Samsung issues rebuttal to Apple's request for sanctions in motion to strike [u] - Page 3

 

 

It isn't odd. She asked the parties to file their arguments. Apple filed a motion seeking sanctions. Samsung has a chance to respond. It now has. The judge will review the parties arguments, and make a ruling. 

For fun one day we should comb through the site and see if we can match users to two kinds of posts. Posts claiming Samsung doesn't copy at all and posts complaining that Apple does not use a standard connector like micro-USB. I think we would see a lot of overlap between those two groups. It would be fascinating.

You know, to those of us that remember the rise of Japan as a manufacturing giant in the 60's and 70's this is all very déjà vu. Many products from America and Europe were slavishly copied and back then they even had the nerve to use the same names with tiny changes to deceive buyers such as lighters by R.onson (the period after the R). It is great to see this time around someone not standing for it.

OJ Simpson was one of the few cases where I think the jury got it right. I thought he did it, but the prosecution did a horrible job. It mishandled evidence. It showed pictures that claimed to be an untouched crime scene, only to have other pictures also comporting to be an untouched crime scene that showed items not in the other photos. Plus the officers investigating the case were caught lying on the stand. THere were numerous other errors as well. 

 

The result here should be similar. Samsung keeps screwing up. It deserves to lose. 

Exactly - and probably very soon since the trial resumes today.

Given that Samsung has already been sanctioned 4 times in this trial (according to Foss Patents) and the fact that they've ignored orders from at least 2 different judges, I can't imagine that her patience is going to hold out much longer. I would anticipate a fairly severe penalty, but probably not as severe as Apple asked for.

My guess would be jury instructions which go something like this:
"You were asked not to read anything about this case in the press and to limit your access to this case to activities that occur in this courtroom. The reason for that is that my role as a judge is to enforce standards of evidence to ensure that you are only receiving information which is allowed under our legal system which is designed to ensure justice and fair representation to both sides. Evidence must meet standards of acceptability before it can be presented and the opposing side then has the opportunity to respond. In this case, Samsung has violated that rule and responsibility and has made an attempt to influence the case outside of the courtroom by presenting some documents that were deemed not admissible as they did not meet the standards of admissible evidence. Since these documents were rejected as inadmissible when Samsung tried four times to get me to allow them, you are directed to ignore anything that you have seen or heard about the case outside of this court room. Further, you are free to consider whether Samsung's attempts to violate the legal due process that exists in this country to ensure fairness is an indication that they have no respect for this court or for you as the jury. You are also free to consider whether their attempts to go outside the system is based on a belief that their case is so weak that they can not rely on this court's justice as administered by you, the jurors."

Now, some of the wording probably needs to be changed, but that would get the essence of the message across. It's not as severe as Apple's approach which would simply find Samsung guilty because of this breach, but it would be an appropriate response.

Right. I'd bet they are either paid to post crap on our blogs or are sitting at a PC they built themselves and do it out of some weird hatred of all things Apple.

One change I am seeing in the latter group is they are now splitting into two factions. One running windows still the other, hackintosh machines. The Apple hate is firmly from the first group for sure. These guys are forced to love Android and what ever company is leading in that field at any given time (HTC anyone?) simply to cling on to their position.

I have hope for the hackintosh folks / smile.

Exactly, which is why the Samsung Galaxy S3 is raking in money for Samsung worldwide right now. People walk into a store and see a tiny, 3.5" screen, with way too much bezel, a glass back (seriously??) that will break anytime the phone is dropped, with nothing but rows of icons covering the entire homescreen, and then they see a big, beautiful, Super AMOLED HD screen, on a thinner device, with beautiful homescreens with beautiful, real-time widgets, and the choice is easy. Keep buying your iPhones thinking they are the "top tech" just because they are made by Apple. Those of us with a brain will actually do research and buy the superior product. And for those of you that think the Galaxy S3 is somehow "inspired" by Apple's designs, put the two phones side by side again, do a double take, and if you still think they look alike, get your head checked.

 

Design patents protect ornamental design - if its fucntional or structural it does not come under a design patent - pure and simple.

 

Apple is going after Samsung simply because its its biggest competitor. That doesn't mean they won't go after others.

Namecalling. Well Done.

 

The point that the design patents that Apple is asserting are vague and broad which has resulted in their absurd testimony where functional aspects like rounded corners are purely for ornamental purposes.

 

But what is the practical aspect of all this. Are arguing is that an average person - say a member of the jury cannot distinguish between an Iphone and Samsung phone even when they both have their logos printed on them, have different profiles. So you are saying that a person who goes to buy an Iphone will get duped into buying a Samsung product?

Not really. It's common to wait until the next day they are in court anyway, hand down a slap in the first few minutes, tell the jury anything they need to be told on record and then carry on with the rest

Not to mention once Apple filed their motion, they have to give Samsung to respond or that could become cause for an appeal. Sure Samsung is going to Apple's any slap they get. Will file if the issue goes on record with the jury etc. But procedural missteps like not being allowed even a day to file a response, especially to something as big as a motion for summary judgement, that's almost always a guaranteed win. No way is a judge going to risk it. Not when they can wait a couple of days to let everyone file their say and deal with it on Monday without a major affect on the trial since its still way early on

No taking BS games from a company isn't bias, it's doing her job.

Find where she's not judging the same against Apple for identical games, has 100 shares of Apple stock, etc then you have cause to suggest she is very possibly biased,

But right now the only bias that seems to be evident is yours

Despite the poor writing in the original article, no she didn't. Koh hadn't made any final ruling. She said Quinn had good cause to file his motion that Apples request was too extreme. Basically she's allowing him to make a counter argument that if Samsung is found to be in the wrong the requested summary judgement shouldn't be made. She wasn't likely too anyway since she'd be giving them cause to appeal.

It's hardly a liitle subtlety. The article claimed a judgement had been made on something that hasn't even been heard yet. That is a huge mis write.

I know that AI is 'just a blog' not a newspaper but such sloppiness is really much. Particularly when this site gets quoted and referenced as if they know and verified what they are talking about

Really? What name calling are you referring to? I simply stated that you missed the point - and explained why. That's the exact opposite of name calling.

How have you been, Rip Van Winkle? (There's some name calling for you). You've obviously been asleep for months.

1. Samsung's own testimony says that the #1 reason for their product returns at Best Buy were due to customers thinking that they were buying an iPad. That's fact - not my opinion (or yours).

2. Samsung's own attorneys were unable to tell the difference between the two products when asked by a judge to do so.

The evidence is quite clear that Samsung's products DO cause confusion.

Different countries, different laws. You can't really mix and match them since the jurisdictions generally don't cross over. That's why multiple suits are filed, etc

I suspect that the end result, with a contempt fine perhaps, will be basically as you suggest.

The judge might not even need to add the weakness bit as it has already been suggested to the jury and they are hopefully smart enough to go there on their own without an on record statement Samsung will try to use to get an appeal if they lose

1) I also can't stand Micro$oft ,Windoze, Samesung, or any such common variation.

2) I do like Fandroid. It's simple and within itself contain no derogatory statement. It's oft used in a derogatory way usage is different than the issue I. I group it more wit the term iDevice which is just a simple way to refer to the iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad, in most cases. Can you make a case that no fan of Android would be mind be referred to as a fan of Android? I cant.

3) I use troll but it's a well know term on the internet with a well know meaning. We do have to use words with meaning in order to communicate, right? BTW, troll is used for anyone across the internet and has no definition that refers specifically to anyone who is against Apple.

4) I don't care for the comments Apple ][ often makes on this forum and have never hid that fact. He's the poster I've put on ignore more than anyone else over the years. Not so much for his extreme bias in favor of anything Apple but for other biases he has.

5) If you want to imply I'm biased then you have to argue as to why I included ANALyst in my original comment when that is used on this forum when ever an analyst says Apple will falter in any way.

See - now I'm in trouble for not using an irony designator. Yes - I agree - it is really a huge distinction.

As a final update, Koh denies Apple's request for sanctions.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-03/samsung-defeats-apple-bid-for-sanctions-over-evidence

It was never likely that she'd do what Apple asked. I think their requests were too extreme for the transgression - and they may have hurt themselves by not offering more reasonable sanctions.

However, the fact that she did nothing may create a problem. If Apple loses, and if they can show that even a single juror heard about Samsung having 'convincing' evidence that the judge excluded, an appeal would be a slam dunk. I would have thought that at the very least she should have instructed the jury to ignore information that was not presented in the court room because it may not be accurate. Maybe she can still do that.

According to news reports she polled the jurors to see if any of them had read or heard or read about it. None had, altho one single juror said she had glanced at a headline that might have referred to it, but didn't read the article as she knew she wasn't supposed to. So there was no "tainting".  Nice to see that at least the jurors follow the judge's instructions even if the litigants may appear not to.

 

Read your post again - post 80.

 

Rip Van Winkle - another sad attempt at humour? 

 

Point 1 - have you got a reference for this. 

Point 2 - that was a stunt by the judge and an ill advised one. Do you decide on a tablet from a distance and make a decision or like a rational person go closer for a look. I could hold up a snickers bar and mars bar and at a distance you wouldn't be able to determine which is which. 

 

That's all the evidence there is? If so it's weak. Apple design patents are too broad and vague.

 

Apple has stronger merits with its utility patents. 

Give me a break.

Point 1. Do your own research. It was widely reported here just a few days ago. The #1 reason for Samsung product returns at Best Buy was consumers who thought they were buying an Apple product and didn't find out until they got home.
Point 2. I really couldn't care less whether you think it was a stunt or not. The fact is that Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.

You can argue all you want about whether Apple's patents are vague, but you have clearly demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. Your statement that it is impossible to confuse the products is just plain wrong based on the above evidence. You are flat out wrong. Period.

 

I sometimes wish it was admitted as evidence.

It would have made the jury chuckle at Samsung's desperation to prove that Apple is a copyist.

 

The Best Buy evidence is questionalble - how was it collected and what questions were asked. There are multiple reasons people will claim to justify a return. What effect does a salesman have in the decision etc.

 

As I pointed out before being able to tell the difference from a distance you would never make a decision from in any practical sense proves nothing other than it being a stunt.

 

What statment did I say it was flat out wrong. You are making a straw argument.

 

As I pointed out how you can say flat surfaces, rounded corners etc are purely ornamental is just absurd.

 

Also as to the point of confusion - then it can also run in favour of Apple where someone wanted to buy a Samsung Tablet but then ended up buying an Ipad. If the confusion is so great - when do people realise they have bought the wrong product and if they have realised that then they have the option of a return, so there is a remedy.

Jr, I'm curious how you would describe in words what Apple is claiming in this design patent asserted against Samsung smartphones.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/087patent.pdf

Be sure to note that Apple says in the application that anything drawn with dotted lines is not part of the claimed design, and instead for "illustrative purposes only" 

 

If anyone else wants to take a shot at describing what Apple has laid claim to, I'd like to see what your understanding of it is.