or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung issues rebuttal to Apple's request for sanctions in motion to strike [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung issues rebuttal to Apple's request for sanctions in motion to strike [u]

post #1 of 106
Thread Starter 
A late Thursday filing in the Apple v. Samsung trial saw Samsung issue a motion to strike an earlier Apple request which asked the Court hand down sanctions against the South Korean company for providing excluded case evidence to the media.

Update: This story has been revised to reflect that Samsung filed a PROPOSED order. Previously the order was presented as a signed judgment.

Samsung is seeking a motion to strike Apple's request which asked the court to give a favorable ruling on the Cupertino company's claim that Samsung infringes on certain iPhone patents.

In the response, Samsung claims Apple was seeking an "unprecedented sanction of outright dismissal of Samsung?s defenses to its design patent claims, in the guise of an alleged "recommendation" about Samsung?s release of information that was already publicly available." It goes on, claiming Apple cited no basis for the sanctions and calls the request "frivolous at every level."

From Samsung's response:

Apple?s request is an affront to the integrity of the jury. Apple proceeds on the groundless assumption that the jury, already instructed by the Court not to read media accounts, will violate the Court?s instructions and do precisely that. As explained in the Quinn declaration, Apple?s premise is factually unfounded and contrary to settled law. Nowhere does Apple even address, let alone refute, these points.


Samsung's lead lawyer, John Quinn, on Tuesday released an email to the press containing demonstrative exhibits which included text of a deposition from former Apple designer Shin Nishibori regarding a "Sony-styled" iPhone. Apple countered that same day, promising a request for sanctions from the Court for what it called "egregious" misconduct.

Box Takedown
Samsung removed the exhibits from online file sharing site Box.com


Sometime during the two parties' arguments, Samsung took down the exhibits it had previously uploaded to Box.com, though the images have already been widely circulated and posted on mainstream media websites.
post #2 of 106

So she still hasn't ruled on the original Samsung infraction?  Seems odd. 

post #3 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

So she still hasn't ruled on the original Samsung infraction?  Seems odd. 

Especially since this isn't the first time. Foss says that Samsung has already been sanctioned FOUR times in this trial alone for evidence abuse. Koh has to do something.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/apple-wants-ruling-in-favor-if-its.html

She has indicated that she won't accept Apple's recommended sanctions and, frankly, I didn't expect her to. Apple's proposal was pretty extreme (possibly intentional). It will be interesting to see what she does. But, in the end, Samsung has seriously botched this trial.
"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 #4 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Especially since this isn't the first time. Foss says that Samsung has already been sanctioned FOUR times in this trial alone for evidence abuse. Koh has to do something.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/apple-wants-ruling-in-favor-if-its.html
She has indicated that she won't accept Apple's recommended sanctions and, frankly, I didn't expect her to. Apple's proposal was pretty extreme (possibly intentional). It will be interesting to see what she does. But, in the end, Samsung has seriously botched this trial.

 

I agree except for the "botched trial" bit.  I agree they might have but I don't think it's certain yet.  

 

They seem to me to be employing a lot of tactics to get the average idiot to think that it's all some vast conspiracy against them and that Apple are in league with the Tri-Lateral Commission or some such nonsense.  The trouble is that juries are made up of the same sort of ordinary people who tend to believe in that kind of crap so it could easily work.  A judge tends to decide a verdict based on a detailed analysis of the facts.  A jury tends to decide based on which of the defendants is most likeable and which tells the most exciting story.  

 

Remember OJ Simpson! :-)

post #5 of 106

This isn't true. This is the proposed order by Samsung.  The judge has not issued an order as of 8:35PM pacific.

post #6 of 106

Because this article is bunk.  The judge hasn't issued an order. The author is mistakenly assuming Samsung's proposed order is the order.

post #7 of 106

Judge Koh is biased against Samsung. Fact.

"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 #8 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Judge Koh is biased against Samsung. Fact.

 

Can you cite evidence of this outside of your own opinion.  Calling out Samsung's offences doesn't count.  I'm going to need hard proof backed by legal evidence.  Shouldn't be hard if it is, as you claim, a fact.
 
 
post #9 of 106

"Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!  So we don't get to win on the cheap?"

 

Your captive judge had no choice.  There were absolutely no grounds for sanctions.

 

John Quinn is schooling the judge and Apple's imbecile lawyers.
 

post #10 of 106
Originally Posted by sennen View Post
Judge Koh is biased against Samsung. Fact.

 

Either prove it deal with the fact that you've no evidence thereof.

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 #11 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Judge Koh is biased against Samsung. Fact.

 

You have presented no arguments in favor of your claim that the judge is biased. Fact.

post #12 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Either prove it deal with the fact that you've no evidence thereof.

Oh, ffs TS.

"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 #13 of 106
Wow, judge Koh said that Quinn showed good cause for his actions. Based on all the flak I took in the other thread for saying pretty much the same thing, I guess all the people there probably think that Koh doesn't know the difference between the terms open and public in a legal context... Oh the irony.
post #14 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigjag69 View Post

Just as Samusng said, this would assume the jury has ALREADY violated the Court's instructions making the jury botched anyways. Don't be an iSheep and selectively read what you want to heat. 

Don't say that around here, you will be scolded.
post #15 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigjag69 View Post

Don't be an iSheep and selectively read what you want to heat. 

 

Trolling a bit, newbie?

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by jigjag69 View Post

Don't be an iSheep and selectively read what you want to heat

 

 

What is that, classic Android autocorrect?

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #16 of 106

The trolls have awoken....

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #17 of 106

Jeez. People. This article is wrong!  Judge Koh did NOT issue this ruling. Argh.

post #18 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farkus View Post

"Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!  So we don't get to win on the cheap?"

Your captive judge had no choice.  There were absolutely no grounds for sanctions.

John Quinn is schooling the judge and Apple's imbecile lawyers.

Really? When Samsung has already received sanctions FOUR TIMES in this trial? Yep, they really schooled the judge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

Wow, judge Koh said that Quinn showed good cause for his actions..

You might want to learn to read.

The judge said that Samsung has shown good cause for their motion to discard Apple's proposed remedy. There's absolutely nothing in any of Koh's orders (or verbal statements, for that matter) that suggests that Samsung had good cause for releasing the information that they did.
"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 #19 of 106

Apple never stole anyone's invention, innovation, gui or ui so they should win this slamdunk case.

 

:P

post #20 of 106

Whether the judge rules left or right or in-between, it still doesn't fix Android; it still doesn't help the also-rans sell their bad tablets; it still won't save Nokia; it still won't prevent a blowout holiday quarter for Apple; it still won't help the industry's enormous laziness and lack of imagination; if there's an "Apple TV" in the works, it still won't save the old guard electronics makers; and it won't help Microsoft's Surface look like something more than an answer to a question no one asked.  

 

The trolls here forget that Joe Average doesn't care how the judge rules. They just want the best gear money can buy, and they're willing to line up for it and pay big money for it. And it's most of it's sporting an Apple logo.

post #21 of 106
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post
Apple never stole anyone's invention, innovation, gui or ui so they should win this slamdunk case.

 

:P

 

That tongue better be making fun of anyone that says such a thing in a sarcastic way, otherwise we're about to have a very succinct smack down as to why you're not quite right here.

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 #22 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

Wow, judge Koh said that Quinn showed good cause for his actions. Based on all the flak I took in the other thread for saying pretty much the same thing, I guess all the people there probably think that Koh doesn't know the difference between the terms open and public in a legal context... Oh the irony.

 

You didn't say the same thing at all. Koh said nothing about the definitions of "public" and "open", she simply ruled that the actions of Samsung's legal team didn't require the kind of measures that Apple was calling for, according to this article.

"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 #23 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Really? When Samsung has already received sanctions FOUR TIMES in this trial? Yep, they really schooled the judge.
You might want to learn to read.
The judge said that Samsung has shown good cause for their motion to discard Apple's proposed remedy. There's absolutely nothing in any of Koh's orders (or verbal statements, for that matter) that suggests that Samsung had good cause for releasing the information that they did.

You do know how to read right? Apple's request for sanctions, on the basis of purposed jury tampering, is a request "frivolous at every level". In other words, there was no jury tampering. Quinn showed good cause for his conduct. But hey, don't let the facts influence your opinions.
post #24 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

You didn't say the same thing at all. Koh said nothing about the definitions of "public" and "open", she simply ruled that the actions of Samsung's legal team didn't require the kind of measures that Apple was calling for.

No she ruled Quinn showed "Good cause" for his conduct. I said just as much.
post #25 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farkus View Post

"Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!  So we don't get to win on the cheap?"

 

Your captive judge had no choice.  There were absolutely no grounds for sanctions.

 

....

 

Actually no.  Only a complete idiot would think there were no grounds for sanctions.  

 

There are probably no grounds for the sweeping sanctions Apple asked for, and no cause to just call the trial "over" and won by Apple, but there are definitely adequate grounds for sanctions.  Whether she does it or not is pretty much up to her. Her decision will probably be based on evidence that we can't see/know however so to argue about it until the case is fully over and we have all the facts at hand that she is looking at now is almost certainly a waste of time.  

 

Really every post in this thread and eery other like it should be prefaced by "in my opinion.. " or "it seems to me ..." because none of us are judges or lawyers and even if we were, we are not there, not privy to all the evidence and not as skilled as she is in determining fault in a legal battle.  

post #26 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

The trolls have awoken....

Yup, the little critters are out and about....

post #27 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


No she ruled Quinn showed "Good cause" for his conduct. I said just as much.

No, she didn't rule that. She didn't address Apple's motion at all. This argument is wrong. The quote in this article comes from Samsung's PROPOSED order.  When you make a motion, you have to propose an order. 

 

The judge has not ruled yet.  You all are arguing about NOTHING.

post #28 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post


No she ruled Quinn showed "Good cause" for his conduct. I said just as much.

 

Your quite clearly wrong about that.  Read the article again.  She hasn't ruled on Quinn's actions only on Samsung's reaction to Apple's request for censure/closure.  

post #29 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Actually no.  Only a complete idiot would think there were no grounds for sanctions.  

There are probably no grounds for the sweeping sanctions Apple asked for, and no cause to just call the trial "over" and won by Apple, but there are definitely adequate grounds for sanctions.  Whether she does it or not is pretty much up to her. Her decision will probably be based on evidence that we can't see/know however so to argue about it until the case is fully over and we have all the facts at hand that she is looking at now is almost certainly a waste of time.  

Really every post in this thread and eery other like it should be prefaced by "in my opinion.. " or "it seems to me ..." because none of us are judges or lawyers and even if we were, we are not there, not privy to all the evidence and not as skilled as she is in determining fault in a legal battle.  

This, and my next immediate reply, will be my last contribution in this thread, but two things. First, didn't Koh say the entire trial would be open to the public record? So though we might not see everything right now, it'll all be shown. Second, the "papers submitted" consist of Quinn's declaration, Apple's request for sanctions, and Quinn's motion to strike.
post #30 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Your quite clearly wrong about that.  Read the article again.  She hasn't ruled on Quinn's actions only on Samsung's reaction to Apple's request for censure/closure.  

Ok. I'll grant maybe I'm reading too much into it. I presented my interpretation, you presented yours. I'll leave it at that.
post #31 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Your quite clearly wrong about that.  Read the article again.  She hasn't ruled on Quinn's actions only on Samsung's reaction to Apple's request for censure/closure.  

No. She has NOT ruled on Samsung's reaction.  She has ruled on nothing.  

post #32 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

That tongue better be making fun of anyone that says such a thing in a sarcastic way, otherwise we're about to have a very succinct smack down as to why you're not quite right here.

 

Let's not go there.

post #33 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

You do know how to read right? Apple's request for sanctions, on the basis of purposed jury tampering, is a request "frivolous at every level". In other words, there was no jury tampering. Quinn showed good cause for his conduct. But hey, don't let the facts influence your opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

This, and my next immediate reply, will be my last contribution in this thread, but two things. First, didn't Koh say the entire trial would be open to the public record? So though we might not see everything right now, it'll all be shown. Second, the "papers submitted" consist of Quinn's declaration, Apple's request for sanctions, and Quinn's motion to strike.

Exactly. And if Koh ruled on anything at all (which isn't clear), it was on the motion to strike - not Samsung's original misbehavior.

You seem to be confused about the meaning of an open trial. An open trial simply means that the public gets to see the testimony that is presented. It most certainly does NOT mean that either side can present anything they wish or violate the judge's orders. The court still has to abide by rules of evidence such as hearsay rules. The court also has the right to reject evidence which was not submitted in a timely manner or evidence which otherwise does not pass judicial muster.
"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 #34 of 106
Originally Posted by jigjag69 View Post
Why can't i have an apple device and find some "cons" to it?

 

That's not what we're talking about. You know exactly what he means. Derogatory terms for the people invested in the company for which this website exists are frowned upon.


People need to wake up and realize they can't support this litigation nonsense...it will only hurt us by hindering technological advancements. 

 

Again, not right at all.

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 #35 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigjag69 View Post

no, im not trolling...i have an iphone4s, happily awaiting the iphone 5. I typed this from my computer and this forum doesn't allow you to edit afterwards

My last phone was a SGSII, which was great as well..

 

I just don't see why you have to hate one to like the other? iSheep is the word used for that or fanboy. Just be open to both platforms and rest in knowing that competition is better for all of us consumers

 

FYI, click on the icon that looks like a pencil in the lower left corner of your post window. This will allow you to edit your post.

 

Using the term iSheep in an Apple forum is not going to sit well with lots of the members. It's really old and, if you ask me, does not apply anymore. When half of Apple's customers are new to Apple, it kind of paints a bad picture of normal, everyday consumers who are simply freely exercising their right to purchase any product of their choosing.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #36 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigjag69 View Post

 Copying will only hurt us by hindering technological advancements. 

 

 

 

 

Fixed.

 

Quote:
We all know Apple wouldn't be where it is without looking to other companies for inspiration

 

Which is a very different thing to brazenly copying.

"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 #37 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

FYI, click on the icon that looks like a pencil in the lower left corner of your post window. This will allow you to edit your post.

Using the term iSheep in an Apple forum is not going to sit well with lots of the members. It's really old and, if you ask me, does not apply anymore. When half of Apple's customers are new to Apple, it kind of paints a bad picture of normal, everyday consumers who are simply freely exercising their right to purchase any product of their choosing.

It's hard to take anyone's comments seriously when they use cliché, unimaginative and silly terms like iSheep. I also can't stand people point out that the word anal is contained in the word analyst. There are plenty of others. I much prefer someone at least try to be original even if their attempt at being humorous of clever falls short.

"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 #38 of 106
Breaking my earlier claim to not post anymore with this exception (I don't think it'll) happen again.

Samsung's Motion to Strike can be read here:

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-1549.pdf
post #39 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Judge Koh is biased against Samsung. Fact.

 

You are an idiot. Fact. Prove me wrong with some evidence, please.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

Wow, judge Koh said that Quinn showed good cause for his actions. Based on all the flak I took in the other thread for saying pretty much the same thing, I guess all the people there probably think that Koh doesn't know the difference between the terms open and public in a legal context... Oh the irony.

 

More proof you don't have a clue. As has been pointed out already, the judge said that Quinn's argument to strike Apple's very aggressive motion had "good casue".

 

She said nothing that would indicate that everything Quinn has done is "good cause". Unlike you, this will be my last direction towards you since you are a worthless contributor to AI, and therefore belong on the block list with all the other trolls.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #40 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

You are an idiot. Fact. Prove me wrong with some evidence, please.

 

Sigh. Look at my posting history.

"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung issues rebuttal to Apple's request for sanctions in motion to strike [u]