Apple target Samsung lawyer

[JStrike]

For the US it is important to protect Apple against threats like Samsung. The profits that flows to Apple is good. The profits that flows to Korea is bad. Will take a miracle for Samsung to win this thing.

If the judgement is based on anything other than the law, it will be stupidly easy to appeal and overturn

 

[BeVonk!]

If the judgement is based on anything other than the law, it will be stupidly easy to appeal and overturn

That same law has lead to lethal injection and electric chair executions that years later - despite appeals, etc - were proven to be incorrectly judged (fudged would me more appropriate). Those on jury duty are all patriotic US citizens that will do what is best for good old US of A(pple).

 

[JStrike]

That same law has lead to lethal injection and electric chair executions that years later - despite appeals, etc - were proven to be incorrectly judged (fudged would me more appropriate). Those on jury duty are all patriotic US citizens that will do what is best for good old US of A.

Those verdicts were accurate at the time, as those verdicts are based on the information presented at that point in time. It is only evidence that came later that showed that the outcome would be different with the new evidence.
Yes, but if a jury's verdict isn't based on law, it is easily overturned (And can be done by the presiding judge). The punitive damages not so much. There patriotism could come into play

 

[BeVonk!]

People are waiting for WW3 to happen ...

What you see happening in these courts are exactly that ... just not with guns. The USA needs to fend off the economic onslaught from the East and Apple and other US firms are fighting foreign threats more and more in court. US companies do have a go at one another too but that does not pose a threat to the US economy. Economic Hitman stuff. The US cannot afford to see Apple get beaten by the likes of Samsung. Why do you think Huawei is getting blocked from selling their stuff all over the globe where the US has influence? "Security" reasons. The East is standing up and becoming stronger and stronger and the USA and Europe are slowly losing control. This is not about "squares and rectangles". This Apple onslaught on Samsung is all out war.

 

[JStrike]

People are waiting for WW3 to happen ...

What you see happening in these courts are exactly that ... just not with guns. The USA needs to fend off the economic onslaught from the East and Apple and other US firms are fighting foreign threats more and more in court. US companies do have a go at one another too but that does not pose a threat to the US economy. Economic Hitman stuff. The US cannot afford to see Apple get beaten by the likes of Samsung. Why do you think Huawei is getting blocked from selling their stuff all over the globe where the US has influence? "Security" reasons. The East is standing up and becoming stronger and stronger and the USA and Europe are slowly losing control. This is not about "squares and rectangles". This Apple onslaught on Samsung is all out war.

That would be pretty cool and dramatic if it were true, but I doubt it. But you never know

 

[Vrotappel]

A typical sanction for attorney misbehavior is a monetary fine, but Apple is asking Koh to rule that Apple’s phone design patents in the case are valid, and that Samsung has infringed them.

Maybe in iLand you can try and apply the law like this but not in the real world.

 

[kilobits]

Heheheheh... It surprises me that Apple has not been granted a patent for aluminium, glass, silicon and carbon-based consumers yet.

 

[falcon786]

For the US it is important to protect Apple against threats like Samsung. The profits that flows to Apple is good. The profits that flows to Korea is bad. Will take a miracle for Samsung to win this thing.

Its beginning to look more and more like that unfortunately,the USA cant keep bailing itself out they need more of their products/companies to be successful.

 

[falcon786]

Heheheheh... It surprises me that Apple has not been granted a patent for aluminium, glass, silicon and carbon-based consumers yet.

 

[Mr.CookieMonster]

Apple quit bitching and launch iPhone 5

 

[kilobits]

Apple to Samsung: Don't reveal iPad, iPhone sales data

One of the most secretive companies in Silicon Valley is squirming over Samsung's intention to make sales data public today during their patent trial.

According to Apple's filing, the information includes sales summaries for the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch, as well as tracking studies from the second quarter of 2011 and buyer surveys from last year. Apple made it clear that of the information it doesn't want disclosed, the summaries of the sales data is most important.

If Koh decides to allow Samsung to enter the data into evidence, Apple asked the judge that she first grant a five-day stay "so that Apple may seek relief."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...e-sales-data/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=readMore

 

[BeVonk!]

Very interesting. Samsung's counter attack more than Apple bargained on. They started this fight and now they want evidence witheld? And why hide such info? Lied about sales figures? Investors going to get a shock? What? Something's in that info that no-one outside of Apple knows about.

 

[JStrike]

Maybe in iLand you can try and apply the law like this but not in the real world.

Which is why the request got denied

 

[[)roi(]]

Very interesting. Samsung's counter attack more than Apple bargained on. They started this fight and now they want evidence witheld? And why hide such info? Lied about sales figures? Investors going to get a shock? What? Something's in that info that no-one outside of Apple knows about.

Read a little further than the superficial innuendoes, and you soon realize the evidence is being excluded because Samsung's lawyers screwed up i.e. all evidence should have be declared in an earlier step (trial preparation), and currently they are at a much later step in the proceedings.

The judge is correctly (in line with standard court doctrine) excluding all attempts at introducing last minute evidence (the opposing counsil should of course have ample time to prepare to defend against evidence introduced, i.e. shooting from the hip is only acceptable in Hollywood)

So if you want to blame someone, blame Samsung's lawyers; they might very well lose the case for Samsung because of incompetence.

 

[Maverick Jester]

Read a little further than the superficial innuendoes, and you soon realize the evidence is being excluded because Samsung's lawyers screwed up i.e. all evidence should have be declared in an earlier step (trial preparation), and currently they are at a much later step in the proceedings.

The judge is correctly (in line with standard court doctrine) excluding all attempts at introducing last minute evidence (the opposing counsil should of course have ample time to prepare to defend against evidence introduced, i.e. shooting from the hip is only acceptable in Hollywood)

So if you want to blame someone, blame Samsung's lawyers; they might very well lose the case for Samsung because of incompetence.

Sorry, but that isn't true.

Apple's lawyers filed a motion to seal the files. Meaning that the evidence has been included in court record for this trial, and was therefore declared as evidence during the pre-trial preparation. Or else Apple would have requested to mark the evidence as inadmissable, and I am sure the judge would have dismissed it as she had done with prior evidence requests.

 

[kilobits]

Apple Loses Bid to Keep Customer Survey Secret

The judge overseeing Apple’s patent lawsuit against Samsung said Apple can’t keep secret a marketing survey it took of its customers.

Apple argued that the survey’s release would aid competitors, as the data is not available elsewhere.

“It’s plainly a trade secret,” Apple’s lawyer told the court. “There’s no reason for a document to come into evidence in its entirety.”

Judge Lucy Koh disagreed, but allowed Apple time to file an appeal.

“I’m denying your request to seal today, so take it up on appeal,” Koh said.

Meanwhile, in another hotly contested issue, Koh said she was denying Apple’s request for sanctions against Samsung for a press release that made reference to evidence that Koh had excluded, and said that it was information the jury needed to know.

Koh said that she was troubled by the release for the potential it had to tamper with the jury — a jury that, as Koh pointed out, included several members that had already heard about the case prior to being empaneled.

“I will not allow any theatrics or sideshow distract us from what we are here to do,” Koh said.

She did say she would poll the jurors individually to make sure they had not heard anything. That process is now taking place. Most said they had not heard about the case, but one juror said he had seen a few headlines, but nothing else.

Koh noted that the fact that the disputed evidence was excluded was an issue of Samsung’s making, since it stemmed from the company not disclosing the evidence in a timely manner. Koh said that both Apple and Samsung are being held to the same standard, and that Apple also had theories and evidence excluded that they did not disclose in time.

Testimony is due to resume shortly, with Phil Schiller retaking the stand, after testifying for only a couple of minutes before court adjourned on Tuesday.

Linky

 

[[)roi(]]

Sorry, but that isn't true.

Apple's lawyers filed a motion to seal the files. Meaning that the evidence has been included in court record for this trial, and was therefore declared as evidence during the pre-trial preparation. Or else Apple would have requested to mark the evidence as inadmissable, and I am sure the judge would have dismissed it as she had done with prior evidence requests.

'Maybe' you should have reviewed a few facts before making such a blatant statement.

...Judge Koh, however, ruled that the evidence was submitted too late in the discovery process.

Samsung tried to appeal on a technicality -- Apple had actually shown one of the designs (the F700 media player) in one of its evidence slides, apparently mistakenly believing the 2006-era device was announced in 2007 (after the iPhone announcement). Judge Koh rejected this argument....

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=25301

Here's Judge Koh's explanation:
"For example, Samsung referenced clips from 'Space Odyssey' and 'Tomorrow People' in its opposition to the preliminary injunction in a general discussion of the background of the field. Samsung did not, however, argue that these references supported an invalidity or non-infringement theory. That Samsung changed tack after the close of fact discovery to include these references in their invalidity theories likely prejudiced Apple, who was not made aware during the preliminary injunction proceedings that Samsung intended to rely on these two prior art references for invalidity."

Samsung is noticeably unhappy about some of Judge Koh's decisions. This order won't lighten its mood. But there's no reasonable basis for blaming Judge Koh, who made a lot of effort to explain in detail the rationale behind her decisions.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/judge-prohibits-invalidity-arguments.html