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 545778
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Corrupt Court
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 22:13 UTC 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

RE[12]: Corrupt Court
by Alfman on Wed 19th Dec 2012 04:22 in reply to "RE[11]: Corrupt Court"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jared_wilkes,


"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?"

Nelson pointed out the fact that deadlines were missed by samsung, and I agreed with him.


"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."

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.


"PJ FUDed it into being PROOF that Apple had somehow stolen a Samsung design"

Take it up with PJ. I'm not a sheep clinging to someone else's opinion as gospel. I can make up my own mind, thank you very much.


"Unlike Samsung, Apple submitted it properly and in a timely manner."

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2