or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge "disappointed" over Apple and Samsung jury instructions, orders lead counsel to meet in person
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge "disappointed" over Apple and Samsung jury instructions, orders lead counsel to meet in person

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Sunday ordered Apple and Samsung's lead attorneys to meet and hash out final jury instructions, a point of contention since the trial began two weeks ago.

Judge Koh issued the order a day before the Apple v. Samsung patent trial enters its third week, saying the parties need to meet in person to hammer out joint and disputed final jury instructions by Monday.

As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the somewhat unusual order was prompted by Apple and Samsung's failure to resolve disagreements as to what rules the jury must follow in deciding the case. Thus far, the parties have yet to produce a finalized joint document that outlines the agreements and disagreements, on which Judge Koh may need to resolve through a ruling.

Court Order
Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


In a filing on Friday, Apple said it has attempted to "advance the process" of reaching some sort of consensus regarding jury instructions, but claims "Samsung has stymied those efforts." The South Korean electronics giant filed a similar claim later that day disagreeing with Apple's assessment of the situation, saying it "has agreed to more than twenty revised instructions proposed by Apple and is continuing to review Apple's remaining disputed instructions for any common ground." Samsung's filing goes on to claim that Apple "agreed to only two complete instructions drafted solely by Samsung."

Mueller notes the parties' disagreements are unlikely to be resolved through negotiations, meaning Judge Koh will have to rule on the matter. While the final jury instructions are not required for at least a week, the Court must have time to review the disputed terms before issuing a ruling.

In another order also filed on Sunday, Judge Koh denied "Apple's Offer of Proof Regarding Evidence of its iPhone and iPad Advertisements," saying the Court construes it as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Samsung objected to the advertisements' admission into evidence, but was initially overruled on the grounds that they were relevant to the question of "fame" regarding Apple's trade dress claims. A second Samsung objection, however, was successful as the Court agreed with the company and found the clips were "cumulative" and "allowed only the indices into evidence."

From the order:

The Court construes ?Apple?s Offer of Proof Regarding Evidence of Its iPhone and iPad Advertisements? (ECF No. 1602) as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The Court denies Apple?s motion for leave because the motion does not meet the requirements for leave to file a motion for reconsideration as set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). Accordingly, Apple may not file a motion for reconsideration.


Apple v. Samsung picks up on Monday when Samsung's first witnesses will take the stand in defense of Apple's patent infringement accusations. According to the Korean company's rolling witness list, Adam Bogue and Clifton Forlines will give testimony relating to prior art to Apple's '915 "pinch to zoom" and '381 "rubber-banding" patents.
post #2 of 28
I wonder if this sort of thing is common for Koh.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #3 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
Apple v. Samsung picks up on Monday when Samsung's first witnesses will take the stand in defense of Apple's patent infringement accusations. According to the Korean company's rolling witness list, Adam Bogus and Clifton Foreskins will give testimony relating to prior art to Apple's '915 "pinch to zoom" and '381 "rubber-banding" patents.

 

Yeah... yeah... something like that...

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #4 of 28
Instructions to the jury:

1) forget everything about the F700
2) only allow Apple statements into consideration
3) the guy Bressler, he's OK but the cross examination is irrelevant
post #5 of 28

It'd be funny if the trial continued into September and some of the jurors asked to be excused to go stand in line for the next iPhone. Won't happen of course, but that would be pretty funny and awful at the same time.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #6 of 28

I thought final instructions came from the judge herself.

Why do the contestants have to create them?

post #7 of 28
From the Apple motion to diismiss the F700
Quote:
Going into the design history of the F700 in particular is extremely prejudicial because the risk is high that the jury will consider the F700 as evidence of independent development, invalidity, or non-infringement

Only the iPhone had these design elements like a rectangular shape, rounded corners, ... You might take a look at Sammy's patent filing that Apple so blatantly copied.


There is a logic to Apple trying to juridicial's filings that THE F700 DOES NOT EXIST!
post #8 of 28

Yeah, because Samsung was doing so many amazing things prior to IPhone worth stealing. The truth is not what you think. http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com/post/29202801252/samsung-is-apples-biggest-fan

post #9 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

From the Apple motion to diismiss the F700
Only the iPhone had these design elements like a rectangular shape, rounded corners, ... You might take a look at Sammy's patent filing that Apple so blatantly copied.
There is a logic to Apple trying to juridicial's filings that THE F700 DOES NOT EXIST!

I'm pretty sure that one was simply brought up as evidence too late and denied because of this.

post #10 of 28
Apple want it 10 fold in their favour which is normal. Obviously there can never be any agreement if it is just them, it is just not Apple.
post #11 of 28

Are we to believe that Samsung "has agreed to more than twenty revised instructions proposed by Apple"?  This coming from a company that destroyed evidence, released unapproved fabricated documents to the media, and claimed it drew inspiration from a bowl of water?

post #12 of 28
It is common to require the parties to submit proposed jury instructions. When the instructions submitted by the parties are inconsistent, it is also not out of the ordinary for the judge to require the parties to try to come up with joint instructions. Improperly instructing the jury provides grounds for appeal, so having the parties agree to the instructions can take that out of consideration.
post #13 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

It'd be funny if the trial continued into September and some of the jurors asked to be excused to go stand in line for the next iPhone. Won't happen of course, but that would be pretty funny and awful at the same time.

I'm sure they would be allowed to use proxy jurors to stand in line for them /smile
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #14 of 28
I just hope this moves us on to the real thing, the Google trial ... then the gutting of Android of all infringing aspects and Google being fined gazillions of dollars.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I just hope this moves us on to the real thing, the Google trial ... then the gutting of Android of all infringing aspects and Google being fined gazillions of dollars.

Personally, as it's already four years in, I don't think it will happen. I also think that another 5 years from now Google will have moved past Android (as we know it now) as it's primary mobile OS anyway.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/13/12 at 6:06am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot View Post

Yeah, because Samsung was doing so many amazing things prior to IPhone worth stealing. The truth is not what you think. http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com/post/29202801252/samsung-is-apples-biggest-fan

 

#5 on the list was debunked and discussed here on the forums.

post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I just hope this moves us on to the real thing, the Google trial ... then the gutting of Android of all infringing aspects and Google being fined gazillions of dollars.

It may also depend on what happens in this trial. If Apple wins, no matter if Samsung appeals, it may lead to Google/Motorola and the other phone manufacturers settling with Apple or having Google change things so that they don't infringe. As always, time will tell.

post #18 of 28

I lurk here a lot and very rarely post but I have to since seems like the trolls are really at it today so I have one question for them.  Are we really supposed to believe a company like this?

 

http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-corruption-and-lies/

post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

I thought final instructions came from the judge herself.
Why do the contestants have to create them?

I had the same question.

Isn't this what judges are for!?
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

... 5 years from now Google will have moved past Android (as we know it now) as it's primary mobile OS anyway.

Really? Why, and to what?
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Really? Why, and to what?

According to several news articles earlier this year Google is slowly merging Android and their Chrome OS. Probably unlikely that they'll be totally integrated anytime soon if at all, just as iOS and Mac may never be totally merged.

 

A simple Google search for "Android and Chrome OS merge" should find several pertinent articles that explain the why's and what's from a couple of points of view.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

According to several news articles earlier this year Google is slowly merging Android and their Chrome OS. Probably unlikely that they'll be totally integrated anytime soon if at all, just as iOS and Mac may never be totally merged.

 

A simple Google search for "Android and Chrome OS merge" should find several pertinent articles that explain the why's and what's from a couple of points of view.

I did as you said. It sounds like a long term dream more than anything else.

 

The idea was first proposed in 2009 (http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/23/sergey-brin-android-and-chrome-os-will-likely-converge-over-ti/), it would seem, and does not seem to have gained any traction since, at least as reported in the press. A recent article suggests that Sundar Pichai of Google thinks "...it's a journey..." pointing to the "30 years" it took Microsoft and Apple with their operating systems (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57444837-93/googles-pichai-predicts-chrome-os-android-convergence/).

post #23 of 28
You do realise that Apple had no email retention policy. Managers are relied on to back up their own emails. It is not hard to wonder why though for the worlds biggest earning tech company it is mighty fishy. The multi billion high tech and with has no automated back up system. I can guess why!
post #24 of 28
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Mueller notes the parties' disagreements are unlikely to be resolved through negotiations, meaning Judge Koh will have to rule on the matter. While the final jury instructions are not required for at least a week, the Court must have time to review the disputed terms before issuing a ruling.
 
The way I interpret Judge Koh's order is, "I'm really pissed that you jerks couldn't get your acts together. First thing Monday morning you guys, and I mean the chief honchos themselves, will give me a list with 1) the things you agree on, and 2) the things you don't agree on and why. Now I'm going to look the stuff over and I'll tell you what the jury is going to do."
 
Now note the final "IT IS SO ORDERED." Bigger size and very boldface. Maybe this is standard, maybe not. But I see a finality in it. A message, no…a warning, to both legal teams that the first one to later on raise any objection, or request any changes, to these instructions will be leaving the courtroom holding their head in their hands.

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #25 of 28
The formatting of the Judge's order is routine, I wouldn't read anything into the bold type.
post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

I thought final instructions came from the judge herself.

Why do the contestants have to create them?


The judge is ultimately responsible for charging the jury but accepts the instructions from the parties as their theory of what issues are to be decided by the jurors (and the issues are narrowed by decisions made at trial - both strategic decisions made by the lawyers and legal ones on the evidence by the judge).  If the jury instructions bear no relationship to reality then the judge steps in but otherwise allows (as per the rules) the parties to submit their proposals.

post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by wshuff4 View Post

The formatting of the Judge's order is routine, I wouldn't read anything into the bold type.

Purely a stylistic thing.  It's not like emails where it's the equivalent of shouting.

post #28 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post

The judge is ultimately responsible for charging the jury but accepts the instructions from the parties as their theory of what issues are to be decided by the jurors (and the issues are narrowed by decisions made at trial - both strategic decisions made by the lawyers and legal ones on the evidence by the judge).  If the jury instructions bear no relationship to reality then the judge steps in but otherwise allows (as per the rules) the parties to submit their proposals.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wshuff4 View Post

It is common to require the parties to submit proposed jury instructions. When the instructions submitted by the parties are inconsistent, it is also not out of the ordinary for the judge to require the parties to try to come up with joint instructions. Improperly instructing the jury provides grounds for appeal, so having the parties agree to the instructions can take that out of consideration.

Thanks to you both - makes sense, especially the part about minimizing grounds for appeal.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge "disappointed" over Apple and Samsung jury instructions, orders lead counsel to meet in person