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' - Page 4

post #121 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.

How are parts of an exclude deposition public? That deposition does not belong to Samsung, their attorneys, or the public. Quinn also lied to the Judge. In court he claimed he sent it to journalists that requested it. At least one of these journalists claim they made no request at all.
post #122 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

How are parts of an exclude deposition public? That deposition does not belong to Samsung, their attorneys, or the public. Quinn also lied to the Judge. In court he claimed he sent it to journalists that requested it. At least one of these journalists claim they made no request at all.

You really think Quinn doesn't have a paper trail to cover his tracks?
post #123 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Yep. Even with high school level education on the court system I was aware of this. What's Samsung's lawyer's excuse?

The device had just come forward. No one at Samsung was aware it existed prior to last week.
post #124 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

I'm not sure how Apple asking for justifiable sanctions is contributing to this case looking like a circus. Samsung and their lawyers are doing a bang-up job of that themselves.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


Don't know. Looking at the opening, I think they did good. Apple did well, too.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/07/31/apple-samsung-trial-opens-with-one-juror-done-samsung-begging-live-blog/

Nothing in there to make me re-think my original statement.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #125 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


The device had just come forward. No one at Samsung was aware it existed prior to last week.

 

Irrelevant, as far as court procedure and rules of evidence are concerned, it would seem.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #126 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

You really think Quinn doesn't have a paper trail to cover his tracks?

Why would he? I thought he hadn't done anything wrong.
post #127 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


You really think Quinn doesn't have a paper trail to cover his tracks?

I'm curious to know what would make you say such a thing — are you claiming inside knowledge?

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #128 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard View Post

I'm curious to know what would make you say such a thing — are you claiming inside knowledge?

My hypothesis is Quinn is not an idiot.

Additionally here's some facts that some of you need to address, especially those who mention the Ex Parte clauses:

#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
#3: California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose "information in a public record".
#4: All the disclosed information was already contained in the public record as it was reported by the NY Times, LA Time, Huffington Post, and CNET.
#5: This type is disclosure has happened before, in Brendt v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 2004 WL 1774227, it was ruled that the "attorney's extra-judicial statements regarding statements regarding a pending case did not create a "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" in part because the information "is contained in the public record, and Ms. Price may freely state any information in the public record".
#6: The Ninth Circuit has held that "a statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning".
#7: In United States vs Stutton, it was deemed that "after the jury is selected [...] any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice is limited because there is an almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions".

Would someone who has opposed my claims and requests for explanation care to address the points please? It seems to me the court wanted an open trial, well those appear to be the rules that govern an open trial in California.
Edited by johndoe98 - 8/1/12 at 8:44pm
post #129 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


My hypothesis is Quinn is not an idiot.
Additionally here's some facts that some of you need to address, especially those who mention the Ex Parte clauses:
#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
#3: California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose "information in a public record".
#4: All the disclosed information was already contained in the public record as it was reported by the NY Times, LA Time, Huffington Post, and CNET.
#5: This type is disclosure has happened before, in Brendt v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 2004 WL 1774227, it was ruled that the "attorney's extra-judicial statements regarding statements regarding a pending case did not create a "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" in part because the information "is contained in the public record, and Ms. Price may freely state any information in the public record".
#6: The Ninth Circuit has held that "a statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning".
#7: In United States vs Stutton, it was deemed that "after the jury is selected [...] any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice is limited because there is an almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions".
Would someone who has opposed my claims and requests for explanation care to address the points please? It seems to me the court wanted an open trial, well those appear to be the rules that govern an open trial in California.

"Open" and "public" in a legal context do not mean what you think they mean. "Open" and "public" do not mean that one can dispense with the rules of procedure and evidence.

 

In any case I personally don't have a problem if Samsung presented this "evidence" in court, as it doesn't hurt Apple's case at all.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #130 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.

 

It was aimed at the non-sequestered jurors.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #131 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.

you're not thinking. why did they hold it back past the deadline? unless they were incompetent, there is only one good reason: to avoid Apple's follow-up discovery/deposition investigations about it. why do that? well, what do they have to hide? why did they erase all those emails too? huh? are you getting a clue?

 

how about industrial espionage ...

post #132 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.

But for some reason Samsung couldn't find their own photos from 2006-2007 in 2011-2012

Maybe they do need Siri
post #133 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

"Open" and "public" in a legal context do not mean what you think they mean. "Open" and "public" do not mean that one can dispense with the rules of procedure and evidence.

 

In any case I personally don't have a problem if Samsung presented this "evidence" in court, as it doesn't hurt Apple's case at all.

 

Indeed.  Saying a trial is open to the public simply means that the pubic at large can attend the trial and view on elements of that trial that are not private or considered sealed (say via a gag order).  You can't just bypass rules of evidence or trial procedures by talking to the press anyhow and taint the jury by providing them with access to information the Judge specifically excluded from the jury.  THe rules of court would be that you would appeal a judges decision if you feel it is improper.
 
If Samsung had attempted this in court (say via a summation type speech) Apple would have objected, the judge would have sustained, could have held Samsung in contempt, and would have ordered the jury to disregard.  Of course Samsung knows that pulling that off in court would make them look desperate in front of the people that decide their fate.  So they decided to do this in front of people who do not decide their fate and to which Apple cannot re-direct and cross.  Hell it's not even testimony!
 
It's also why Apple want's sanctions in court - they want to avoid any possibility that this is seen as acceptable and they want it treated exactly as if it was done in court.
 
post #134 of 176

The judge was not happy, and one of the lawyers may suffer for it. 

 

If you look at the "evidence" proffered, it's a really stupid thing. The phone they complain about was announced after the iPhone. If you look at the F700, it doesn't look like anything but a late dumbphone. Apple could have copied it FOREVER, and still not come up with the iPhone. 

 

This is not a patent case. This is a trademark and trade dress case.

 

To me, it's absolutely clear that Samsung undertook to copy the iPhone. I don't think it's unusual at all. Since the earliest days postwar, the nascient industries of Asia that emerged from World War II -- and the Korean War -- started by copying. When the Asian ripoff market wasn't affecting us here, we never complained. But Samsung is a very major corporation now. Time to drop the business model of slavish copying. They have very good designers, and they should be able to come up with stuff that isn't just like Apple.

post #135 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

"Open" and "public" in a legal context do not mean what you think they mean. "Open" and "public" do not mean that one can dispense with the rules of procedure and evidence.

In any case I personally don't have a problem if Samsung presented this "evidence" in court, as it doesn't hurt Apple's case at all.

Exactly. I have to laugh at the suggestion made by another poster that Samsung's rights of freedom of speech are being violated. It's a shame that civics is apparently not taught (or taught poorly) in so many areas.
"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 #136 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

My hypothesis is Quinn is not an idiot.
Additionally here's some facts that some of you need to address, especially those who mention the Ex Parte clauses:
#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
#3: California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose "information in a public record".
#4: All the disclosed information was already contained in the public record as it was reported by the NY Times, LA Time, Huffington Post, and CNET.
#5: This type is disclosure has happened before, in Brendt v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 2004 WL 1774227, it was ruled that the "attorney's extra-judicial statements regarding statements regarding a pending case did not create a "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" in part because the information "is contained in the public record, and Ms. Price may freely state any information in the public record".
#6: The Ninth Circuit has held that "a statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning".
#7: In United States vs Stutton, it was deemed that "after the jury is selected [...] any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice is limited because there is an almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions".
Would someone who has opposed my claims and requests for explanation care to address the points please? It seems to me the court wanted an open trial, well those appear to be the rules that govern an open trial in California.

Another brilliant mind

This has all been a game so far. Samsung intentially didn't bring their 2006-2007 prototypes into discovery so they could do this.

If you don't believe that, then please don't ever attempt to play chess, you'll always be several steps behind and lose every time.

The people that play this game earn $600-1200 an hour, yes an hour.

This has been Samsung's lawyers plan for a month or two, it's their strategy to make Samsung look good in public opinion even if they lose. Then the appeal.
post #137 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

I care enough to inform others I have no problem with them ignoring me if they have nothing to contribute, sure. Have anything else to add?

I'll take the First Amendment on that and refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.
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 #138 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

"Open" and "public" in a legal context do not mean what you think they mean. "Open" and "public" do not mean that one can dispense with the rules of procedure and evidence.

In any case I personally don't have a problem if Samsung presented this "evidence" in court, as it doesn't hurt Apple's case at all.

I see. I just copied the salients parts of Quinn's declaration, but it's good to know that a legal expert being paid vast sums of money for representing one of the largest corporations in the world doesn't know, according to your extensive legal expertise, the difference between open and public. Thanks. Email Quinn, I'm sure he's dying for your input.
post #139 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

I see. I just copied the salients parts of Quinn's declaration, but it's good to know that a legal expert being paid vast sums of money for representing one of the largest corporations in the world doesn't know, according to your extensive legal expertise, the difference between open and public. Thanks. Email Quinn, I'm sure he's dying for your input.

So Samsung's attorney will have presented only accurate, legal arguments that are not open to question and not biased in any way, right? /s
"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 #140 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Exactly. I have to laugh at the suggestion made by another poster that Samsung's rights of freedom of speech are being violated. It's a shame that civics is apparently not taught (or taught poorly) in so many areas.

Good of you to weigh in and distort words and context again. I didn't say Samsung's rights of freedom of speech are being violated. I said if Quinn is sanctioned for his comments, that would potentially be a problem pertaining to the first amendment that protects free speech since the Ninth Circuit has held that "a statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning." A sanctions is by definition a punishment. So, since the facts were fully disclosed, since nothing Samsung said is obviously false or demeaning, it seems as if it'll be hard to sanction Quinn without violation his First Amendment rights. But I'm not judge Koh. There may be means available to her that we don't know. But if you do know of them, how about you post some facts and sources rather than straw men?
post #141 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So Samsung's attorney will have presented only accurate, legal arguments that are not open to question and not biased in any way, right? /s

I didn't say or suggest that. I said he seems to have a good argument given the evidence he presented. If you can disprove it, or show some counter-evidence, please do so and I'll consider it and potentially revise my opinion. But to simply claim the guy doesn't know some basic legal terminology is preposterous. Good to know everyone's intuitions and feelings on these matters is so much more salient than arguments based on legal precedent.
post #142 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

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. 

 

http://docs.dpaq.de/1323-applesamsungcv01846doc1256ordertoseal.pdf

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #143 of 176

Except for one important thing, the statements that were made in public were excluded from evidence.  Not to mention that freedom of speech is not absolute.  Samsung's lawyer can certainly be sanctioned because he made statements based on "facts" not in evidence.  If you did that in cross you would get an sustained objected and a warning from the judge.  You cannot get around an order of exclusion by just blabbing about it in public.  That can be seen as manipulating the jury.

 

Quote:
But to simply claim the guy doesn't know some basic legal terminology is preposterous. Good to know everyone's intuitions and feelings on these matters is so much more salient than arguments based on legal precedent.

Nobody is saying that.  There are Lawyers are willing to bend the rules all the time to get their clients a favorable ruling.  Ever hear of court room theatrics?  There are a ton of things that lawyers (on both sides) can do to affect the outcome of a trial.  Heck, I am willing to bet that some do that knowing darn well that it's not proper.  We cannot take Samsung's word on this matter just outright - they are framing their arguement to put them in the best light.

 

It's similar to how proponents of pseudo science try to misuse terms like "theory" despite having it explained properly over and over to try and gain support to their beliefs by the public who doesn't understand.

 

Edited by diddy - 8/1/12 at 9:45pm
post #144 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


I see. I just copied the salients parts of Quinn's declaration, but it's good to know that a legal expert being paid vast sums of money for representing one of the largest corporations in the world doesn't know, according to your extensive legal expertise, the difference between open and public. Thanks. Email Quinn, I'm sure he's dying for your input.

A declaration that was not made in a legal setting, ie inside the court, yes?

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #145 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

A declaration that was not made in a legal setting, ie inside the court, yes?

No it was the declaration signed and submitted to the court under penalty of perjury. It's linked in the OP.
post #146 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

You really think Quinn doesn't have a paper trail to cover his tracks?

Why would he? I thought he hadn't done anything wrong.
post #147 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

Except for one important thing, the statements that were made in public were excluded from evidence.  Not to mention that freedom of speech is not absolute.  Samsung's lawyer can certainly be sanctioned because he made statements based on "facts" not in evidence.  If you did that in cross you would get an sustained objected and a warning from the judge.  You cannot get around an order of exclusion by just blabbing about it in public.  That can be seen as manipulating the jury.
 

Sorry but:

#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".

These are mostly judge Koh's words. The pretrial information is part of the public record, but the jury has not been made aware of that information, unless they read that information in the news prior to the jury selection.
post #148 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sessamoid View Post

Simple mistakes make by simpletons. You're blocked by me, too.

 

So, was that sentance also a simple mistake?

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #149 of 176
Grrrr....  
 
1:  The court being open to the public is irrelevant to this matter.  Nothing in this has anything to do with the public being denied the right to the trial.  It has nothing to do with this discussion.  Nobody is talking about access to the trial by anybody.  It has no bearing as to what is going on in this matter.
 
2:  Being "open" doesn't mean what you are trying to imply.  It just means that there isn't any sort of a closed court or a gag order.  That doesn't mean that Samsung can just disregard orders of exclusion about evidence that was already rejected and essentially suppressed.  Once evidence is suppressed, the only way to make it "public" is to appeal the decision.  It does not mean that you can just talk about matters that are not part of the trial in an attempt to sway opinion.  
 
Look at it this way.  Who would you trust more:  The judge who was not happy about Samsung talking about evidence that was rejected and cannot be brought up in trial (of which can trigger a gag order) or a lawyer representing an interested party essentially saying "I'm not guilty! Honest!"  I trust the judge here because they are the one in charge of the proceedings and knows the rules.
 
 
post #150 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


Sorry but:
#1: "the United States district court is a public institution, and the working of litigation must be open to public view. Pretial submissions are a part of trial" Dkt. No. 1256.
#2: The court presiding in this case has told the parties involved "the whole trial is going to be open". It further added "unlike private materials unearthed during discovery judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default".
These are mostly judge Koh's words. The pretrial information is part of the public record, but the jury has not been made aware of that information, unless they read that information in the news prior to the jury selection.

 

As as has already been said, "open" and "public" in a legal context are different to what you believe them to be. Perhaps you should take your views to the relevant authority that monitors the performance of judges, I'm sure these highly-paid professionals are dying for your input.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #151 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwdav View Post

It wasn't excluded because of the content, it was excluded because it was submitted after the discovery phase and this is a timed trial. Apple would not have had time to examine or refute the photo at such short notice. Samsung had months to enter this evidence. That they waited indicates they were playing a game to either hit Apple with this while denying them time to prepare, or to make a fuss about how "this critical evidence" was refused by the judge. The photo and phone proved little - it was a thick slider phone with a keyboard that just happened to be a rectangle viewed from the front. What it did do was sway public opinion and possibly the jury and help establish material for appeal.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post

Bravo. We have a winner here. This is in the nutshell what is happening here. Yet, the I-sheepishness and f4anboism rule the day as it always do here.. Thank you for saving this thread from oblivion.

 

There's only 1 person here who can't grasp this. And they aren't an iSheep...

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #152 of 176

Here is one of the real knock offs Apple should knock down.  Have a fun everybody.

post #153 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

As as has already been said, "open" and "public" in a legal context are different to what you believe them to be. Perhaps you should take your views to the relevant authority that monitors the performance of judges, I'm sure these highly-paid professionals are dying for your input.

How about you read what Koh has to say on the matter:

http://docs.dpaq.de/1323-applesamsungcv01846doc1256ordertoseal.pdf
post #154 of 176
Originally Posted by hjb View Post
Here is one of the real knock offs Apple should knock down.

 

It's in China. There's nothing they can do.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #155 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

As as has already been said, "open" and "public" in a legal context are different to what you believe them to be. Perhaps you should take your views to the relevant authority that monitors the performance of judges, I'm sure these highly-paid professionals are dying for your input.

How about you read what Koh has to say on the matter:

http://docs.dpaq.de/1323-applesamsungcv01846doc1256ordertoseal.pdf

You are flogging a dead horse here. You really do appear to be confusing (or, I suspect, pretending to confuse) excluded evidence with sealed judicial records, which are the actual subject of Koh's order. The former (obviously) excludes consideration of specific evidence by the jury, the latter seals court records (which could include evidentiary documents seen by the jury) from public access. They are entirely unrelated issues.
post #156 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

It's in China. There's nothing they can do.

 

I thought China is a growing market for Apple.  Even though it is not, Apple should protect its IP there in China.  Not?

post #157 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


You are flogging a dead horse here. You really do appear to be confusing (or, I suspect, pretending to confuse) excluded evidence with sealed judicial records, which are the actual subject of Koh's order. The former (obviously) excludes consideration of specific evidence by the jury, the latter seals court records (which could include evidentiary documents seen by the jury) from public access. They are entirely unrelated issues.

Yep.

 

And the F700 isn't going to help Samsung much anyhow: http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #158 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You are flogging a dead horse here. You really do appear to be confusing (or, I suspect, pretending to confuse) excluded evidence with sealed judicial records, which are the actual subject of Koh's order. The former (obviously) excludes consideration of specific evidence by the jury, the latter seals court records (which could include evidentiary documents seen by the jury) from public access. They are entirely unrelated issues.

I have no illicit hidden motives. So it is entirely possible that distinction is lost on me, that I'm simply too stupid to understand the point, as other have suggested. Here is what do I know though. I read Samsung's pretrial brief, and it included whatever it is that isn't supposed to be disclosed to the jury. And here's the kicker, I read that brief and saw all the exhibits included in it, before Quinn released his statement of opinion regarding this information. Now, as I pointed out, the Ninth Circuit says no sanctions can be imposed on an attorney for sharing his opinion of information that is part of the public records, unless the claims/comments are false and demeaning. I haven't seen any evidence to that affect. So I'm having a hard time understanding how what Quinn did is to terrible.

Just for the sake of argument, imagine I'm a incredibly naive, but interested interlocutor. Explain to me in very simple and clear terms, without misleading, distortion, etc., why what Quinn did is wrong and why you think he can be sanctioned despite the legal precedents I pointed to.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinion and pointing me in a direction that I should investigate.
post #159 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


I have no illicit hidden motives. So it is entirely possible that distinction is lost on me, that I'm simply too stupid to understand the point, as other have suggested. Here is what do I know though. I read Samsung's pretrial brief, and it included whatever it is that isn't supposed to be disclosed to the jury. And here's the kicker, I read that brief and saw all the exhibits included in it, before Quinn released his statement of opinion regarding this information. Now, as I pointed out, the Ninth Circuit says no sanctions can be imposed on an attorney for sharing his opinion of information that is part of the public records, unless the claims/comments are false and demeaning. I haven't seen any evidence to that affect. So I'm having a hard time understanding how what Quinn did is to terrible.
Just for the sake of argument, imagine I'm a incredibly naive, but interested interlocutor. Explain to me in very simple and clear terms, without misleading, distortion, etc., why what Quinn did is wrong and why you think he can be sanctioned despite the legal precedents I pointed to.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinion and pointing me in a direction that I should investigate.

 

Jog on.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #160 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post


But for some reason Samsung couldn't find their own photos from 2006-2007 in 2011-2012
Maybe they do need Siri

Which is the part that strikes me as really bizarre.

 

They only *just* found out they had been working on this phone since 2006-2007?

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'