Samsung 132-page 'copy cat' doc comparing Galaxy S with iPhone admitted into evidence - Page 2

Samsung has allegedly destroyed evidence prior to trial. Why didn't they destroy this? Could there be even more damning evidence?

 

That's what they managed to destroy in time.

 

I think that the first any company should hear about a lawsuit is the police officers that come to their data center to protect the existing data from destruction.

 

If a lawyer just serves up something or other, they have all the time in the world to just delete whatever they want.

Geezz....

 

I'd never buy another Samsung product.

 

I hope the burn to the ground. Look at their top executives in SK behaved, they are above the law.

That's the common take away. If a jury sees this as damning and they know you've deleted other evidence but not this it's only natural to assume that the other evidence isn't just more damning, but considerably more damning. This is why it's better to convolute the data instead of bringing focus to something that allows our minds to go wild with speculation. Just think about this forum and the disappointment with each new Apple product for not meeting some impossible goal.

They had a system in place that deleted emails after a couple of weeks. As far as I know they haven't been accused of deleting internal report documents. It's the continued deletion of emails after legal proceedings were instituted that is unlawful. (And no, I'm not a lawyer.)

Sorry to say you are wrong on that. English may be your second language so you may miss what the translated text is saying.

Based on your comment, I take it you did not read the report. You should take the time and actually look at it.

For innovation, look at WP7. MS has done a great job there with some great new and fresh ideas. Google and Android? Samsung and TouchWiz? Not so much.

This is pretty damning stuff, but only if Apple lawyers can maximize its potential. Can't say that I am overly impressed with what we have heard of their case to date. Bringing in a 3rd party expert witness that Samsung lawyers was able to discredit so easily? C'mon!

 

Furthermore, I am puzzled by the lack of logical flow to the presentation of evidence. People here have done a better job of assembling the damning evidence. But I do recognize we are getting the play-by-play second hand, and the case has months to come.

Samsung looks like they are f*cked in this one... If Apple wins this everyone else that copied their design might as well get their checkbooks ready.

Close but not completely accurate.

 

There's no claims that Samsung deleted emails or anything else after they were sued by Apple. It's that they didn't start keeping all email communications applicable to Apple and it's products when they first knew, or should have known, that that a lawsuit was likely. According to the court that should have been about 6 months prior to the lawsuit. Oddly tho, that's not when Apple considered a lawsuit would be likely, saying that was determined about four months later than the court thinks it should be. That's the reason Apple gives as to why they supposedly didn't keep a specific record of appropriate emails either. The difference, and the reason the court probably won't view the two in the same light, is that Apple says they didn't actually delete any as far as they know, unlike what happened in the home offices of Samsung in Korea.  

 

FWIW other Samsung locations most often used a different email system (Outlook or others) which didn't automatically delete after two weeks according to court docs. It's generally only the Korean home offices that are under the gun.

From everything I've been reading thus far, it's appears Samsung will lose and lose big. But this is a California jury, so they just might say not guilty -- remember the O.J. trial??

 

 

When one party sues another both parties are required to submit upon request to the other relevant documents. In fact, they have a duty to preserve such documents if they suspect there will be a lawsuit. Samsung is also accused of trying to destroy relevant information. 

So far the only evidence presented is from Apple's side. Samsung's chance to present their competing experts and evidence hasn't come yet. That would be the biggest reason it seems one-sided.

OJ was found not-guilty in the criminal trial but was found guilty in the civil trial. That is very telling of how the justice system works between criminal and civil cases. Because this is a civil case it's more likely Samsung will be found guilty than had this been a criminal case with the same jury, judge and lawyers.

 In truth they're accused of not retaining all email communications at an earlier enough date to ensure nothing pertinent was deleted. They aren't accused of destroying specific documents or communications favorable to Apple. Quite a difference in reality. That's why the Court's statement to be made to the jury in it's instructions is relatively mild.

This blog is becoming increasingly tedious to read.

 

I remember years ago around the time of the original iPhone AppleInsider used to have interesting stories about what you can expect in the next apple products.

 

Nowadays those stories are sandwiched, or rather, swamped amongst boring, one sided commentary on legal cases.

 

I don't know who to blame, AppleInsider for getting sucked into the Apple vs Samsung/HTC/(Insert any other big mobile manufacturer here) flame war and losing touch with what made this blog interesting.

 

Or Apple, who by all accounts in the media these days have gone from the most exciting consumer electronics company to a large 'Suing Company' with a side business in consumer electronics.

 

However, when you see that Apple seems to be able to patent anything nowadays: (This is ridiculous) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/08/apple_patent/ , it hardly seems surprising.

 

How long until Apple patent the patent?

Plus 250 years in jail for their top execs, how does that sound ?

Seems excessive. How about until 10% of Android phones are running 4.1 Jelly Bean. Oh, wait, 250 years might be shorter.

We only have one Samsung product - a printer. It will soon be replaced.

How about Samsung top exec carrying a sign around their neck (in jail) : iTHIEVE.

Yes, but Apple didn't implement those items in the exact same way as Android. They differentiated it and/or improved upon it. Sammy, on the other hand, saw the iPhone and copy and pasted without improving upon it.

Buh-stid!

it's one sided because the facts are that way.

Really? You think people should be put in prison for copying a commercial competitor's products? A phone, no less? Let's just lock everyone up. Last one in the cell, please shut the door behind you.

You're making two mistakes. You're basing this off nothing. The two cases aren't really comparable, and you have no idea what what charges would be filed. Beyond that if these executives that face aforementioned charges reside in S. Korea, you would be looking at extradition. This isn't anything more than a matter between two companies right now, and that won't change just because you like Apple more than Samsung.

I'm not sure about that. I guess it depends on the group of people, but I see way too many emotionally driven posts on these matters. It depends somewhat on the jury that is chosen, but I wouldn't think of forum comments as a neutral source for the direction of legal matters. I've been trying to ignore some of the really dumb posts, as there's no way I'd reply with anything nice. It's not like I'm really biased in favor of Samsung. Most of the Samsung stuff I've owned has existed in the form of captive components within different Macs. I think I've owned one or two random things with Samsung branding.

You don't get to randomly assign punishment. You would need criminal charges. If these executive live in South Korea, they would have to be charged under Korean jurisdiction with something that is considered a criminal matter in South Korea. If you are suggesting they be charged in the US, you are a very naive person. The likelihood of extradition over corporate matters is not very high. Beyond that they are not being charged with murder or treason. You are going solely on emotions here.

No one is found guilty in a civil trial. They can be found liable, but guilt (and innocence) is only relevant in criminal proceedings.

It would appear OJ's son was the guilty party which would have put OJ in a tough spot. OJ probably figured it out, there was pretty good evidence, should he report his own son? I can see that being a tough decision. So maybe the courts got it right, OJ was not guilty of the murder but indirectly was liable.

Let's suppose Apple sales had tanked due to unfair competition by Samsung. Let's suppose millions had lost part of their savings after stock plunged. Let's suppose thousands had lost their jobs.

What's the difference with Enron execs losing money of people who placed their confidence in them ? You'll say : law is about facts, and these facts did not happen. Granted. So better let Apple

get bankrupt or have it's customer base shrinked and lose billions because of Samsung and other stealing their inventions, before suing them ? Ridiculous. I own Apple stocks and I'm glad, as a

shareholder, that Apple defends itself (and my assets) against thieves.

Apple striked first and rightly so, and I do hope Samsung will lose big. Apple learned the hard way with M$oft in the 80's : no way in hell they would repeat the same mistakes. Now they say to competitors : you pay you own designers upfront when designing your own products, or you'll pay lawyers and fines and penalties the big way at the end of the process, after stealing our brainchildren.

These are not emotions, these are observations based on foul acts revealed from Samsung part (and probably the Android clique too). The one who's been naive (speaking about naivety), for once,

is SJ, who admitted a judas from Google to the Apple board in the first place.

Edited by Quantz - 8/8/12 at 7:42am

In the screenshot, the Samsung analysis says the reason their "end call" button is bad (compared to the iPhone) is that another button nearby could accidentally be pressed. Isn't that backwards? The reason you want "end call" away from other buttons is so you don't accidentally press *it* and hang up on someone.

Wait, what? Samsung's calendar icon was permanently set to December 7th? A day that will live in infamy? Isn't that a little too on-the-nose?

OH, crap!

 

How Apple did get its grip on those documents?

 

All you San[SCUM] loyalists must THX! apple for this. BCause San[SCUM] will never be the same.

South Korea has plenty of young designers. San[SCUM] only have to change its phylosophy.

Edited by Ochyming - 8/8/12 at 8:05am

 

Seriously? Even after reading the line that's something like "Icons look like they're been copied from iPhone, try to differentiate"

 

Do you seriously mean that it doesn't prove Samsung copied? I still cannot believe how people can second such a practice. If Apple can't win at least one of the several infringement claims using this document, then I don't know what will help Apple. I think the world's just not the kind of place anymore where true innovation is appreciated. It's sad and pathetic.

While that is another way of looking at it. Try thinking about it this way: "How many times in a day would a normal user try to hit the "end call" vs any other buttons?", out of all those buttons "End call" is the one most users will use. So take it out and put it in a place where there are no other buttons, which reduces both the chance of ending the call by mistake and the odds of hitting the wrong button to the end the call.

Trouble is that several times, the instruction is to do what Apple did, sometimes in exact detail. That's damning for Samsung

 

"Reverse inspiration" is a meaningless term. "Reverse Engineering" is not always legal at all.  It's a method of finding out how something works with an eye to copying it.  If the copying part is in violation of patents, it still isn't legal no matter what.  

 

Particularly in the field of art and design, "reverse engineering" (which again isn't really a meaningful term), is just another way of saying "copying."  

 

Oh come on.  This is tasteless and not even funny.  You don't actually believe this nonsense do you?  

 

Worth noting that almost all the evidence so far has been about the trade dress patents which Apple is the least likely to win on given that almost no one cares about trade dress other than them.  I'm waiting to see how Samsung gets around the actual design patents which seem like a lock to me.  

Gosh, I was sarcastic, read the line below it!!

I'll personally be surprised if those two design patents are found both valid and infringed. You're absolutely correct that many Samsung phones have flat rectangular displays with evenly rounded corners which is all the least descriptive of the two design patents lays claim to. IMO that makes it too broad to pass muster, but I'm not on the jury either.

 

And what's happened since then?

 

The entire unimaginative, derivative, boring industry has taken to using Apple as their collective R&D dept. And today, we're seeing the results of that - namely in Apple's objections voiced via the courts.

 

Tell the also-rans to come up with their own June 2007 and January 2011. *Crickets*  I'm sure. 

Maybe you're wrong.
Yes, English is my 3rd language but let me reassure you: during a management assessment, I was in the top 1% for reading, understanding and reproducing-using-other-words an English text. 1% of a university degree crowd that is.
And to elaborate on that, I had a perfect score for correctly interpreting words like "all", "some", "any", "most", "may", "none", "might", "can", "could", "will", ... the tricky words.

You may think that I have some linguistic skills but you'd be wrong again. In fact, this score just reflects the fact that I had a perfect score for logic as well (with a knack for fuzzy logic)