Samsung defends decision to share excluded evidence with media

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:

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 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

25 Comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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!

    1. 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.

  3. 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)

    1. 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!

  4. 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.

Leave a Reply to KenC Cancel reply

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