Samsung takes excluded evidence to the media, gets reprimanded - Page 3

Since no one else posted this.  Samsung designs BEFORE the iPhone was introduced.  The evidence Judge Koh is afraid to let the jurors see.

Perhaps you should study Procedural Law?

this is getting silly

It's more like they have something to LOSE, in this case, a trial.
If this weak, forum-troll-grade argument was that important to their case, they are just grasping at straws to distract the jury from the obvious conclusion, really. That Samsung desperately wants their post-2007 phones and post-2010 tablets to look exactly like Apple's.

 

If I wasn't at work id quite happily get you those photos of Apple's prototypes a full year (some two years, I believe) before these sammy prototypes ever saw the light of day.

EDIT: anyone else notice the UX designs from samsung on those documents is called iReen?

what about the star that went supernova to create all the elements?  who's the real innovator?

I shouldn't be responding to this because I know you're just trolling but why wasn't Samsung able to get these submitted by the deadline? Presumably these are important documents. Why did Samsung wait to the last-minute to get them entered as evidence? And what exactly is the judge afraid of?

If it was the reverse the fandroids and Sammy tards would be claiming Apple made this stuff up, as they've already done with the prototypes that have come out.

The phone Apple is suing over is the Galaxy Ace Plus, which was released in 2012 and looks remarkably like the iPhone 3G. Anybody that's not blind can see it (and most reviews of the phone mention it). I think it's a stretch to suggest the phone below is just an evolution of concepts from 2006. And even if it was someone should have stopped it along the way and made something more original. At least with Apple 's purple prototype from 2005 you can see where the iPhone 4 came from.

Hah, reading you I understood his meaning.... Outapple, verb. "Create a revolutionary design and ecosystem which forces potential competitors to copy said design"

Several problems with your argument:

1. These prototypes you keep showing are actually quite distinct from Apple's iPhone. All you're showing is that Samsung considered a wide range of possible ideas and then chose the one that looked the most like the iPhone. I'm not sure how that helps their case.

2. We don't know how early Samsung had access to Apple's iPhone design. With Google's Schmidt on Apple's board, it's possible that Samsung had some access to Apple's designs.

3. if Samsung had such clear evidence that they had the iPhone design before Apple, they should have submitted it to the court within the deadline. Samsung's disregard for court procedures is going to bite them in the rear.

4. I'm not sure about design patents. For utility patents, independent discovery is not a defense (it can eliminate punitive damages, though). I don't know the dates of the design patents, but if Samsung's prototypes were dated after the date of the patent application, they would still be in violation.

I read it "IReen", not iReen...

IR, as Infra Red...

 

Might be completely wrong about it though.

I hereby patent the Big Bang. I now own everything.

Send me half of your money and I'll let you keep the rest (at least for now).

I think it's due to the word being translated from another language where a man can be either understood as a man, male, or a woman, female. Or maybe because the term man-hour predates legal work for women.

It's an interesting historical question, but probably not quite related to the thread. english.stackexchange.com is the place ^^

Big Bang is a consequence to variations in that-that-was-before-time-was, as explained on Dexter's Lab, so it's probably patented by Cartoon Networks Scientists already :p

Ah, but time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so the concept of something predating the Big Bang is not possible.

i think that ireen phone does not look like the iphone, and would have been a great andriod phone... but alas samsung does not know an original design that they come up with, because they copy all the time, so they "BLEW IT".

but those slides were probably a part of the briefing on the industrial espionage activities that Samsung had been performing...

perhaps SAMSUNG was not able to properly authenticate the slides that you have presented?...

and on another topic.... and perhaps SAMSUNG destroyed evidence, because they were copying someone else "who-if-found-out-would-have-gone-hardcore-nazi-on-them" (sorry for the nazi word... godwins law and all)

thus better to receive punishment from the legal system, then have to pay in blood (for copying).
Edited by haar - 8/1/12 at 5:55am

 

I agree, i think its the best way to live, i geek out all day & work out all the time too, when you are feeling fit your mind gets pretty nimble too.

Possible future outcome: Apple "wins". Samsung cannot sell their Galaxy phones and tablets in the U.S. Samsung decides to take their business elsewhere...all of it. They cut off the supply of parts for the iDevices and Apple suffers while searching for other tech hardware suppliers. The winners? The lawyers who make a FORTUNE off this nonsense. The losers? The customers who end up paying even more for products. 

You didn't answer the question. How can she punish anyone for a company releasing information to the public? While she may not like it, it isn't illegal. Where does she think we are the old USSR?

Not going to happen. First, there's no way Samsung could replace Apple's $8 B in business with other customers. If they thought they had a hope of picking up that amount of business, they'd do so - even while retaining Apple as a customer.

Furthermore, there's no way that the Board wants to commit suicide. It would be far less expensive and easier to simply redesign their products to stop copying Apple.


Here's a good summary of the action to date. Samsung looks lost. Fighting with the judge over an issue after you've already been overruled 3 times? Begging the judge to allow something into evidence? Really sad.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/apple-to-jury-iphone-changed-everythingthen-samsung-built-knockoffs/

 

Galactus pre-dated the Big Bang.  He was part of the universe before this one and survived the crunch and the bang.

 

Oh you want REAL not made up Marvel stuff :)  Still the concept can totally be there even if we don't have science to support it.

 

 

 

 

Not to mention if Samsung just stopped shipping stuff to Apple they would be back in court for breach of contract.

 

Oh ok, you say I couldn't be more wrong so that immediately invalidates what I said.  Good call.  My point (that seems to have totally bypassed your reasoning filter) is that comparing raw material to complex components is a bad analogy.  Aside, why are you arguing that the Samsung components are a commodity if they are custom made for Apple?  If it's proprietary, it should no longer be considered a commodity.  I assure you that Apple DOES NOT design all of the internal components from the ground up.  Not trying to argue that Samsung deserves the title of "innovator", but they probably deserve a little more respect than Apple, you and the general Apple evangelical crowd give them-- which is approximately none.

 

8 billion dollars? After expenses, it was 2 billion dollars, which Apple seems wants to take from them. I still don't understand how Apple is going to prove that for every dollar Samsung made, Apple lost a dollar. That makes the assumption that the ONLY two players in the market are Apple and Samsung AND that EVERY person will go out and buy an Apple product if Samsung's weren't available. THAT seems very, very unlikely to be proven.

 

Actually, they probably have a contract with Apple, so they cannot cut ties immediately. If Samsung were to drop Apple as a customer, Apple simply wouldn't be able to respond quick enough to find other suppliers. I actually see Samsung raising their prices on Apple and then Apple raising their prices towards the customer. We all lose.

 

I still don't see where this copying. The tablet and OS look totally different. The Galaxy S did look a bit like a 3GS, but I am sorry, I just don't believe someone would walk out of a store with a box that has the SAMSUNG moniker on it truly believing they bought an Apple product. Total BS...or people who have serious mental problems.

 

$8B is the cost of all the components Apple buys from Samsung each year.

 

before i purchased an iPhone 3GS back in June 2009, i had a cellphone from the Sony Ericsson K700 family of products (in fact, i still have it stored in a box someplace).  and, yes, the apps (or more accurately: common phone functions, games and other things) on the K700 were arranged in tiles.

 

 

that's the very issue we're facing.

 

- people predisposed to Apple will highlight the similarities between specific Samsung and Apple products

- people predisposed to Samsung will highlight the dissimilarities between specific Samsung and Apple products

 

from an objective standpoint, both groups have elements to support their claims.  when the verdict is reached, i'll be avoiding online forums for a few days because the virtriol will be high and mighty ;)

There's definitely something suspicious about the supposed earlier designs. Not least the fact that it took a further 2 years after the original iPhone to actually bring the Galaxy S to market. That's likely down to Android not getting a software keyboard until 2009 but even so, their 2007/2008 phone designs looked very little like their concepts and nothing like the iPhone:

it's more than just suspicious that Samsung did not attempt to introduce this "evidence" until after the filing deadline. Samsung had to know it would help its defense from the beginning of the case, long before. the only good reason to hold it back until the last minute would be to shield it from Apple's pre-trial discovery and deposition investigations. and don't forget all those missing Samsung emails too, which the jury will hear about. which means there is something connected with this "evidence" and those emails that was even more important for Samsung to hide. what? well industrial espionage is the obvious possibility. any evidence of that on Samsung's part would be devastating to its defense, and they had to know it.

 

but i doubt very much it was Schmidt - he was spying on Apple for Google which he ran, not Samsung which he didn't care about then at all. 

Samsung's counsel replied to Judge Koh's demand for an answer on what the intent of the public release of the Sony-inspired iPhone design slides on Tuesday was. 

 

In a court filing this morning, Samsung explained why it was not at fault for offering excluded trial evidence to the press, saying that information was in the public domain because it had already been published.

"Contrary to the representations Apple's counsel made to this Court, Samsung did not issue a general press release and more importantly, did not violate any Court Order or any legal or ethical standards," John B. Quinn, of Samsung's law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP said in a filing this morning."

Apparently the Judge doesn't follow TheVerge, because Samsung is correct as far as I can see. TheVerge had a story up very early Monday morning (1am!), distilled from court filings they had perused over the weekend. That article was published prior to Judge Koh's ruling the evidence wouldn't be admissable in her court, putting it clearly in the public domain. I'm not even sure TheVerge was even first to publish it. It's just the first one I noticed.

Turns out THIS is the Sony device that Samsung says Apple copied. (A Sony walkman, not a phone after all... and one inspired by Apple!)

 

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/01/the-sony-device-samsung-claims-inspired-apples-iphone/?source=yahoo_quote

 

Why would people end up "paying more"? If you own any of the other million phones available, you'll do fine. If you want the Apple iOS experience, you'll pay for an iOS device.

I guess lawlessness is condoned in South Korea. Obviously copyright violations are.

 

Hope you did not spend too much money patenting it.... your patent expired about 50 million years back - at which point the only thing you could have received as compensation was a lot of hot air (because nothing else existed)! And even if your patent is still valid, I doubt if anyone can actually copy the Big Bang, even if they wanted to ;-) As for using things derived from the Big Bang, it is perfectly legal, as long as you don't use the Big Bang itself.

 

And in any case, Big Bang is not an Essential patent - you can always design around Big Bang by using God and Creation techniques.

If it was Infrared, it would be IR. It clearly states IReen

 

IReen… ireen, irene, Irene! Irene Adler! Famed thief! THIEF! SAMSUNG ADMITS IT!

 

Samsung is the same company who flies an entire entourage of staff, each given their own chauffeured Mazerati (or whatever expensive car it is) to drive them to each Olympic venue for being an Olympic sponsor. They are the only Olympic sponsor who does that. And what do these chauffeurs do when they're not driving? They are paid to sit in the parking garage half the day and run the engines. 

 

If this is the kind of flashy money they are throwing around, the kind of activity their lawyers and PR staff pull is not surprising. 

While Apple argued the iPhone "changed phones forever" during its opening statement, the Galaxy maker noted Samsung parts account for some 26 percent of an iPhone and asked, "who's the real innovator?"

 

Wow, and 26% of my new house was provided by a local lumber yard. By that logic, the lumber company is the real innovator in the dseign and construction.

Where did you get that? According to news articles there's 500 BMW-supplied chauffer-driven limos made available to the group of Olympics corporate sponsors, not just Samsung. 

http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/News/21915/samsung_waives_olympic_tax_break.aspx