“The judge overseeing Apple’s patent lawsuit against Samsung said Apple can’t keep secret a marketing survey it took of its customers,” Ina Fried reports for AllThingsD.
“Apple argued that the survey’s release would aid competitors as the data is not available elsewhere,” Fried reports. “‘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.'”
Fried reports, “Judge Lucy Koh disagreed, but allowed Apple time to file an appeal… 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… ‘I will not allow any theatrics or sideshow distract us from what we are here to do,’ Koh said.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Yes, by all means, let’s get on with it already. After all, Samsung has been ripping off Apple’s iPhone to the tune of billions of dollars for over five years now and counting.
Related articles:
Apple v. Samsung patent war pits two legal stars – August 3, 2012
Apple to Samsung: Do not reveal iPad, iPhone sales data – August 3, 2012
Apple v. Samsung: Meet Apple’s next 7 witnesses – August 3, 2012
Judge Koh on Samsung’s quest to use ’2001: A Space Odyssey’ as ‘evidence’ against Apple: Nope – August 2, 2012
Apple asks Judge Koh to rule in its favor after Samsung’s excluded evidence leak – August 2, 2012
Apple says it will seek sanctions over Samsung’s press release of excluded evidence – August 2, 2012
The 125-year-old U.S. patent law that could cost Samsung $2 billion for slavishly copying Apple’s designs – August 1, 2012
Samsung defends decision to share excluded evidence with media – August 1, 2012
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
MDN. Live by the sword and die by the sword.
A good artist copies and a great artist steals. Steve Jobs
…”A good artist copies and a great artist steals. Steve Jobs”
No. Pablo Picasso. Steve just quoted Picasso (and he actually attributed the quote; i.e. he didn’t “steal” and appropriate it).
And an explanation of the actual meaning of that statement (for those dim enough to take it literaly):
“What Picasso did mean was that great artists rummage through the great junk heap of lost, bypassed, and forgotten ideas to find the rare jewels, and then incorporate such languishing gems into their own personal artistic legacy… Picasso implied that great artists don’t get caught stealing because what they appropriate they transform so thoroughly into their own persona, that everyone ends up thinking the great idea was theirs in the first place.”
(taken from Yahoo Answers)
‘I will not allow any theatrics or sideshow distract us from what we are here to do,’ Koh said.”
And yet by letting it go unpunished, she’s just invited a whole lot more of this craziness from Samsung.
Is Judge Koh a relative of Judge Ito?
It’s starting to look like a clown show in Judge Koh’s courtroom.
Oh nothing will come of this. Some dumbass jury will decide that everybody should get everything for free and the evil corporations should nt be so greedy.
Look at the Google Oracle joke trial.
In doubt, let’s call judge POSner and get his learned opinion.
Ubermac, you are right! most of this cases (1% against 1%) end up with thief getting away with it, unless its a record company enforcing its rights against a poor single mom from Duluth, Minnesota.
‘…Koh…. said that it was information the jury needed to know… ‘I will not allow any theatrics or sideshow distract us from what we are here to do,’ Koh said.” ‘
Well there’s a couple of paradoxical sentences. First the evidence is inadmissible for legal reasons, then it’s necessary for the jury to know due to illegal theatrical practices reasons.
What next?