or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple to file sanctions over Samsung's evidence 'leak'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to file sanctions over Samsung's evidence 'leak'

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 
In a letter to Judge Lucy Koh on Wednesday, Apple said it plans to file an emergency motion for sanctions and "other relief that may be appropriate" as a result of Samsung's issuance of excluded evidence to media outlets earlier this week.

Apple's letter informed Judge Koh, who is presiding over the Apple v. Samsung California court case, the motion for sanctions would be filed later on Wednesday ahead of possible talks over the issue to follow on Thursday but as of this writing no such document has been seen. The letter was issued by Apple attorney William Lee, a partner in the Litigation/Controversy and Intellectual Property Departments at law firm WilmerHale.

Samsung on Tuesday released an email with presentation slides containing text of a deposition from former Apple designer Shin Nishibori regarding a "Sony-styled" iPhone, an exhibit that Judge Koh ruled could not be used during the trial. The Korean company also issued a statement saying "the excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design."

When Apple notified Judge Koh of the situation the jurist reprimanded Samsung's legal counsel, ordering a brief detailing who authorized the email. John Quinn of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP filed his declaration on Wednesday saying he authorized the dissemination but argued the action was "ethical" and "legal" according to standards put forth by the Court.

William Lee
WilmerHale partner William Lee.
Source: WilmerHale


The entirety of Samsung's statement was reprinted in Apple's letter and accompanied examples of media reports containing the leaked evidence:

The Judge's exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone. The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.


Apple argues the statement's repeated reference to the jury can be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to influence the trial, however Quinn said exactly the opposite in his 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 Apple v. Samsung trial is scheduled to reconvene on Friday when Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller will retake the stand to complete his testimony which was cut short on Tuesday. It was recently reported that Schiller will be followed by Apple's iOS chief Scott Forstall.
post #2 of 67

I think… oh, that would screw up formatting on the articles proper, wouldn't it?

I was going to say that I think quotes (such as the included Samsung letter) on the forum should use the quote offset to distinguish them visually, but again, that'd probably screw up the articles themselves trying to account for that.

 

Also, it'd be nice to see the default quote box not only lose surrounding whitespace, but also the top line. We only use those boxes for one thing, so seeing "Quote:" every time is redundant. I've started manually removing them, and I like how it looks, myself.

 

 

Quote:
Originally posted by Testy McTesterson
Standard quote box after having hit Return once after 'myself' up there. Note the extra line space it adds above the box that reinserts itself even if you delete it while typing your post.

 

_________Delineation_________

 

Originally posted by Testy McTesterson
Proposed quote box formatting after having hit Return once. Plus maybe kicking down the padding to 7px 5px; 

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 f*ed.

 

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 f*ed.

 

Reply
post #3 of 67
Since there is no trial tomorrow I hope there is a new episode of Suits tomorrow night.

"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 #4 of 67

How long til a certain deceased## posts in here?

"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 #5 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Since there is no trial tomorrow I hope there is a new episode of Suits tomorrow night.

It's all a well thought out chess game.

Actually kind of a circus too, distraction and manipulation of the general public.
post #6 of 67
Are any of these legal 'episodes' available on iTunes?

It'd make an interesting TV series... (>_<)
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #7 of 67
I don't see the problem for Apple. Didn't they claim that it's established that whatever Samsung prooduces that it is inspired by the iPhone, beyond any doubt or evidence?

Why so serious about this?
post #8 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

I don't see the problem for Apple. Didn't they claim that it's established that whatever Samsung prooduces that it is inspired by the iPhone, beyond any doubt or evidence?
Why so serious about this?

Since when is slander required to be based on facts?  Apple demonstrating that Samsung is wrong doesn't prevent Samsung from fabricating evidence and trying to convince the general public that they are the good guys, and this isn't too far fetched either, they've already destroyed evidence too, even against court orders...

post #9 of 67
Slander? Fabricated? How would you know?
post #10 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

I don't see the problem for Apple. Didn't they claim that it's established that whatever Samsung prooduces that it is inspired by the iPhone, beyond any doubt or evidence?
Why so serious about this?

 

Care to provide us all with a list of the awesome innovations Samsung has 'prooduced' over the last decade or so?

 

We'll clear a little extra room in this thread for you to do so...

 

Or weren't you so serious?

 

400

If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #11 of 67
Maybe you should take a look at their patent portfolio...

They actually have and produce all the technology to device a smartphone and glued it all with android.
post #12 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Slander? Fabricated? How would you know?

I do not, and I did not imply it either, only presented the possibility in reply to your question in the previous post.

post #13 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Maybe you should take a look at their patent portfolio...
They actually have and produce all the technology to device a smartphone and glued it all with android.

 

While that's true, that's not what's being debated in this trial.  What's being disputed is exactly how they glued it all, not whether they have the technology.  I know it's hard for you, but try to actually understand the context...

post #14 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Maybe you should take a look at their patent portfolio...
They actually have and produce all the technology to device a smartphone and glued it all with android.

 

I knew your response would be half-assed, but to not be able to produce a single example...

 

Shame, Blitz, shame!

If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #15 of 67

I hope AppleInsider makes a quick abstract of all this Samsung-Apple stuff when the series end. I didn't read any episode and, looking at the number of them, I'm afraid I missed some cool stuff here.

post #16 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Maybe you should take a look at their patent portfolio...
They actually have and produce all the technology to device a smartphone and glued it all with android.

 

So why did Samsung pay Kodak for photography patents as an example of at least one instance where Samsung does not  "actually have and produce all the technology to device [sic] a smartphone"?

 

The royalties Samsung pay Microsoft is another example.

 

Too bad they based their TouchWiz "glue" on Apple's work, or they wouldn't be in this mess.

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 #17 of 67
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

...seeing "Quote:" every time is redundant. I've started manually removing them, and I like how it looks, myself.

 

Looks great. But can we sort out being able to... use Apple devices (!?!) like... maybe iPhones without ...crying... first?

 

Maybe just make it 703px all the way down? I mean an iPhone-specific theme would be great (maybe just put the name above the comment!?!)

 

Frankly, imo there's a lot more to worry about.

 

Quote looks good though dude.

post #18 of 67

I think Samsung's lawyers are being very disingenuous when they state 

 


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 very fact that the evidence was disallowed makes it relevant to the fact that the jury had already been selected. Just because they have been instructed not to read any form of media related to the case doesn't mean they're going to walk around outside the court with their ears and eyes shut. It's almost inevitable that they will come across commentary or reporting on the case entirely incidentally and pick up snippets of what Samsung's lawyers have released. It will sow a seed in a jurors' minds that will not be addressed satisfactorily in court since the evidence will not be placed formally in front of them. What's more, by creating this complaint right at the very beginning, Samsung is clearly laying the groundwork for an appeal if the verdict doesn't go their way. It's not 'jury tampering' but it's the next best available thing and it's deeply cynical. In the UK, where I am, such a thing is called Contempt of Court and, certainly for criminal trials, would result in either a mis-trial or even jail time for the party/ies carrying out that contempt. Judge Koh is described as livid and I can well understand why. It clearly attempts to undermine the conduct of the trial from outside her court and in her place I would be hopping mad too.

post #19 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Since there is no trial tomorrow I hope there is a new episode of Suits tomorrow night.

 

There is. Donna is in the hot seat.

 

Here's my question: why did no one notice that the report that magically showed up AFTER the suit was brought against Harvey and the firm was claimed to have never been written by the author, when she was confronted by Harvey? That plot hole has been driving me crazy for two weeks now.

post #20 of 67
There's too much money to be made not to. It isn't like there is any real consequence to Samsung board, CEO or management.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Too bad they based their TouchWiz "glue" on Apple's work, or they wouldn't be in this mess.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #21 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

 

There is. Donna is in the hot seat.

 

Here's my question: why did no one notice that the report that magically showed up AFTER the suit was brought against Harvey and the firm was claimed to have never been written by the author, when she was confronted by Harvey? That plot hole has been driving me crazy for two weeks now.


Likely not a hole, but rather a dangler ... a harbinger of complexities and surprises to come

post #22 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

 

Care to provide us all with a list of the awesome innovations Samsung has 'prooduced' over the last decade or so?

 

We'll clear a little extra room in this thread for you to do so...

 

Or weren't you so serious?

 

 

 

For starters the iPad retina screen and AMOLED displays...

 

Great if you support Apple, but do not classify Samsung as a 100% copycat builder (even if you copy as design, you still have to build the innards yourself). Samsung has a very large R&D department which has produced a large number of innovations, which among others Apple has been very willing to buy/use.

 

Apple did a great job with the ipad and the first iphone, but they were not developed in a vacuum. They built on all the innovations of others before them as well.

post #23 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Maybe you should take a look at their patent portfolio...
They actually have and produce all the technology to device a smartphone and glued it all with android.

Aside from your abysmal grammar, this statement is incorrect. Samsung did not produce ALL the technology needed to make a smart phone. Samsung licenses technologies from others.

Regardless, I'm not sure why you would think that it's relevant. If I have invented a ton of technology, does that give me the right to steal the technology that I didn't invent? That's a bizarre legal theory. The issue is that Samsung is being accused of stealing Apple's IP. Whether or not Samsung has any IP of their own is totally irrelevant. Just as someone can be accused of stealing (and convicted if the evidence supports it) even if they already have billions of dollars in the bank.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #24 of 67

The issue regarding the "Sony - Jony" iPhone mock-up is so far from being proof that Apple copied Sony and therefore wasn't the creator of the original design model for the iPhone in question, that I wonder why Apple cares or Samsung thinks it will have any impact other than to prove Apple came up with the design.  It was an Apple employee that created the "Sony" iPhone example - not based upon any Sony designs of the time but rather his vision of what a Sony iPhone would look like.  And if you know the story of Steve Jobs and his love for Sony, it's not a surprise that they would create what they considered to be a Sony designed iPhone to see how elements of Sony common design would work on the iPhone.

 

And yet, the public who views these images, not to mention a certain group of people on these boards, will look at it and scream that Apple is the copier and therefore they are the guilty party here.  Copy what exactly - it won't matter because they'll say Apple copied and all common sense and proof to the contrary won't matter.

 

That's the piece that I know Apple doesn't want to have happen, because there are just far too many stupid people out there that will believe whatever is presented to them - the popularity of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are proof of this.  I'm getting really tired of both Apple Insider and MacRumors because of the Apple bashing (being pitched as unbiased views that may just happen to go against those of the Apple fans visiting these sites) or rather it's not just Apple bashing, but people purposely provoking others.  It does feel very Fox News like.

post #25 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

I think Samsung's lawyers are being very disingenuous when they state 


The very fact that the evidence was disallowed makes it relevant to the fact that the jury had already been selected. Just because they have been instructed not to read any form of media related to the case doesn't mean they're going to walk around outside the court with their ears and eyes shut. It's almost inevitable that they will come across commentary or reporting on the case entirely incidentally and pick up snippets of what Samsung's lawyers have released. It will sow a seed in a jurors' minds that will not be addressed satisfactorily in court since the evidence will not be placed formally in front of them. What's more, by creating this complaint right at the very beginning, Samsung is clearly laying the groundwork for an appeal if the verdict doesn't go their way. It's not 'jury tampering' but it's the next best available thing and it's deeply cynical. In the UK, where I am, such a thing is called Contempt of Court and, certainly for criminal trials, would result in either a mis-trial or even jail time for the party/ies carrying out that contempt. Judge Koh is described as livid and I can well understand why. It clearly attempts to undermine the conduct of the trial from outside her court and in her place I would be hopping mad too.

Could Apple tell Samsung to stop being a major bitch and stop trying to cheat, and have a new set of jurors brought in? Personally, all the attempted cheating, would make me cut up every last contract I had with them, just to spite them.
post #26 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

 

For starters the iPad retina screen and AMOLED displays...

 

Great if you support Apple, but do not classify Samsung as a 100% copycat builder (even if you copy as design, you still have to build the innards yourself). Samsung has a very large R&D department which has produced a large number of innovations, which among others Apple has been very willing to buy/use.

 

Apple did a great job with the ipad and the first iphone, but they were not developed in a vacuum. They built on all the innovations of others before them as well.

The issue of whether Samsung created and manufactures components (and patents many of the same) isn't the issue being challenged here.  Apple works with Samsung and buys a boat-load of parts from them.  The issue is that, Apple goes to Samsung to buy parts for a new product.  Samsung is privy to the design because they have build parts based upon design specs.  Then for some reason, pure coincidence of course, Samsung changes their design for smartphones to look very much like the iPhone.

 

If you were in Apple's shoes, how would you feel?  Having a vendor partner seemingly screw you after you spend billions of dollars with them is criminal - or at least that is what the courts will decide.  Hopefully Apple can move away from Samsung for parts (other than for off the shelf pieces) so that we can see just how creative they are after Apple releases new products.  Then we'll know if they're simply copying or actually thinking for themselves and taking chances on their own design ethic.

post #27 of 67

Oh man, this is just great. The Samsung F700 isn't an iPhone look-a-like at all. Instead it was copied from the HTC Kayser that just got onto the market. There was even talk on the Net about how the F700 was supposed to be *the* HTC Kayser-killer. 

post #28 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post

The issue regarding the "Sony - Jony" iPhone mock-up is so far from being proof that Apple copied Sony and therefore wasn't the creator of the original design model for the iPhone in question, that I wonder why Apple cares or Samsung thinks it will have any impact other than to prove Apple came up with the design.  It was an Apple employee that created the "Sony" iPhone example - not based upon any Sony designs of the time but rather his vision of what a Sony iPhone would look like.  And if you know the story of Steve Jobs and his love for Sony, it's not a surprise that they would create what they considered to be a Sony designed iPhone to see how elements of Sony common design would work on the iPhone.

I agree. Apple didn't copy an existing Sony handset. Instead they were influenced by Sony designers and choices, and most certainly other handsets they had seen. That's not the same as copying. Samsung is just attempting to raise questions with the Sony-inspired claims, not really asserting answers in my opinion.

 

Now did Samsung stray too close to Apple's design patent with their early Galaxy models? I believe they did. Was it illegal? I'm guessing not, but based only on a gut feeling about how Apple's design patent will be viewed by the jury. Personally I think it's just a bit too vague and broad to hold up, and jurors probably won't be swayed by Apple's counsel attempts at putting more details into the patent than there actually are. In the end, I don't think Samsung will get of the hook entirely, likely being found to "borrow" too many elements of Apple's trade dress, at least in the past, but it ain't gonna be no multi-billion dollar damages.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

 

For starters the iPad retina screen and AMOLED displays...

 

Great if you support Apple, but do not classify Samsung as a 100% copycat builder (even if you copy as design, you still have to build the innards yourself). Samsung has a very large R&D department which has produced a large number of innovations, which among others Apple has been very willing to buy/use.

 

Apple did a great job with the ipad and the first iphone, but they were not developed in a vacuum. They built on all the innovations of others before them as well.

 

So?  You can build on Apple's innovation too.  Nobody's stopping you from creating apps or accessories for Apple hardware...

post #30 of 67

Spoiler alerts on Suits, I'm a few episodes behind so I had to skip those posts.  

 

Re: the current case, well Judge Koh is certainly doing her best to allow both sides to have an automatic appeal, though I do see more opportunity for Samsung (if they were to lose).  By not allowing the F700 and other pre-iPhone 2006 design ideas into evidence but allowing Apple to make use of them is creating an unfair advantage for Apple.  It will certainly be grounds for appeal.

 

Also if Samsung provided a statement on already available information that was public knowledge Judge Koh can is at fault.  A simple gag order at the start of the trial would have been sufficient to fix this. But she FAILED to do so.  Apple is truly pressing sour grapes with this whole lawsuit to begin with.  Is there similarity, perhaps, maybe, sure there could be.  So could every other smartphone on the market today including the Nokia N9 and just about every other Android phone.  Apple is only targeting Samsung due to their obvious popularity, profitability and competitive product portfolio.  

 

Perhaps they should be suing other phone vendors as well.

post #31 of 67

As a lawyer I can tell you this is a big deal procedurally. Regardless of whether the evidence should or should not have been excluded it was and the conduct of Samsung's lawyers is almost to be in contempt of court. It is like they are giving the judge the middle finger. So far the behavior of Samsung's attorneys will not enamor them at all to the judge and as much as a trial is about evidence and logic and the law, personalities still play a part. Piss off the judge too many times and they will definitely look with less favor at your arguments. It is human nature and is why a trial is usually the last thing companies want to engage in unless it is a last resort. I expect this to settle before it reaches a conclusion.
 

post #32 of 67

Frankly when you consider the extreme lengths Samsung went to in order to produce accessories, packaging, etc that weren't just inspired by Apple's designs but were practically clones of them, with the exception of the Samsung logo, I can't see how any impartial jury in the world would find Samsung innocent of 'copying'. 

 

700

 

700

 

Look at them - apart from the colour they're the same. If you removed the Samsung logo, absolutely nobody would pick up that they'd been produced by different manufacturers.

post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post

Frankly when you consider the extreme lengths Samsung went to in order to produce accessories, packaging, etc that weren't just inspired by Apple's designs but were practically clones of them, with the exception of the Samsung logo, I can't see how any impartial jury in the world would find Samsung innocent of 'copying'. 

 

700

 

700

 

Look at them - apart from the colour they're the same. If you removed the Samsung logo, absolutely nobody would pick up that they'd been produced by different manufacturers.

 

I have both, they are not clones, and actually the samsung version is a much improved version of the apple because of the much better grip.

 

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI

 

Things look alike, yes, that's the case everywhere I look, and only Apple is making this into a big issue. Every led tv looks alike, radio's use the same controls, music players all use the same icons etc.etc.

 

Apple reminds me of Disney. They were "inspired" by all the great tales and stories of the past and than lobbied enough to be the last ones to be inspired by them and sue everyone who tries to do the same.

 

B.t.w. we're getting off-topic

post #34 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

 

I have both, they are not clones, and actually the samsung version is a much improved version of the apple because of the much better grip.

 

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI

 

Things look alike, yes, that's the case everywhere I look, and only Apple is making this into a big issue. Every led tv looks alike, radio's use the same controls, music players all use the same icons etc.etc.

 

Apple reminds me of Disney. They were "inspired" by all the great tales and stories of the past and than lobbied enough to be the last ones to be inspired by them and sue everyone who tries to do the same.

 

B.t.w. we're getting off-topic

you've just made the case for apple. that was easy.

post #35 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

Spoiler alerts on Suits, I'm a few episodes behind so I had to skip those posts.  

 

Re: the current case, well Judge Koh is certainly doing her best to allow both sides to have an automatic appeal, though I do see more opportunity for Samsung (if they were to lose).  By not allowing the F700 and other pre-iPhone 2006 design ideas into evidence but allowing Apple to make use of them is creating an unfair advantage for Apple.  It will certainly be grounds for appeal.

 

Also if Samsung provided a statement on already available information that was public knowledge Judge Koh can is at fault.  A simple gag order at the start of the trial would have been sufficient to fix this. But she FAILED to do so.  Apple is truly pressing sour grapes with this whole lawsuit to begin with.  Is there similarity, perhaps, maybe, sure there could be.  So could every other smartphone on the market today including the Nokia N9 and just about every other Android phone.  Apple is only targeting Samsung due to their obvious popularity, profitability and competitive product portfolio.  

 

Perhaps they should be suing other phone vendors as well.

 

If do not know about the details, why do you feel like you must share a completely misinformed opinion?

 

Here are a few facts that you just got wrong:

 

  1. Samsung's evidence was excluded because Samsung missed the deadline to file it -- it is actually quite strange that a company that has already been found guilty of destroying evidence would forget to file key evidence in a case like this in a timely fashion.
  2. While the information was public, there was no jury selected at the time -- now that a jury has been selected, Samsung's runs for the press can be regarded, in conjunction with their attempts to bring the F700 into discussion in the court, as attempts to taint the jury by making it impossible or extremely difficult for jurors to avoid outside information about the case.
  3. Apple has already addressed your point regarding the likelihood of other phones like the iPhone existing in the market had they failed, and the fact that Samsung's phones (including the F700) changed radically after the iPhone only adds credit to Apple's claims that the designs were copied (Samsung was a provider of several components to the iPhone, including the displays, making it perfectly feasible for them to make a guess of what the iPhone would possibly look like and implement that as the F700).
  4. Apple is after other vendors such as HTC and Motorola too, but they aren't as relevant as Samsung in the fight against Android (their main target) because of their much lower market share.

 

There is absolutely no unfairness here, there is nothing to appeal, Samsung's lawyers are simply playing dirty, and the gullible are falling on it.  Fortunately the Judge is not.

post #36 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I think… oh, that would screw up formatting on the articles proper, wouldn't it?

I was going to say that I think quotes (such as the included Samsung letter) on the forum should use the quote offset to distinguish them visually, but again, that'd probably screw up the articles themselves trying to account for that.

 

Also, it'd be nice to see the default quote box not only lose surrounding whitespace, but also the top line. We only use those boxes for one thing, so seeing "Quote:" every time is redundant. I've started manually removing them, and I like how it looks, myself.

 

 

 

_________Delineation_________

 

 

 

This is all totally off-topic.  It is an attempt to derail the thread.

post #37 of 67

Samsung uses the trial to get depositions. The depositions are ruled inadmissable.  Samsung then publishes them to taint the jury. 

 

Clear lack of ethics here. 

 

Plus, they are dishonest.  The claim that the iPhone was inspired by Sony is nonsense and dishonest.  The iPhone had that form in 2005.  In 2006 there was an article describing (but not showing) a Sony phone, and the Apple designers mocked up a version of the iPhone based on that description to see if they were similar.   What they mocked up looked like Apple's iPhone, not the actual phone that was being described (which came out much later and was butt ugly and nobody would confuse for an iphone.)

 

So, the whole basis for this claim that Apple copied sony is a total fabrication.

post #38 of 67
Quote:

 

Apple reminds me of Disney. They were "inspired" by all the great tales and stories of the past and than lobbied enough to be the last ones to be inspired by them and sue everyone who tries to do the same.

 

 

This is the basis of the fandroids lie.  Because Phones existed,in the past, therefore nothing Apple does could be original. 

 

Hell, Marconi and Bell beat them to the punch, right! By many decades!

 

The revealing thing is, the need to claim that Apple copied others, is an admission that they know android is a counterifiet iOS, and thus they are trying to rationalize that theft by claiming Apple wasn't original. 

 

So, actually, they're just admitting android is a stolen work. 

post #39 of 67
Originally Posted by mausz View Post
…the samsung version is a much improved version…

 

You've obviously never opened them.


Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post
This is all totally off-topic.  It is an attempt to derail the thread.

 

Yep.

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 f*ed.

 

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 f*ed.

 

Reply
post #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post

The issue regarding the "Sony - Jony" iPhone mock-up is so far from being proof that Apple copied Sony and therefore wasn't the creator of the original design model for the iPhone in question, that I wonder why Apple cares or Samsung thinks it will have any impact other than to prove Apple came up with the design.  It was an Apple employee that created the "Sony" iPhone example - not based upon any Sony designs of the time but rather his vision of what a Sony iPhone would look like.  And if you know the story of Steve Jobs and his love for Sony, it's not a surprise that they would create what they considered to be a Sony designed iPhone to see how elements of Sony common design would work on the iPhone.

 

And yet, the public who views these images, not to mention a certain group of people on these boards, will look at it and scream that Apple is the copier and therefore they are the guilty party here.  Copy what exactly - it won't matter because they'll say Apple copied and all common sense and proof to the contrary won't matter.

 

That's the piece that I know Apple doesn't want to have happen, because there are just far too many stupid people out there that will believe whatever is presented to them - the popularity of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are proof of this.  I'm getting really tired of both Apple Insider and MacRumors because of the Apple bashing (being pitched as unbiased views that may just happen to go against those of the Apple fans visiting these sites) or rather it's not just Apple bashing, but people purposely provoking others.  It does feel very Fox News like.

 

I agree that Apple is paying a price in this case. We have already learned recently that AT&T and Verizon deliberately instruct their staff to not only under-sell the iPhone but to in fact lie about its capabilities. Now they will have more fuel to create smoke.

 

Notwithstanding this, I still support what Apple is doing. If nothing else, they are sticking to the ethos that sales numbers and profits are not everything; principles matter more.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple to file sanctions over Samsung's evidence 'leak'