread beginning with comment 545768
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Corrupt Court
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Corrupt Court"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

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)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Corrupt Court
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 22:13 in reply to "RE[9]: Corrupt Court"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Corrupt Court
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Dec 2012 22:24 in reply to "RE[10]: Corrupt Court"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

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.


You've gone from arguing that Samsung was perfectly within their right and that Koh was acting inappropriately to stating: "Still, the law is the law I suppose."

Which is it?

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.


That's because the F700 was an utterly shit phone that completely failed on the market and didn't embody in any significant way the patents that Apple was asserting. However, once it was denied as evidence of prior art for Samsung, PJ FUDed it into being PROOF that Apple had somehow stolen a Samsung design. The same sort of assinine and unsupported "proof" she's been arguing Hogan's post-trial comments represented -- i.e., legally irrelevant and not proving anything whatsoever unless you already made up your mind based on her FUD.

The judge just kept on tossing apple favors like this, it wasn't really a fair trial.


Unlike Samsung, Apple submitted it properly and in a timely manner. You've again flip-flopped from "the law is the law, I suppose" to slandering the judge as providing favors to Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 2