Samsung, after ‘begging’ to get Sony into Apple patent trial, flouts judge and releases ‘excluded evidence’ anyway

“After ‘begging’ the court to allow evidence it said would show that Apple’s iPhone was inspired by designs from Sony, Samsung Electronics, rebuffed by the judge in its high-profile patent dispute with Apple, decided to make the exhibits public anyway today,” Connie Guglielmo reports for Forbes.

“Apple’s lawyer Harold McElhinny called the move the most blatant example of contempt of court it had ever seen and an intentional effort to ‘pollute the jury,'” Guglielmo reports. “U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh told Samsung she wanted answers about who drafted the press release sent to reporters with the documents, which members of Samsung’s legal team authorized the distribution of the exhibits and what role Samsung lawyer John Quinn of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan played.”

Guglielmo reports, “Samsung’s press move came just hours after Koh rejected repeated requests by Quinn to make the information part of the four-week trial, which got underway today (jury selection was yesterday)… Apple and Samsung each delivered 90-minute opening statements today… The trial resumes in federal court in San Jose, California, on Aug. 3.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Samsung is run by idiots and/or has a death wish. Seems like both conditions are true, so here’s hoping the idiots get their wish ASAP.

Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone

Related articles:
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
Samsung exec whines: Apple’s trying to patent the rectangle! – July 30, 2012
Apple: Google warned Samsung against slavishly copying our products – July 25, 2012
Apple v. Samsung jury to learn of Samsung’s destruction of relevant evidence – July 25, 2012
Now Samsung slavishly copies Apple’s Mac mini – June 1, 2012
Samsung Mobile chief ‘designer’ denies that Samsung’s instinct is to slavishly copy Apple – March 23, 2012
Slavish copier Samsung shamelessly steals Apple’s iPhone 3G design – again – January 3, 2012
Slavish copier Samsung uses girl actress from iPhone 4S ad for Galaxy Tab 8.9 spot (with video) – January 2, 2012
Now Samsung’s slavishly copying Apple’s iPad television ads (with videos) – December 30, 2011
Judge: Can you tell me which is iPad and which is yours? Samsung lawyer: ‘Not at this distance your honor’ – October 14, 2011
Why are Apple’s icons on the wall of Samsung’s store? – September 24, 2011
Apple to Samsung: ‘Blatant copying is wrong’ – April 18, 2011
Apple sues Samsung for attempting to copy look and feel of iPhone, iPad – April 18, 2011
Samsung’s ‘Instinct’ is obviously to make Apple iPhone knockoffs – April 1, 2008


  1. “Apple’s lawyer Harold McElhinny called the move the most blatant example of contempt of court it had ever seen and an intentional effort to ‘pollute the jury,’”

    As iWuz sayin’

    Whatever happened to Ethics 101?

    1. Sure they can’t be seen by the jury as they have not proved to the judge that they are part of the case and not a blatant attempt to try and confuse the jury. Since they have no part in the trial and they released this data to the press means they want to do damage control for today’s findings. Expressly destruction of evidence and internal documents validating Apples complaint. The final goal stir the pot kick up a cloud of confusion and doubt then maybe some one will buy it. The big risk? Pissing off the judge. As I inform any who go before a judge… Don’t piss off the judge you may find they will shit on you.

      You go Samsung

    2. In simpler words, these slides have been thrown out for two reasons:

      1. They were submitted too late (i.e. after the discovery process has ended, so Apple didn’t get a chance to examine them and provide counter-arguments)

      2. More importantly, they were NOT relevant to the case. Apple sued that Samsung copied iPhone when they released their Galaxy phone. These slides are saying that at some point during 2000’s, Samsung was doing some prototype design work for some smartphones, and some of those prototypes were rectangular, touch-screen devices, and they supposedly pre-date iPhone by several years. They never put any of those into production, most of the images are actually just renderings and all they are trying to argue that, had they decided to build them and sell them, they would have come out before the iPhone, and therefore iPhone would have looked like a copy of a Samsung. The whole argument is a “what if?” proposition, and not relevant in a suit where Apple says Galaxy S (a released, commercial product) looks exactly like an iPhone (a released, actual product). Who experimented with what designs at some point in time is NOT relevant to the story, which is why judge repeatedly rejected this evidence.

    3. Moreover, Samsung’s iPhonish sketches are very fishy. If indeed they had independently come up with the exact look and feel of the iPhone prior to Apple’s design then we would have known about it already, and beaten Apple to market. The suspicion may be whether the sketches were truly produced prior to the development of the iPhone, or more likely, that Samsung had intelligence from someone on the supplier chain to know what the iPhone would look like.

    1. Good Cameras?

      you gotta be kidding me… maybe the viewscreen on the camera… Samsung cameras are pieces of junk…

      of course if they sold for <$50… then sure… i'd buy them. Because that is how much they are worth…

    2. Too bad, Samsung makes good monitors and cameras.

      Perhaps you mean ‘good enough’. I can point to a variety of superior monitors and cameras NOT from SameDung. I’d joyfully watch SapSong fall off the planet. I’d never notice. i’d never care. There are plenty of superior companies to replace everything they do, and who actually know how to respect their customers.

      I don’t see Samsung dying from their self-inflicted disease. But I do see them suitably withering. It’s their own damned fault, like it or not. 😛

      1. Using one ‘change-the-name-of-a-rival-to-something-sounding-vaguely-similar-but-also-a-little-insulting’ thing is kinda juvenile. Using two different ones back to back makes you seem like an idiot.

          1. Sometimes sarcasm can be clever if used correctly. What you are doing is pretty much idiotic. It does nothing to further your point and it makes you look like a 5 year old throwing a fit rather than a grown adult to be taken seriously.

            Grow up.

            1. No. What it does is provide Apple experts with amusement while we watch Samsung trolls wriggle around in the concentrated light of a magnifying glass. Sorry you’re not laughing too. Boohoo for you. 😆

            2. “Apple experts” huh? Are you a developer? Do you work for apple? I’m guessing the answer to both those questions is no, so please do not give me that crap.

              The only thing more annoying than Linux fanboys is “geniuses” like you who think they deserve a medal for defending a company that doesn’t give a rat’s ass about them. What do you do when a virus for Mac appears, close your ears and scream “I can’t hear you!!”?

              I assure you apple fanboys are not laughing either. What you did there is the comical equivalent of calling copyright copydumb, and if you’re anywhere near sane you will find that about as funny as “Why did the chicken cross the road”.

            3. Darn bayanr. You trolled the wrong guy. 😳

              What do you do when a virus for Mac appears, close your ears and scream “I can’t hear you!!”?

              No. I post about it at my Mac-Security blog, which I’ve been writing since 2007. I’ve been studying computer security since 2005. I’m part of a team of Mac security experts who keep the open source ClamAV project up-to-date with the latest Mac malware signatures. Check this out:

              Mac-Security Blog

              I assure you apple fanboys are not laughing either.

              I assure you that I am laughing at you, specifically for being a lame-ass troll. I’m also laughing at Samsung for being so incredibly desperate to come up with ideas that they have to blatantly ripoff one of their largest clients, Apple.

              No creativity.
              No originality.
              No value to the computer community.
              Too cheap to pay for a decent anti-Apple troll.
              Instead they got you. 😆

    3. Some may be good, but the “commercial” large format display from Samsung I recently tried out was sent back because I could never get an acceptable image. (Finding a successor to my 42″ Pioneer Pro plasma display is proving to be quite a chore.)

  2. I don’t know what Samsung think they are trying to prove here.

    The iPhone concept design was completely developed in-house.
    It doesn’t matter where they got inspiration from, as long as the inspiration leads to something new and different. (Not a direct copy)

    Also, putting Sony on the back means nothing, they can put Rumpelstiltskin on the back if they like. It is Apples prototype after all.

    1. They put “Sony” on the back because the concept drawings were intended to be what Sony might create IF they were to create a smart phone. Not a bad idea to take a shot at visualizing what your potential competitor might be up to. It was not an idea for an Apple phone; it was an idea on where the competition was headed.

    2. Not “Sony”, “Jony” was placed on the back. Before the “Jony” was “Purple” which is why Judge Koh did not allow this “Jony” information to be released in trail.

  3. Does anyone know if any of this was heard by the jury or if the jury did not hear it, will Judge Koh give some sort of instructions or info to the jury if Samsung and/or their legal team is found in some sort of contempt of court?

    In other words, will the jury now know that Samsung is not playing by the rules of the U.S. court system?

    1. Not unless they live under a rock and don’t read the news. The jury is not sequestered so they can watch or read the news. It really is too late. They must have thought “It doesn’t matter how much we piss off the judge” or what sanctions are applied, the jury is already compromised. Even if a mis-trial is declared, jurists in a new trial will have already seen that evidence. It was a brilliant move on Samsung’s part. There is too much money at stake hear. Its time for Apple to do a search engine.

    2. Judge Lucy Koh will have to satisfy herself that the jury remain in ignorance of this development or that the jury will disregard this non-evidence in their deliberations. If that’s not possible she may have to declare a mistrial and Samsung will have to answer for their attempts to subvert the justice system and possibly face sanctions.
      It seems to be more of the Google tactic for muddying the legal waters and appealing to the court of public popularity.
      Samsung is desperate for a ‘mistrial’ using any means at their disposal which in this case is aimed at making Judge Koh look biased.
      Why Samsung is risking a contempt ruling when they have other legal avenues to explore is mind boggling. I suspect the release of this material was not from their legal team, in which case QEU&S should stand down before their client damages their reputation any further.
      Go read the post at allthingsD – the reek of desperation, accusing Koh of bias, of being bought off by Apple and total fail in understanding points of law is the best entertainment yet.
      Panic and confusion abound.

      1. Probably better would be to read the analysis at Groklaw instead of allthingsD – where it is lawyers doing the writing, not journos.
        Basically, Samsung didn’t do anything illegal, and she can’t complain about Samsung releasing this due to legal precedent of lawyers/attorneys having 1st Amendment rights.

        Apple brought up the F700 after discovery, so if Koh doesn’t allow Samsung to add their own evidence they will have a strong avenue for appeal, basically rendering this entire case useless.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.