or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wants Samsung logo on court televisions obscured from jurors in trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wants Samsung logo on court televisions obscured from jurors in trial

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
In its forthcoming patent infringement suit with Samsung, Apple will ask the court to conceal Samsung's logo from video displays in the courtroom, so that jurors will not see it.

In a filing with the U.S. district court, Apple revealed it will bring a motion for "obscuring the 'Samsung' logo on the court's video display for jurors," as noted on Tuesday by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Samsung displays are used in the courtroom in the Northern District of California, but Apple doesn't want the company's logo to be constantly shown to jurors.

"At first sight, this may seem very funny, but I actually understand why Apple would make this request: act a conscious level, it can show to jurors that Samsung actually contributes technology to the U.S. government, and at a subconscious level, it creates the impression of the court being Samsung territory," Mueller wrote.

Apple has also asked the court that any quotes from company co-founder Steve Jobs to biographer Walter Isaacson to be excluded from the trial. In Isaacson's biography of Jobs released last year, the late former Apple CEO went on an "expletive-laced rant" about the Android mobile operating system, and said he was "willing to go thermonuclear war" to "destroy" the product.

Apple also asked the court to prevent "any reference to working conditions in China" to be presented in the trial. The company has recently come under fire for its partnership with Foxconn for assembling devices in China, though Apple has also worked to improve conditions at overseas factories with independent audits conducted by the Fair Labor Association.

Samsung, too, presented a list of requests for the court. The company has asked that any "Apple related blogs, and articles by non-expert newspaper reporters" regarding Apple and Samsung products be excluded.



Samsung also asked that the court strike the opinions of Henry Urbach, who testified on Apple's cultural significance, and Sanjay Sood, who is Apple's expert on consumer decision making.

The trial between Apple and Samsung is scheduled to begin on July 30, 2012, though Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Gee-Sung Choi will meet in San Francisco later this month in an effort to resolve their dispute. Each company has accused the other of patent infringement in complaints that now span 50 lawsuits across 10 countries.

The legal battle began in April of 2011, when Apple sued Samsung for allegedly copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. Samsung has shot back with its own patent infringement complaints against Apple, though it has not found any success in such litigation thus far, while Apple has managed to win some temporary injunctions on certain Samsung products.
post #2 of 42
now that is attention to detail..
. why not just replace them with SONY... LOL!
i know why!... just joking.
post #3 of 42
Gotta love the attention to detail within Apple, and that it's not only limited to their hard- and software. Just like they asked Samsung to do their homework more thoroughly because they misspelled their name (Apple, Inc. instead of Apple Inc.)
“A PC is no bargain when it doesn’t do what you want.” - Apple 2009
Reply
“A PC is no bargain when it doesn’t do what you want.” - Apple 2009
Reply
post #4 of 42

I don't think any corporate logo should be a fixture in a courtroom.  No furniture, lighting or technology should advertise its brand in a courtroom.
 

post #5 of 42
I think apple insider should pay the same level of attention to their spelling
Quote:
The trial between Apple nad Samsung is scheduled to begin on July 30, 2012, though Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Gee-Sung Choi will meet in San Francisco later this month in an effort to resolve their dispute. Each company has accused the other of patent infringement in complaints that now span 50 lawsuits across 10 countries.[\quote]
post #6 of 42

Nice move Apple, obscure Samsung's logo to make the products look more alike.  Very smooth.

post #7 of 42

A ridiculous request that only serves to illustrate how arrogant Apple has become. The lawsuit isn't about brand names and no juror is going to feel a sudden rush of sympathy for Samsung because they happen to see a logo on a courtroom TV. Hey, maybe they should also insist that no juror can own anything made by Samsung. And while they're at it they should prohibit anyone named "Sam" or "Samantha" from sitting on the jury. I hope the judge laughs this request right out of court.

post #8 of 42

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Nice move Apple, obscure Samsung's logo to make the products look more alike.  Very smooth.

 

 

Funny how the Apple haters always manage to come up with such ridiculous arguments. A TV looks nothing like an iPad. The Samsung Tab, though, does - at least according to the Samsung attorney who couldn't tell the difference.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by popnfresh View Post

A ridiculous request that only serves to illustrate how arrogant Apple has become. The lawsuit isn't about brand names and no juror is going to feel a sudden rush of sympathy for Samsung because they happen to see a logo on a courtroom TV. Hey, maybe they should also insist that no juror can own anything made by Samsung too. And while they're at it they should prohibit anyone named "Sam" or "Samantha" from sitting on the jury. I hope the judge laughs this request right out of court.

 

OK, so we've now established that you've never dealt with any legal matters and/or public opinion. Apple has every right to be concerned that the jury will see Samsung logos around the room and think that Samsung has more sway with the court than Apple. Similarly, if the court were using Apple computers, Samsung would be well within its rights to have the logos hidden.

There's nothing arrogant about it. The court may decide that it's unnecessary, so Apple may lose the request, but the only arrogance is in the mind of all the Apple haters.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #9 of 42

This is part of normal court proceedings, that is why there would be no samsung or apple employees or for that matter people who are related to someone who works at either company if there was a jury.  The courtroom is supposed to be neutral territory so I am sure that either company wants no brand of the other shown in the courtroom but because its Apple, its front page news.  I am sure Samsung has asked this request in every court proceeding they have had to date, if not they are stupid not to have requested it.

 

post #10 of 42

Isn't it possible that seeing dozens of LCD screens and other equipment with duck tape over logos (including the backs of screens, which typically for Samsung have large moulded logos) only draw even more attention to the jurors of the issue of who makes the equipment? I know if I saw such a thing I'd be immediately curious and if nobody explained it to me it would represent a distraction when using the device.

 

They'd be better off replacing the screens with maybe even a range of different makes, so no single maker was dominant in the eye line of the jurors.

post #11 of 42

 

Quote:

"At first sight, this may seem very funny, but I actually understand why Apple would make this request: act a conscious level, it can show to jurors that Samsung actually contributes technology to the U.S. government, and at a subconscious level, it creates the impression of the court being Samsung territory," Mueller wrote.
 

At first sight, it seems very funny.

 

After Mueller's "explanation", it seems even funnier.

post #12 of 42

What nonsense, someone should alarm apple's legal team of what an embarrassment they are becoming to the company with such antics...

 

 

And what about them MacBook pros and iMacs already?

post #13 of 42

I'd think that this is Apple's intent. The obviousness to the Jurors that the court is trying to hide their preference for Samsung could develop sympathy for Apple.

post #14 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

Isn't it possible that seeing dozens of LCD screens and other equipment with duck tape over logos (including the backs of screens, which typically for Samsung have large moulded logos) only draw even more attention to the jurors of the issue of who makes the equipment? 

 

 

I'd think that this is Apple's intent. The obviousness to the Jurors that the court is trying to hide their preference for Samsung could develop sympathy for Apple.

post #15 of 42

I believe the goal is simply to demonstrate that "the look" is indeed a copy of the iPhone.

Perhaps better than duck tape obscuring logos, just a simple digital image of both phones with any reference to brand, photoshopped out. Keep it simple...and a good image can hit it home. 

__________________________________________________ _
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." (Mark Twain)
Reply
__________________________________________________ _
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." (Mark Twain)
Reply
post #16 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by phasornc View Post

I don't think any corporate logo should be a fixture in a courtroom.  No furniture, lighting or technology should advertise its brand in a courtroom.
 


I agree with the thought but it's not practical. Unless you want to ban televisions, computers, tablets etc.

Both sides are making very reasonable requests. No logos from either side should be visible in regards to the court and its staff. No logo on the court tv, no bailiffs with cellphones of any kind hanging off their belts, no judge using a tablet up on the bench.

Also Foxconn has nothing to do with the issues of the case so it should be off the issues even hinted at.

And so on
post #17 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

What nonsense, someone should alarm apple's legal team of what an embarrassment they are becoming to the company with such antics...


This is standard game play done in every case of every kind. Moto will do it, Samsung has and will do it etc.
post #18 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Nice move Apple, obscure Samsung's logo to make the products look more alike.  Very smooth.


Clearly someone so wanting to get his snark on that he didn't actually read the article. Nice move, very smooth
post #19 of 42
Quote:
I believe the goal is simply to demonstrate that "the look" is indeed a copy of the iPhone.
Perhaps better than duck tape obscuring logos, just a simple digital image of both phones with any reference to brand, photoshopped out.
I believe a few people did not understand this article.
Apple wants the court to cover up the Samsung logo on equipment used in the courtroom by the court, not the items/evidence being discussed in the trial.
post #20 of 42

Apple's motion is absolutely correct and traceable. A Samsung device in the courtroom suggests the courts trust in this product and so indirectly in the manufacturers brand. Its a minimum prerequisite for fair justice to hide this products completely, better to dismantle and replace them with unbranded screens . When the televisions brand names will be only taped, they still bring too much to the mind of the jury -  it could also be misinterpreted as "censoring Samsung", which is definitely not the case.

 

 

Platanas IT Intelligence: digging for truth

Reply

Platanas IT Intelligence: digging for truth

Reply
post #21 of 42

Two possibilities here.

1. Apple has way too many lawyers and not enough to do.

2. Apples lawyers recognize that the jury pool will be made up from the  general population. Meaning they know the ignorance and lack of intelligence of that group is perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion, if the court uses Samsung products how can there be a problem.

post #22 of 42

Well, at least it's not a Google TV. 

post #23 of 42

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

Two possibilities here.

1. Apple has way too many lawyers and not enough to do.

2. Apples lawyers recognize that the jury pool will be made up from the  general population. Meaning they know the ignorance and lack of intelligence of that group is perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion, if the court uses Samsung products how can there be a problem.

 

3. People like you are whining about issues that you don't understand. This is a common and typical legal process and is well within Apple's rights.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #24 of 42

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

Two possibilities here.

1. Apple has way too many lawyers and not enough to do.

2. Apples lawyers recognize that the jury pool will be made up from the  general population. Meaning they know the ignorance and lack of intelligence of that group is perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion, if the court uses Samsung products how can there be a problem.

 

3. People like you are whining about issues that you don't understand. This is a common and typical legal process and is well within Apple's rights.

 

Nobody is saying thta the process in uncommon or atypical.  Instead, they are saying that the manner in which the process is used by Apple is just plain silly.

 

Nobody is saying that the process is not within Apple's legal rights.  Instead, they are saying that Apple's exercise of their rights in this manner is just plain silly.

 

 

Better luck next time.

post #25 of 42

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
OK, so we've now established that you've never dealt with any legal matters and/or public opinion. Apple has every right to be concerned that the jury will see Samsung logos around the room and think that Samsung has more sway with the court than Apple. Similarly, if the court were using Apple computers, Samsung would be well within its rights to have the logos hidden.


There's nothing arrogant about it. The court may decide that it's unnecessary, so Apple may lose the request, but the only arrogance is in the mind of all the Apple haters.

 

Again the Apple sycophants get their panties in a twist whenever anyone says anytthing vaguely critical of Apple. Can you be any more predictable?

 

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't read the lawsuit and have obviously never set foot inside a courtroom, whereas I have. The logos are irrelevant to the case. Apple's request is completely spurious. Pointing out that fact does not make one an "Apple hater". Stop reacting like a 5-year old and grow up.

post #26 of 42

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by popnfresh View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
OK, so we've now established that you've never dealt with any legal matters and/or public opinion. Apple has every right to be concerned that the jury will see Samsung logos around the room and think that Samsung has more sway with the court than Apple. Similarly, if the court were using Apple computers, Samsung would be well within its rights to have the logos hidden.


There's nothing arrogant about it. The court may decide that it's unnecessary, so Apple may lose the request, but the only arrogance is in the mind of all the Apple haters.

 

Again the Apple sycophants get their panties in a twist whenever anyone says anytthing vaguely critical of Apple. Can you be any more predictable?

 

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't read the lawsuit and have obviously never set foot inside a courtroom, whereas I have. The logos are irrelevant to the case. Apple's request is completely spurious. Pointing out that fact does not make one an "Apple hater". Stop reacting like a 5-year old and grow up.

 

He's always at his funniest when dealing with legal matters.

post #27 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

3. People like you are whining about issues that you don't understand. This is a common and typical legal process and is well within Apple's rights.

 

 

 

First of all, I am not whining. I am making light of a trivial thing. How in the world can anyone take this seriously. This is just another in the millions of meaningless things people do everyday to convince themselves they have value as a human being. That is a very sad thing.

post #28 of 42

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by popnfresh View Post

 

 

Again the Apple sycophants get their panties in a twist whenever anyone says anytthing vaguely critical of Apple. Can you be any more predictable?

 

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't read the lawsuit and have obviously never set foot inside a courtroom, whereas I have. The logos are irrelevant to the case. Apple's request is completely spurious. Pointing out that fact does not make one an "Apple hater". Stop reacting like a 5-year old and grow up.

 

I've set foot in a number of courtrooms on business issues. Your indictment for shoplifting isn't relevant.

 

The logos are most certainly relevant. Apple thinks so. Florian Mueller thinks so, too. The fact is that in a case like this which comes down to credibility of the various players, having Samsung logos all over the court room can introduce a serious bias.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #29 of 42

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Gotta love the attention to detail within Apple

 

No, you don't "gotta love it". As a quarter-century Apple fan, I read this story and think "Really? REALLY?" 

post #30 of 42

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

 

3. People like you are whining about issues that you don't understand. This is a common and typical legal process and is well within Apple's rights.

 

It's not a matter of whether it's within Apple's legal rights. It's a matter of it being unbelievably petty and making Apple look bad in the process. 

post #31 of 42

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

 

3. People like you are whining about issues that you don't understand. This is a common and typical legal process and is well within Apple's rights.

 

It's not a matter of whether it's within Apple's legal rights. It's a matter of it being unbelievably petty and making Apple look bad in the process. 

 

 

It is easy to set up a  strawman if your desire is to knock something down.  

 

It  is much more difficult to counter things that people are actually saying.

post #32 of 42

In addition to blocking out the logo, the lawyers could install an app named 'fake iPhone 4S' to give it an iOS skin and hide the Android OS.  Come on people; anybody that uses both iOS and Android are never likely to confuse the two. 

post #33 of 42

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

 

 

 

It is easy to set up a  strawman if your desire is to knock something down.  

 

It  is much more difficult to counter things that people are actually saying.

 

I guess that explains why you never bother to counter what people actually say.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

In addition to blocking out the logo, the lawyers could install an app named 'fake iPhone 4S' to give it an iOS skin and hide the Android OS.  Come on people; anybody that uses both iOS and Android are never likely to confuse the two. 

 

That's besides the point.  Samsung didn't have the right to co-opt Apple's design language like they did.  That the software is different doesn't excuse how similar the hardware looks.

 

Regarding the branding, I think it's reasonable, because the presence of brand logos has a chance of biasing judgement.


Edited by JeffDM - 5/1/12 at 11:37am
post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

 

 

 

It is easy to set up a  strawman if your desire is to knock something down.  

 

It  is much more difficult to counter things that people are actually saying.

 

I guess that explains why you never bother to counter what people actually say.

 

 

Yet another strawman.

 

 

<shrug>

post #36 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

 

 

It's not a matter of whether it's within Apple's legal rights. It's a matter of it being unbelievably petty and making Apple look bad in the process. 

 
I don't think it is petty.  Psychology experiments have shown that branding and other environmental factors like that can and does alter perceptions and can bias judgement.  The court room has to appear impartial, branding on court equipment needs to reflect that.

Edited by JeffDM - 5/1/12 at 11:55am
post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

 

That's besides the point.  Samsung didn't have the right to co-opt Apple's design language like they did.  That the software is different doesn't excuse how similar the hardware looks.

 

Regarding the branding, I think it's reasonable, because the presence of brand logos has a chance of biasing judgement.

Samsung is going about their business blatantly copying Apple and as such I support anything Apple or anyone else does to work against them. I am not against Samsung products per se but last night there was an add on TV that ended with the words "... the revolutionary [Samsung Smartphone of some variety]". That is an Apple line, no? The copying is shameless and calculated and beneath contempt.  Unfortunately it has done and is doing Samsung a world of good.

post #38 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post
…an add on TV that ended with the words "… the revolutionary [Samsung Smartphone of some variety]". That is an Apple line, no?

 

Ooh… you're gonna get slammed for that by people taking what you've said out of context.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #39 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


And what about them MacBook pros and iMacs already?
Yes because Apple can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
post #40 of 42
In this case, it seems reasonable to ask. If the court says no, then life goes on. (But don’t expect a poor clerk to be dismantling the electronics!)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wants Samsung logo on court televisions obscured from jurors in trial