cfsp key=”google_adsense_300x250″]”A lawyer for Samsung Electronics Co. said the company’s decision to send reporters disputed evidence in its patent case with Apple Inc. was ‘lawful’ and ‘ethical,’ in a filing responding to federal Judge Lucy Koh’s request to explain the unusual move,” Jessica E. Vascellaro reports for The Wall Street Journal.
“John Quinn, a lawyer for Samsung who is managing partner of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, said in a filing Wednesday morning that the company emailed the exhibits—which Judge Koh had blocked from consideration by the jury—in response to requests from media and denied any wrongdoing,” Vascellaro reports. “Samsung believes the exhibits show the iPhone was inspired by Sony Corp., among other things.”
Vascellaro reports, “‘Far from violating any order, Samsung’s transmission to the public of public information disclosed in pretrial filings is entirely consistent with this Court’s statements’ that the “workings of litigation must be open to public view,” the declaration by Mr. Quinn states. ‘Samsung’s brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to press inquiries was not motivated by or designed to influence jurors,’ the declaration says. Mr. Quinn adds that the exhibits were already in the public record.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: No, Samsung’s intent was not to influence jurors, it was merely to inform Aunt Tillie and the rest of the general public that Samsung believes that a 2006 Sony Walkman inspired by Apple’s iPod that was predated by a 2005 Apple prototype that looks pretty much exactly like current-gen iPhone is somehow relevant and will help prevent their Apple product cloning operation from being harshly judged as the slavish patent- and trade dress-infringers that they so blatantly are.
Here’s what we think: Samsung knows they are toast, so they’re going to try to create as much chaos as possible in order to claim that an “angry” judge did not grant them “fair” treatment after the Galaxy S hits the fan.
Judge Koh should nip Quinn’s contemptible shenanigans in the bud.
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
Related articles:
Apple says jury should learn that Samsung destroyed evidence – August 1, 2012
Samsung, after ‘begging’ to get Sony into Apple patent trial, flouts judge and releases ‘excluded evidence’ anyway – July 31, 2012
Apple v. Samsung Live Blog: Trial opens with one juror gone, Samsung begging – July 31, 2012
Apple attorney: Instead of innovating, Samsung chose to copy iPhone and iPad – July 31, 2012
Apple aims for total war, salted earth in Samsung patent infringement fight – July 31, 2012
Apple-Samsung jury picked to decide U.S. patent trial; Google engineer fails to make final cut – July 30, 2012
Oh … Purely innocent motives. LOL. C’mon Judge Lucy, this guy clowned you. Time to lower the boom.
How can they defend when I thought the Judge ordered them not too.?
How about 72 hours in a cell with “Bubba” for contempt, just to show him that you mean business, Lucy?
This is very good news for Apple.
The air around that courthouse absolutely reeks with the acrid sweat produced by the obvious desperation of Samsung.
I think there is a very good chance that Judge Koh is going to find the attorneys for Samsung in contempt, and that her fine is not going to be a wrist-slap. This was a desperate and highly ill-advised move.
C’mon, they’re lawyers! What do you expect? You think Apple’s lawyers wouldn’t do the same? Grow up. They’re scum. All of the!
Ethical?
Samsung has been hanging out with Google for too long.
No, MacDailyNews, this is a PR move and a political move. Samsung is running a second trial, one in the public sphere that they know Apple will not respond to. If they get enough politicos and members of the public convinced that Apple copied Sony and then had the gall to sue Samsung afterwards, they’ll get many of their customers to rally against Apple’s arrogance and weaken the patent system or get politicos to shame Apple. It’s brilliant, albeit dirty!
Apple could easily respond to this- they didn’t copy Sony at all. Apple engineers came up with the design and slapped Sony logo on it.
Not everyone is an idiot. It’ll only take a couple blogs, like Gruber’s to show that the Sony story is a distortion of the facts, and this will boomerang on Samsung so hard. It’s a ludicrous gambit based upon desperation.
Lets see, they are already subject to a sanction for intentional destruction of evidence, and the least punitive sanction was applied (a jury instruction). The Court could (and should have) barred Samsung from offering evidence in opposition due to the intentional spoliation of evidence.
This ill advised attempt to try the case in the court of public opinion as opposed to a court of law should result not just in monetary sanctions against the lawyers, but the ante should be upped on the jury instruction so that the jury “must deem proven” Apples claim due to this intentional misconduct. I think this may ultimately also bear on the Court’s charge to the jury on the issue of willful violation by Samsung, which can triple the damages.
In fact, the trial court has the power, if it finds a willful violation of a discovery order, or a trial order, to grant the ultimate sanction of striking the answer and granting a default to the other side. The 9th Cir. Ct of Appeals just upheld on July 18 a case in which this was done. (Hester v. Airlines) Not only did the Court uphold the trial court’s power to strike the answer and grant the default, it stated that one of the lawyers “appears to have committed numerous ethical violations” and recommended that the District Court refer the matter to the state bar “to determine whether disbarment or some other sanction is merited.” 11-15646 (9th Cir. 7-18-2012)
Samsung’s been taking directions from Eric T. Mole…and they should get the same swift treatment from US Courts as their conniving women’s badminton team got from the Olympic Committee: Strap their (copied) gear to their backs and put ’em on the first plane back to their homeland!
Samsung has every right to use the media to sway public opinion. However, there is no guarantee that this tactic will work to their advantage. It reminds me of the definition of chutzpah: A man begs mercy from the judge, having been convicted of murdering his parents, on the basis that he is an orphan.
Where do we find the stuff they sent to media? I would like to see their “proof” of designing before the iPhone was released.
Has anyone noticed an obvious flaw in Samdungs slide show?
Well let me enlighten:
I am talking of the slide with the 2006 and 2007 timeline – with pictures of the first iPhone released in 2007 and pictures of Samsung’s so called “in development” phones appearing at around the end of 2006 or a month or two before end of 2006.
The exact time of the Samsung phones is a bit of an estimate because the scale is not completely shown. But it looks like the end of 2006 or about 3 months prior to end of 2006.
The critical thing to note is that “Samsung is going to build the screens for these devices”.
Hence, it would not be unrealistic to assume that Apple would have given the screen information to Samsung maybe 3 to 6 months prior to the release of iPhone 3G.
So obviously Samsung got a hold of the screen engineering data and plonked a Samsung development phone that looked similar to the iPhone on their so called “under development” slides.
Even now, they probably know what the iPhone 5 (or New iPhone) is going to look like,,,,,since they are also building screens for iPhone 5. A year from now they will be saying they already had a similar design to the iPhone 5 four months before it was released.
And maybe Samsung has concluded that judge Lucy does have a clue and understands the issues in this case and they are he’ll bent to make as prejudicial a picture as they can possibly paint for the appeals court, where by the way their and google heavy lobbying efforts will bear the greatest fruit.
The “evidence” just makes them look even more like copiers. Despite thier several designs for touchscreen large display phones they scrapped them all and decided to copy the iPhone as much as they possibly could.
I’m not aware of Apple ever saying Samsung had no phone designs. All Apple is saying is that Samusung ripped off the iPhone and Samsung’s release does nothing to prove otherwise.
Samsung doesn’t seem to get the gist of the trial. Apple is not being sued for copying SONY,, Samsung is being sued for copying apple, regardless of where apple got its design.
Advice for Samsung: focus on the what apple is claiming you, Samsung, did.
In other news, 4 pairs of badminton players were disqualified from the Olympics for match fixing to get favorable draws. One from China, one from Indonesia and…two from Korea. I’m not a racist but there’s no question Eastern ethics are very questionable and often non-existent.
It’s both hilarious and embarrassing to watch – take a look:
Do you really have to make this racist? Because racism has nothing at all to do with the Olympic happenings except in your imagination.
Words most frequently used by racists ” I’m not a racist but “. Emphasis on the butt.
Re the heavy concentration of Asians in the badmitten scandal: the top teams in the world come from those countries, with one Dutch anomaly. Drawing some weird corelation between these two stories has me groping for a response. I guess a useful phrase here might be, “Coincidence is not causal.”
Or, as stated by XKCD ( http://xkcd.com/552/ ):
Him: I used to think correlation implied causation.
Him: Then I took a statistics class. Now I don’t.
Her: Sounds like the class helped.
Him: Well, maybe.
Don’t forget to hover over the comic after you read it for an extra punchline. 🙂
SAMSUNG! U ARE A junk without the help from GOOGLE, WHO do u think u are? U ARE RUBBISH!
You. You. You. You. You. U U U U U U U