“As a part of the ongoing second Apple v. Samsung trial, Apple has filed a motion asking to show evidence Samsung was deceptive in its opening statements,” Electronista reports. “During those statements, lawyers repeated a view that Apple doesn’t actually practice several of the asserted patents. Apple insists that it ‘has practiced and continues to practice the ‘414, ‘172, and ‘959 patents,’ and that it can show evidence that will ‘correct the false impressions created by Samsung’s counsel.'”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dan K.” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Apple v. Samsung II: A user-friendly checklist for the new jury – April 3, 2014
Florian Müller: Apple does not ‘own’ multitouch smartphones and tablets any more than Samsung ‘owns’ phablets – April 3, 2014
10 European judges found Apple had not invented slide-to-unlock (star patent at Samsung trial) – April 2, 2014
Florian Müller: When all is said and done, despite years of Apple litigation, Android will continue to be world’s most popular mobile platform – April 1, 2014
Apple v. Samsung jury is seated in California patent trial – April 1, 2014
“Apple may present the invention story of [the ‘414, ‘172, and ‘959] patents, but may not contend that it practices the patents,”
So Koh ordered that Apple couldn’t even present evidence that Apple implements its own patents? That’s purely asinine.
“Apple may not rebut any Samsung contention that Apple products constitute an acceptable non-infringing alternative to the ‘414, ‘172, or ‘959 Patents by contending that Apple practices an unasserted or asserted claim of the ‘414, ‘172, or ‘959 Patents.”
Additionally, Koh has ordered Samsung gets to claim
1. that Apple’s own implementation is a “non-infringing alternative”, and
2. that Apple is an non practicing patent troll,
Plus… Apple can do nothing about it.
So with all the fervor about Patent Trolls these days (concerning non practicing entities) and the U.S. Congress taking action to limit the abilities of Patent Trolls, Koh has given Samsung a huge perception club with which to hit Apple in front of the jury. Paint Apple as a Patent Troll that deserves no rights to its IP and even if the IP is valid deserves no royalties or fees because Apple is just a Patent Troll.
Plus, on top of it Samsung can claim its implementations are indeed “just like Apple’s own implementation” and thus don’t infringe on the patents because Samsung can claim that Apple’s own implementations are non infringing. (Sure, we copied Apple, but we didn’t violate the patents because Apple’s own implementation does not follow the patent!)
I’ve seen several examples of how Koh is clearly and blatantly anti-Apple, but this ruling is the most extreme so far.
Agree: Judge Koh appears anti-Apple. This may be because she believes there is _Xenophobia in American Courts_, as indicated by citing (now Federal Judge) K.A. Moore’s paper in her ruling that chastised Apple for suggesting something was perhaps “lost in translation” when Samsung’s lawyers failed to protect the privacy of confidential Apple information provided by Apple, in violation of court orders. She believes it, so she sees it. This is a type of bias. It is insidious, too, because this type of bias actually provides its own “evidence” in support of its conclusion. And she is determined to fix it. Whether it truly exists or not !
The expression “lost in translation” exists in the American English lexicon and has a legitimate meaning that contains no implicit xenophobic connotations. “Lost in translation” refers to a failure that can result when trying to translate something from one language to another, when a phrase or concept simply do not exist in the translated language, or its meaning cannot be accurately conveyed by word-for-word literal translation. The expression can also be used to convey incredulity that something simple has been purposely misunderstood. This was the point Apple’s lawyers were raising about Samsung’s lawyers (again, native American-English speakers) when they conveniently failed to adhere to the Judge’s explicit court orders (which were issued in American-English).
Apple’s lawyers were basically calling-out the Samsung lawyers for their dishonesty. Since it is a fact that the QE lawyers did NOT maintain the privacy of Apple’s confidential information, contrary to court orders, Judge Koh could have acknowledge this fact, and perhaps also reprimand, sanction, or punish the offending parties, and have moved on. Instead, she chose to interpret the statement of Apple’s lawyers as evidence of “xenophobic discriminatory bias” in her courtroom, berate them for it, and rant about a politically-correct issue that may not even exist in actual fact.
The Moore paper is flawed. Its conclusions and assertions are not supported by underlying analysis and methods. It is one more purported “scientific” paper that makes the fundamental error of confusing correlation for causality, and which fails to seriously consider alternative reasons that might explain the observed outcomes. The Moore paper supports no conclusion of the existence of “xenophobia in American courts”. It is surprising the paper made it through the journal Peer Review process.
Despite its deficiencies, the Moore paper is being used to support Judge Koh’s belief of the existence of “xenophobia in American courts”, to guide court policy, and perhaps even to influence the outcome of this important legal case. Too bad the Moore paper is insufficient basis for any of this.
Peer review has been shown to fail as a result of systemic bias and insularity, amongst other flaws of human design, and must be regarded with as much scepticism as an overtly funded advocacy group.
my co-worker’s half-sister makes $89 /hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for five months but last month her check was $21382 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
========================================
look at this site…….. http://surl.hu/iKIJJK
========================================
Her ruling is bizarre. Apple should just straight out say the Quinn is a lier and state its position and let the chips fall where they may. QE should have been barred from representing Scamdung at this trial based upon the misconduct of the last one.
OOOOOOHHHHHHH SNAP!
Simple question: Why hasn’t Apple requested a change of venue? Obviously, this judge is favouring Samsung. Usually, bias by the judge is enough to receive a change.
I’m not a lawyer, so I might be off base, but these rulings don’t seem quite right.
Just sayin’
In a fair world, Quinn would be locked up for insulting everybody’s intelligence and blatant contempt of court.
Apple is working on a bigger pillow for Tim Cook so he has something big to rest his head on when taking a nap while his competitors race past him.
In the absence of the ability to innovate, Apple is turning into a patent troll so it can survive by suing all and sundry. CarPlay is dead. No one wants CarPlay because of the sucky iOS 7 interface, so the innovation cupboard is completely bare at Apple Inc.
To ensure survival, Tim Cook wants Apple to be patent troll like SCO. Sad but true.
Whoops – Dumbo’s back flailing around in his own little made up Disney World.