or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung calls decision to share evidence with media 'ethical' and 'lawful'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung calls decision to share evidence with media 'ethical' and 'lawful'

post #1 of 176
Thread Starter 
In a court-ordered filing on Wednesday, Samsung lawyer John Quinn defended the move to release previously excluded evidence to media outlets on Tuesday, saying the move was both "ethical" and "lawful."

Quinn, a high-powered attorney and managing partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, was dressed down yesterday by Judge Lucy Koh for emails Samsung sent to reporters containing exhibits blocked from consideration by the jury in the company's trial against Apple.

Judge Koh, who is presiding over the case, was made aware of the "leak" by Apple attorneys late Tuesday and ordered Samsung to enter a brief detailing who authorized the email and why. In the party's response, Quinn denies any wrongdoing and claims the action was in response to reporters' requests for information.

The Court has pushed for an open trial, denying on numerous occasions requests to seal deemed-sensitive documents by both Apple and Samsung, and Quinn noted as much in his declaration:

"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—made
in denying both parties‟ requests to seal documents—that ?[t]he United States district court is a
public institution, and the workings of litigation must be open to public view. Pretrial
submissions are a part of trial.?





Samsung sent out slides on Tuesday of former Apple designer Shin Nishibori's deposition regarding a Sony-styled iPhone as well as a statement which claimed the excluded exhibit "would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design."

Quinn leverages a number of court statutes as well as lawyers' First Amendment rights to free speech in his defense. He goes on to say the move was not intended to sway jury opinion.

From Quinn's declaration:

"Samsung's brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to press inquiries was not motivated by or designed to influence jurors. The members of the jury had already been selected at the time of the statement and the transmission of these public exhibits, and had been specifically instructed not to read any form of media relating to this case. The information provided therefore was not intended to, nor could it, ?have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.?


Due to the suit's implications, media outlets have been clamoring to dig up as much information as possible regarding the proceedings which began Monday. As a result, the slides along with pages of legal documents, were released to the public.

post #2 of 176

But they didn't decide to share the evidence with the court when they had full opportunity to do so alongside all other legal evidence.

 

Right.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #3 of 176
post #4 of 176

Weasel.

 

Again, Sony did not have a product that looked like the iphone prototype at the time. this prototype never did see the light of day either.
 

post #5 of 176

Unless the judge specifically forbade them from making rejected evidence public, it's completely lawful.

 

Seems to me like Samsung is playing the long game here, and doesn't expect a favorable outcome from this judge. These tactics seem like they are setting up evidence that they were discriminated against, which they can use during the appeal, as well as building up their image in the court of public opinion.

post #6 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Samsung and court orders don't quite mix, for some reason.

 

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/04/25/samsung_in_violation_of_court_order_to_produce_documents_about_apple.html


There was no court order prohibiting them from doing this.

post #7 of 176

Judge tells Samsung to exclude something, they make it public.  Way to go Samsung.  That will certainly make your case solid.. *rolls eyes*

post #8 of 176
Good response. Yesterday I thought the release of the information quite questionable, today Quinn's declaration has convinced me it was entirely fair game.
post #9 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Judge tells Samsung to exclude something, they make it public.  Way to go Samsung.  That will certainly make your case solid.. *rolls eyes*

Did you even read the declaration? Quinn's point, repeated multiple times, was that the information was already public, so this is a non-issue. Additionally, the judge only told Samsung to exclude it from the jury, not the public. Again, the judge wanted all the trial information to remain public knowledge. Lesson/moral? You reap what you sow.
post #10 of 176
Given that said documents were 'excluded' from the legal proceedings... So Be It.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #11 of 176

I'm on Samsung's side this time.  There's no reason that photo had to be excluded.

post #12 of 176

How can documents that were specifically excluded from the trial, be argued to be "part of the trial" simply because they were excluded in the pretrial (which is part of the trial)?  

 

I mean WTF?  

 

If that's true then what's the point of the pretrial or including/excluding evidence at all? 

 

This is all just theatrics intended to position Samsung as an aggrieved party acting morally, but tripped up by the evil machinations of Apple and trampled under the wheels of justice by a biased judge, etc. etc. blah, blah.  I'd rather they just argue the case on the facts. 

post #13 of 176

Well, the trolls and shills are out in full force here and approving of Scamsung going against a judge's order.

Just shaking my head in disappointment.

post #14 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Given that said documents were 'excluded' from the legal proceedings... So Be It.

"Your Honour, in all fairness you never said that the documents were excluded from the illegal proceedings. And I assure you, there is nothing legal about the way our client has proceeded."

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #15 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Unless the judge specifically forbade them from making rejected evidence public, it's completely lawful.

 

Seems to me like Samsung is playing the long game here, and doesn't expect a favorable outcome from this judge. These tactics seem like they are setting up evidence that they were discriminated against, which they can use during the appeal, as well as building up their image in the court of public opinion.

 

I don't think you understand how the law works.

 

I'm going to go with the judge on this one and not some anonymous armchair lawyer on the Internets that assures me this is "lawful." Especially when they give no reasons and no backing arguments to that effect.  

post #16 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


Did you even read the declaration? Quinn's point, repeated multiple times, was that the information was already public, so this is a non-issue. Additionally, the judge only told Samsung to exclude it from the jury, not the public. Again, the judge wanted all the trial information to remain public knowledge. Lesson/moral? You reap what you sow.

 

You're exaggerating and confabulating a bit here.  

 

You say the judge "wanted all the trial information to be public" but that's not the case is it?  The judge only said that she wanted the case to be tried in public.  She didn't in any way say that every single piece of evidence and so forth had to be public.  

 

By not carefully reading what the judge is saying and not being exact in what you're saying in response, you just muddle things up.  

 

It's also completely irrelevant whether the information was public already.  Violating a judges order is .... violating a judges order.  It doesn't matter if the order is to come to court in your underwear with cream cheese spread in your hair.  If that's the order then that's the order.  This isn't negotiating with your mum to stay out later, this is a court of law.  The judges power is almost absolute.  


Edited by Gazoobee - 8/1/12 at 3:22pm
post #17 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Well, the trolls and shills are out in full force here and approving of Scamsung going against a judge's order.

Just shaking my head in disappointment.

It's impossible to gauge how a jury will vote. All we have is what we know about this case and previous cases. What strikes me as a bad sign for Samsung's tactics are so flippant and devious this early into the case. It's as if they've gone into the case with no confidence in winning so they are trying every underhanded tactic they can think of right out of the gate. It's like when Commodus stabs Maximus in the back before fighting him thinking it would give him an edge. Unfortunately for Samsung Apple wasn't in shackles before the trial. (Only example I could think of 😷)

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #18 of 176

deleted

post #19 of 176

This is a pretty obvious (and pathetic) attempt by Samsung to try to sidestep the court by appealing to the general public and starting a controversy, hoping the court will cave in to outside pressure.

 

If the court ordered it excluded, then it's excluded. Samsung might disagree, but then then they should appeal, not do something the court specifically told them not to do.

post #20 of 176

This lawyer keeps forcing the issue. When the trial starts up again on Friday, I wonder if the judge will sanction him.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #21 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucepondo View Post

They have no "evidence." It is misleading and not based in facts, that is why the judge would not allow it.

The information that Samsung presented doesn't sync up with Apple's well-documented, creative time-line for the iPhone.

Apple had initial designs for the iPhone in the year 2005, a full year before the Sony Walkman prototype Samsung is holding up as evidence or prior art was made public. Sony never had a phone with that design, much less a year before the first iPhone designs were being worked on.


TL/DR: Samsung's "evidence" of prior art is a lie.

That's certainly a reason to not allow it. So far all I've seen is a drawing. Apple had actual prototypes of dozens of models. Is a single 2D drawing evidence of anything when it's void of how it could actually be a real product? I'm trying to not judge on tactics, just the known facts but they are making it very difficult to do that.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #22 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy View Post

I'm on Samsung's side this time.  There's no reason that photo had to be excluded.

 

Why would you side with adding false evidence into a trial unless you wanted to confuse the jurors?

 

They have no "evidence." What they have is misleading and not based in facts, that is why the judge would not allow it.

 

The information that Samsung presented doesn't sync up with Apple's well-documented, creative time-line for the iPhone. Apple had initial designs for the iPhone in the year 2005, a full year before the Sony Walkman prototype Samsung is holding up as evidence or prior art was made public. Sony never had a phone with that design, much less a year before the first iPhone designs were being worked on.  

 

 

 

TL/DR: Samsung's "evidence" of prior art is a lie.

post #23 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

Good response. Yesterday I thought the release of the information quite questionable, today Quinn's declaration has convinced me it was entirely fair game.

 

post #24 of 176
So... is this trial the first Nerdlympics?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #25 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post

This is a pretty obvious (and pathetic) attempt by Samsung to try to sidestep the court by appealing to the general public and starting a controversy, hoping the court will cave in to outside pressure.

 

If the court ordered it excluded, then it's excluded. Samsung might disagree, but then then they should appeal, not do something the court specifically told them not to do.

 

Absolutely. You nailed it. 

post #26 of 176

Just like they "think" it's "ethical" and "lawful" to blatantly steal Apple's designs.

 

Samscum needs to get REAL people who actually are ethical and know the laws.

post #27 of 176
In a courtroom, the Judge decides on the law. There is a big space between the walls of legislation, binding legal precedent and local Court rules and the Judge is free to go anywhere within them. The actions of Samsung's lawyers might have been designed to pressure the Judge to admit the evidence they wanted but it seems to have had the opposite effect . Ticking off the Judge is seldom a good strategy unless you're building a cause for appeal.

If this evidence was so important, why was it not disclosed according to the schedule laid down by the Court? Perhaps Samsung didn't discover it, which suggests that the preparation has been botched. Or perhaps the lawyers thought that if they presented it on time then Apple could counter it. So they tried for a Perry-Mason moment, and lost.

Samsung just made it easier for Apple to win this case.
post #28 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post

This is a pretty obvious (and pathetic) attempt by Samsung to try to sidestep the court by appealing to the general public and starting a controversy, hoping the court will cave in to outside pressure.

If the court ordered it excluded, then it's excluded. Samsung might disagree, but then then they should appeal, not do something the court specifically told them not to do.
Samsung isn't stupid. They know exactly what they're doing. Not sure it will work though as Apple isn't as hated in the general public as the tech forums would have people believe and Samsunf, no matter how hard it tries, doesn't come off as this poor defenseless little company that.s being bullied by the big bad Apple.
post #29 of 176

Man, a lawyer using "ethical" and "lawful" to describe their actions and expecting people to believe him..

 

...what, has hell frozen over?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #30 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

... the judge wanted all the trial information to remain public knowledge. Lesson/moral? You reap what you sow.

Quite...and anyone who thought Samsung would go meekly to the gallows or that Apple isn't well prepared for hardball, needs to take notice.
I think Apple got the best they could by giving Lucy Koh a prod and provoking her exasperation at Samsung's expense. In fact in the long run, it's likely Samsung will have to pretty much repeat ad nauseum the same story while Apple attempts to shred their credibility with damning two-faced evidence.
What is immediately obvious?....Samsung is playing to the mob via red-top style banner headlines. Fine, the real business is to be compelling enough to win a legal argument and I've no doubt Apple will throw a few low blows in response.
post #31 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Unless the judge specifically forbade them from making rejected evidence public, it's completely lawful.

 

Seems to me like Samsung is playing the long game here, and doesn't expect a favorable outcome from this judge. These tactics seem like they are setting up evidence that they were discriminated against, which they can use during the appeal, as well as building up their image in the court of public opinion.

 

 

There are not going to be any favorable from this judge since there is a Jury...

post #32 of 176
In addition to being misleading and an attempt to sway public opinion, the Samsung release is a direct criticism of the judge. By saying the excluded material proves Samsung's position, they are in effect accusing the judge of making, at best, errors in judgement. I know of no judge that tolerates a litigant's public criticism well.
post #33 of 176

Kick him square in the nuts.

post #34 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

You're exaggerating and confabulating a bit here.  

You say the judge "wanted all the trial information to be public" but that's not the case is it?  The judge only said that she wanted the case to be tried in public.  She didn't in any way say that every single piece of evidence and so forth had to be public.  

By not carefully reading what the judge is saying and not being exact in what you're saying in response, you just muddle things up.  

It's also completely irrelevant whether the information was public already.  Violating a judges order is .... violating a judges order.  It doesn't matter if the order is to come to court in your underwear with cream cheese spread in your hair.  If that's the order then that's the order.  This isn't negotiating with your mum to stay out later, this is a court of law.  The judges power is almost absolute.  

I think you might be the one guilty of confabulating a bit here. Let's get a few things clear straight away. #1 if the judge said she wanted the case to be tried in public, that automatically implies that the evidence is not protected from the public domain, anyone can request it and be granted access to it. #2 The First Amendment protects free speech, and so if there is no trial information that is protected from public knowledge, there can be nothing wrong in disclosing that information. #3 No one, so far as I can see, violated the judge's order. The judge decreed that the information in question should be shielded from the jury. Quinn made a convincing argument, using legal precedent, to demonstrate leaking this info in no way can influence the jury (unless the jury fails to adhere to its orders, which is not a reasonable assumption according to the law), and therefore the judge's order is not being violated by this disclosure. To suggest that it is, is to twist the decree and to "confabulate" the issue.
Edited by johndoe98 - 8/1/12 at 5:15pm
post #35 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post

This is a pretty obvious (and pathetic) attempt by Samsung to try to sidestep the court by appealing to the general public and starting a controversy, hoping the court will cave in to outside pressure.

If the court ordered it excluded, then it's excluded. Samsung might disagree, but then then they should appeal, not do something the court specifically told them not to do.

I see you aren't a fan of nuance. First off, the general public cannot pressure the court in any way. Second, it was excluded from the jury. Full stop. Why are you engaging in hasty generalizations here? That your idea of civil discourse?
post #36 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

This lawyer keeps forcing the issue. When the trial starts up again on Friday, I wonder if the judge will sanction him.

I'd like to see this too. Given the lawyer's declaration, I fear it would raise First Amendment issues. That might play well in the appeal courts no?
Edited by johndoe98 - 8/1/12 at 5:36pm
post #37 of 176

What can we expect from Samsung? This is a company known for various corruption and bribery scandals in Korea. Even it's owner and chairman made a public apology few years ago. Even a lot of Koreans(those who are not economically well to do) are hoping Apple screws Samsung big time. Those people will get what they want. This is America, Justice will prevail.

post #38 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


I think you might be the one guilty of confabulating a bit here. Let's get a few things clear straight away. #1 if the judge said she wanted the case to be tried in public, that automatically implies that the evidence is not protected from the public domain, anyone can request it and be granted access to it. #2 The Fifth Amendment protects free speech, and so if there is no trial information that is protected from public knowledge, there can be nothing wrong in disclosing that information. #3 No one, so far as I can see, violated the judge's order. The judge decreed that the information in question should be shielded from the jury. Quinn made a convincing argument, using legal precedent, to demonstrate leaking this info in no way can influence the jury (unless the jury fails to adhere to its orders, which is not a reasonable assumption according to the law), and therefore the judge's order is not being violated by this disclosure. To suggest that it is, is to twist the decree and to "confabulate" the issue.

nice try. :-)

post #39 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

nice try. :-)

Where is my reasoning inaccurate? What facts are not veridical? I'm happy to be proven wrong and to change my perspective. But I'm not seeing much of an argument from many of you, and this response isn't much of one now is it?
post #40 of 176

To be expected, Apple want's "emergency sanctions". The whole case will look like a circus the next several days IMO.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57484757-37/apple-seeks-emergency-sanctions-against-samsung/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung calls decision to share evidence with media 'ethical' and 'lawful'