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 3

post #81 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Huh?  The jury isn't sequestered but was given a directive to avoid media regarding this case.  The defendant intentionally put out "evidence" that was thrown out of the case.  That would be considered attempted jury tampering and possible contempt of court.  That has nada to do with the jury already being "corrupt."

You all keep repeating this. It makes no sense to me though and I would like a clear explanation. Let me give you an analogy. I say don't go into the room 212 with information X in it. Then someone, perhaps me, puts some information in room 212 for others to see. How can anyone who put information in to room 212 be responsible if you happen to find yourself in room 212? We told you not to go in there, so if you are in there, you did something wrong and no one else did.
post #82 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Huh?  The jury isn't sequestered but was given a directive to avoid media regarding this case.  The defendant intentionally put out "evidence" that was thrown out of the case.  That would be considered attempted jury tampering and possible contempt of court.  That has nada to do with the jury already being "corrupt."

Most of the details had already been published, by the Verge for one, as early as Sunday night/Monday morning, at least a day before Judge Koh dismissed the Sony-inspired evidence package. I don't think it was a very bright move by Samsung yesterday, but the facts were already public knowledge before the ruling was finalized. Even AI had an article up about it on Monday. I don't think Tuesday's release of related slides by Sammy added much if anything.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/30/3201162/apple-refutes-claim-they-cribbed-notes-from-sony-reveal-prototype

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #83 of 176

Thats just bullshit from Samsung lawyers. They were given access to Apple employees and confidential material for the purpose of the trial. They are not meant to be used as for PR.

post #84 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berp View Post

The First Amendment rightly adds public discourse to round out public knowledge. It makes truth relative to its citizen-bearer' ...and builds up democratic principles.
In that sense, Samsung plays par for the course. Of course, destroyed evidence cannot, from sheer tautological consistency, add on to public knowledge. The judge's relative leniency towards Samsung's admitted foul play in that regard  lays the groundwork for a mistrial based on inconsistent respect for the First Amendment.
How can a judge impose upon the parties full disclosure of what is admissible within the public hearings, when she herself bends her very own rule in letting one of the party, the defendant, make, in deeds, a public mockery of full public exposure in willingly destroying crucial admissible elements. And getting away with it with a simple deference to the jury's easily distracted, overstretched, and eventually overloaded scrutiny.
This judge's allegiance  is clearly swaying from 'Motherland' to 'Homeland' in a macabre pas-de-deux that spells doom for any prospect of a fair and enlightened trial. Muddy waters are breeding grounds for parasites and leeches. Whose home field advantage might that be?

I'm not aware of the destruction of evidence. I must have missed that scoop. Do you per chance have any sources that I may avail myself regarding that? I have heard of Samsung destroy evidence in other trials, but am I to understand they did it again here?
post #85 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


First, I didn't say nothing that Samsung does can interfere with the jury. You are equivocating. If Samsung presented the evidence to the jury, directly, in the court, it would clearly be tampering with the jury in a way that the jury could not ignore, and therefore that would be a blatant case of an attempt to prevent the jury from doing its duty. However, given the fact that the jury is not allowed to look at the media coverage, anything Samsung does in that domain is not something the jury should be aware of. There are clear asymmetrical relations here. That's something many of you do not seem to get.
Second, as for having less of me implying I'm engaged in rational debate, please tell me how quibbling over minor errors that have since been corrected, how informing me that I'm being ignored, comparing me to Perry Mason, etc. contributes to the conversation? Look it's pretty simply. So far as I'm aware, the forum rules allow me to respond to anyone who engages or addresses me. Until the moderators inform me that I'm doing something inappropriate, I will have, so much as possible, the courtesy to respond to people who address me.

You're understanding of jury tampering seems to be pretty limited.  The problem with this is if the "evidence" is/was picked up by the media and they run a huge graphic in the newspaper, a news anchor leads with the press release title, etc., the jury members may not be actively seeking out the media coverage but ends up exposed to it anyway since they are not sequestered. 

2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #86 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Most of the details had already been published, by the Verge for one, as early as Sunday night/Monday morning, at least a day before Judge Koh dismissed the Sony-inspired evidence package. I don't think it was a very bright move by Samsung yesterday, but the facts were already public knowledge before the ruling.

Yep, as Quinn noted in his declaration all the same info was already published in most major news outlets, including the New York Times, the LA Times, Cnet, etc. The only thing Samsung added with this fiasco was their claiming the evidence would completely exonerate them, which frankly is preposterous.
post #87 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Most of the details had already been published, by the Verge for one, as early as Sunday night/Monday morning, at least a day before Judge Koh dismissed the Sony-inspired evidence package. I don't think it was a very bright move by Samsung yesterday, but the facts were already public knowledge before the ruling.

The decision whether to include evidence in a case isn't made in a day.  There is much discussion and negotiation with the judge for quite a few days.  Clearly none of us what was exactly said in chambers but based on how perturbed the Judge was, I am confident that Samsung's legal team was instructed not to publicize this information until a decision was made.

2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #88 of 176

Samsung became judge and jury as to whats right & wrong, Shame on the judiciary system for letting them get away with that.

post #89 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

You're understanding of jury tampering seems to be pretty limited.  The problem with this is if the "evidence" is/was picked up by the media and they run a huge graphic in the newspaper, a news anchor leads with the press release title, etc., the jury members may not be actively seeking out the media coverage but ends up exposed to it anyway since they are not sequestered. 

Ok, but the information was already out there in all the major news outlets before Samsung's shenanigans, so what exactly is Samsung revealing other than that they think this evidence is pivotal to their case? We already knew that when they whined over and over about it not being included and Koh told them to shut up or they would be sanctioned. So again, nothing new was added in this gesture, other than Samsung showing the court it's willing, to speak colloquially, "spit in its face". Nothing illegal or unethical in that, just poor form.
post #90 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntercr View Post

EDIT:

I also just read that Samsung's disallowed evidence was not presented during Discovery. This was the reason the judge did not allow it. That's civil trial 101.

Maybe it's possible that Samsung forgot about the F700.... but it seems more likely that Samsung tried to sneak it in so that Apple would not have time to respond.

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

"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 #91 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


Ok, but the information was already out there in all the major news outlets before Samsung's shenanigans, so what exactly is Samsung revealing other than that they think this evidence is pivotal to their case? We already knew that when they whined over and over about it not being included and Koh told them to shut up or they would be sanctioned. So again, nothing new was added in this gesture, other than Samsung showing the court it's willing, to speak colloquially, "spit in its face". Nothing illegal or unethical in that, just poor form.

Actually "spitting in the court's face" is illegal (at the discretion of the judge) since it is considered contempt of court.

2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #92 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


Can you explain to me how the jury can become "polluted" given the fact they are supposed to be ignore the media coverage pertaining to this case? I don't see how a jury can be polluted unless it is not abiding by its duty.

 

That's quite a naive question. Ever been on a jury? I have and it's not like living in a cone of silence. Our case was dismissed because a juror admitted to reading press coverage regarding the defendant.

"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 #93 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

The decision whether to include evidence in a case isn't made in a day.  There is much discussion and negotiation with the judge for quite a few days.  Clearly none of us what was exactly said in chambers but based on how perturbed the Judge was, I am confident that Samsung's legal team was instructed not to publicize this information until a decision was made.

In an even earlier Verge article that dates back to the 26th of July (I missed this one), the editors attribute the Sony-inspiration find to official court filings. I don't think those were leaked by Samsung based on that article, where TheVerge linked to the publicly available court document where it was discussed. If Judge Koh didn't want it public until she had made a final decision on admissability, she should have kept that doc sealed, or minimally redacted IMHO.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/26/3189309/apple-sony-iphone-design-inspiration-iphone-4-looked-old


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/1/12 at 6:54pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #94 of 176

Samsung is wrong.  The judge excluded the evidence from being presented to the media because the judge decided the evidence was prejudical to Apple and if it makes its way to the jury, Apple would be injured. It is nonsense to argue that because the jury has already been picked, Apple can't be harmed. Juries are exposed to media even when the Court tries to prevent that. The media doesn't present evidence in a non-biased way. Samsung is trying to taint the jury and sway public opinion for future trials. It might have even been angling for a mistrial to buy it more time. 

post #95 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caseevaluator View Post

As a trial lawyer for 45 years can IMHO opine this was an attempt to have
Communication with jurors, families, friends of jurors etc.
Called a an" ex parte communication"..

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


First, I didn't say nothing that Samsung does can interfere with the jury. You are equivocating. If Samsung presented the evidence to the jury, directly, in the court, it would clearly be tampering with the jury in a way that the jury could not ignore, and therefore that would be a blatant case of an attempt to prevent the jury from doing its duty. However, given the fact that the jury is not allowed to look at the media coverage, anything Samsung does in that domain is not something the jury should be aware of. There are clear asymmetrical relations here. That's something many of you do not seem to get.

I think you missed the memo.

"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 #96 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Actually "spitting in the court's face" is illegal (at the discretion of the judge) since it is considered contempt of court.

Ok wrong expression then. Expressing strong dissent.
post #97 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

 

That's quite a naive question. Ever been on a jury? I have and it's not like living in a cone of silence. Our case was dismissed because a juror admitted to reading press coverage regarding the defendant.

 

 

Agreed, juries get to go out to eat, where inevitably they can't help but to see papers or TV. They talk to family. When the case is on for days, they generally go home. If jurors are put in a hotel, there are TVs in the room. It is very naive to think jurors can shield themselves from media when media is everywhere. Samsung is trying to taint the jury. 

post #98 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

I think you missed the memo.

Yes, I did miss that. That looks like it might be sufficient leverage for judge Koh to impose sanctions no? Although, as the lawyer posted, Samsung's lawyer might have enough wiggle room given the fact that all the information was already public.

Anyway, thanks for calling my attention to this.
post #99 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


Ok, but the information was already out there in all the major news outlets before Samsung's shenanigans, so what exactly is Samsung revealing other than that they think this evidence is pivotal to their case? We already knew that when they whined over and over about it not being included and Koh told them to shut up or they would be sanctioned. So again, nothing new was added in this gesture, other than Samsung showing the court it's willing, to speak colloquially, "spit in its face". Nothing illegal or unethical in that, just poor form.

 

 

Sure something is new, it is being reported in every media outlet while the jury is sitting. 

post #100 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


Ok wrong expression then. Expressing strong dissent.

I didn't literally mean "spitting in the court's face" and I didn't think you did either.  "Expressing strong dissent" that goes directly against a judge's direction can still be considered contempt of court.

2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #101 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


Agreed, juries get to go out to eat, where inevitably they can't help but to see papers or TV. They talk to family. When the case is on for days, they generally go home. If jurors are put in a hotel, there are TVs in the room. It is very naive to think jurors can shield themselves from media when media is everywhere. Samsung is trying to taint the jury. 

That's part of the risk involved in holding a trial open to the public. Did Samsung leak anything new evidence? Nope. Did they share their opinion they didn't like the fact some evidence was excluded? Yep. Did the jury already know that? I think so, weren't they present when Koh told them to shut up about it?
post #102 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


Sure something is new, it is being reported in every media outlet while the jury is sitting. 

That was true even before Samsung answered AllthingD's emails.
post #103 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


I'm not aware of the destruction of evidence. I must have missed that scoop. Do you per chance have any sources that I may avail myself regarding that? I have heard of Samsung destroy evidence in other trials, but am I to understand they did it again here?

 

 

Read this article. Don't be confused by the different Judge's name, as it is the same case. Judge Grewel is a Federal Magistrate charged with taking care of some of the preliminary matters to make Federal District Judge Lucy Koh's job easier. So in this very case, the jury will be instructed that Samsung destroyed evidence. 

post #104 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


Read this article. Don't be confused by the different Judge's name, as it is the same case. Judge Grewel is a Federal Magistrate charged with taking care of some of the preliminary matters to make Federal District Judge Lucy Koh's job easier. So in this very case, the jury will be instructed that Samsung destroyed evidence. 

TY
post #105 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


That was true even before Samsung answered AllthingD's emails.

 

 

No it is not. The difference is before the jury was picked, the assertion that Apple copied Sony was not a feature story picked up by all the major media outlets. Further, before the jury was picked, nobody knew who was going to be on the jury. The lawyers could screen the jurors to learn what pre-trial stories they have heard to screen out jurors who have possibly been tainted by stories. Now the jury has been picked, and the story is a featured story on every major news outlet, and you can't screen jurors out now. 

post #106 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

So I made a careless mistake, does that change the underlying argument? I guess all you care about is logic chopping and not substance though right?

I recall that those were the sort of careless mistakes that got spies caught during the cold war. Is your training showing a dent? /wink
Edited by digitalclips - 8/1/12 at 7:20pm
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #107 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


That's part of the risk involved in holding a trial open to the public. Did Samsung leak anything new evidence? Nope. Did they share their opinion they didn't like the fact some evidence was excluded? Yep. Did the jury already know that? I think so, weren't they present when Koh told them to shut up about it?

 

 

I do not see your point. Just because a trial is public, doesn't mean all the pretrial deliberations are public. There are thousand of documents both parties have sealed that the public doesn't get to see. Moreover, it is common practice that lawyers engaged in a trial are not allowed to share their opinion to the public when the judge deems doing so will prejudice the case. It happens everyday in hundreds of cases lawyers are told to keep quiet and not give their opinion to the public. 

 

You also clearly don't understand how trials work. No, the jury was not present when she told the parties to shut up. The jury is typically not in the room when this type of deliberation is discussed.  There is also the concept of a sidebar where the parties lawyers approach the bench to discuss a matter out of earshot of the jury. 

post #108 of 176

Gasp! What a slime ball whore of a lawyer Samsung has hired to scam the jury for them.

post #109 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.

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/
post #110 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


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?

 

Lame.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #111 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


I do not see your point. Just because a trial is public, doesn't mean all the pretrial deliberations are public. There are thousand of documents both parties have sealed that the public doesn't get to see. Moreover, it is common practice that lawyers engaged in a trial are not allowed to share their opinion to the public when the judge deems doing so will prejudice the case. It happens everyday in hundreds of cases lawyers are told to keep quiet and not give their opinion to the public. 

You also clearly don't understand how trials work. No, the jury was not present when she told the parties to shut up. The jury is typically not in the room when this type of deliberation is discussed.  There is also the concept of a sidebar where the parties lawyers approach the bench to discuss a matter out of earshot of the jury. 

Ok, thanks for correcting me.
post #112 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

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

I suspect it has to do with to do with the context they put around the information, rather than the information itself

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #113 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Lame.

Nice argument.
post #114 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?

 

If I was the person at Samsung responsible for hiring this lawyer, I'd be very nervous right now.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #115 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


Nice argument.

 

It was straight to the point.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #116 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


You all keep repeating this. It makes no sense to me though and I would like a clear explanation. Let me give you an analogy. I say don't go into the room 212 with information X in it. Then someone, perhaps me, puts some information in room 212 for others to see. How can anyone who put information in to room 212 be responsible if you happen to find yourself in room 212? We told you not to go in there, so if you are in there, you did something wrong and no one else did.


Let me re-frame your metaphor. A bunch of people are locked up in rm 212. They are allowed to leave at the end of each day, but are told they are not supposed to look up information OUTSIDE of rm 212. Thanks to someone else, not only is that information everywhere outside rm 212, everyone outside rm 212 is talking about the information. Does it make better sense now?

post #117 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

For a while, I thought this forum's members strove for a higher level of discussion than found on most other forums, I'm starting to get the sense it's no better here than elsewhere, people are only interesting in scoring "clever" points, not actually addressing the substance of the matter.

Boo hoo hoo. Stop whining. If it's no better here, get out. Find some other forum.

post #118 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.

Then they should have filed it correctly.it was public knowledge so there is no excuse for them not finding it until the end of the game. But they did hold it and it was too late. They should have kept it to themselves and used it to build an appeal. Not this stunt of trying to try the case in the press

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #119 of 176

Can anyone cite another famous case where a lawyer would publicize information that a judge has not allowed to be heard in court?

post #120 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

Can you explain to me how the jury can become "polluted" given the fact they are supposed to be ignore the media coverage pertaining to this case? I don't see how a jury can be polluted unless it is not abiding by its duty.

You can tell them to ignore the media but in this day and age good luck. The only be sure would be to sequester them for the trial.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

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'