or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Samsung's 'me too' evidence spoliation filing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge denies Samsung's 'me too' evidence spoliation filing

post #1 of 50
Thread Starter 
In an order filed late Thursday, Apple v. Samsung Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal denied Samsung's request that the jury be told Apple may have destroyed email evidence pertinent to the case.

As noted by The Verge, the rationale and late timing of Samsung's filing is brought into question in Judge Grewal's order: "The fact that a timely motion brought by the other side yielded an instruction that could harm the moving party?s chances with the jury, and 'fairness' somehow demands a similar instruction as to both parties. Except that it doesn't."

From the order:

There is nothing at all unfair about denying relief to one party but not the other when the one but not the other springs into action long after any rational person would say it could have done so. The court has bent itself into a pretzel accommodating the scheduling challenges of this case. But at some point the accommodation must end, lest the hundreds of other parties in civil rights, Social Security, and other cases also presently before the undersigned and presiding judge might reasonably ask: what makes the parties in this patent case so special?


Samsung's motion, first filed in July, was in response to an Apple-won adverse inference jury instruction over the Korean company's email deletion protocols. Because Samsung's internal email system, called mySingle, routinely erases emails after two weeks, it was proposed that the company didn't follow its legal burden to preserve evidence relating to the trial.

At the time of Apple's motion, Judge Grewal said Samsung "consciously disregarded" its legal obligations, and ordered the jury be apprised of the situation.

The Korean electronics giant subsequently issued its own motion for adverse inference instruction against Apple, though the basis for such a request was unclear given the Cupertino company doesn't have a system in place which routinely destroys emails.



Apple v. Samsung is scheduled to continue on Friday with more testimony from Apple expert witnesses.
post #2 of 50

"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 #3 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Not sure what you were implying there...

It would just be awesome if when they brief the jury they said "oh, and by the way Samsung wanted to say Apple destroyed evidence in the form of corporate e-mails. There's no grounds for the claim and they just filed it yesterday."

I would love that! But they can't do it.

Edit: also loved your post earlier. Very passionate!
post #4 of 50

Samsung's birds are coming home to roost... and they look more and more like vultures.

"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 #5 of 50

Samsung is really hard to fight.

 

because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.

post #6 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

Samsung is really hard to fight.

because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.

A rather bold statement.

I really do wish you could enlighten the rest of the class with your knowledge. Any references to which you stake your claim?

Silence on your part will imply that your theory is based on wild conjecture rather than factual evidence.
post #7 of 50

Funny when you think about it: Samesong trying to refute charges of copying by slavish copying of Apple's courtroom tactics. 

post #8 of 50
Not a very slavish copy though, they forgot the evidence bit.
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
post #9 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post


A rather bold statement.
I really do wish you could enlighten the rest of the class with your knowledge. Any references to which you stake your claim?
Silence on your part will imply that your theory is based on wild conjecture rather than factual evidence.

 

Hey, don't do that! The number is going to post that list of links and some Samsung propaganda again, which it has already done on a couple of other threads.
post #10 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX 

 

I prefer this:-

 

 

No second prize.

 

 


Oh Yeah
I heard about a person who had a broken heart
With nothing to drive him on, no hope no spark no flame
He could'nt see at all tears they were blinding him
He kept it all inside, the guilt and all the pain
You know I say I tried to warn him
They had him backed up against the wall
I hope I'm not too late
No one can tell you exactly what you have gotta be
You've got to stand your ground and fight to save your life
It may be hard but ooh ooh it's the only way
Always remembering there ain't no second prize
There ain't no second prize
You know I say I tried to warn him
They had him backed up against the wall
Why can't I stand up and try to tell him
They've got me backed up against the wall
I hope I'm not too late
No one can tell you exactly what you have gotta be
You've got to stand your ground and fight to save your life
It may be hard but ooh ooh it's the only way
Always remembering there ain't no second prize
There ain't no second prize
Oh no there ain't no second prize
There ain't no second prize
Oh no there ain't no second prize
There's not gonna be no second prize
Oh no there ain't no second prize
Oh there's no second prize
Oh no there ain't no second prize
Never never never never gonna be
Oh no there ain't no second prize
[ Lyrics from:

It seems Samsung's lawyers were too late, too often.

 

Finest Aussie rock.


Edited by hill60 - 8/17/12 at 4:26am
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 #11 of 50

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

Samsung is really hard to fight.

 

because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.

 

It sucks when all of that stupid evidence actually points in Apple's favor, huh?

 

Just because Samsung tries to get "evidence" admitted doesn't mean that it's actually true. All I know is that I delete work emails all the time because I think they have no relevance to anything, and I can see Apple as a company deleting emails on a regular basis to keep the secrecy intact. None of that equates to corporate espionage, which Samsung did. They deliberately deleted files and documents that they were specifically told not to, and then claimed that they didn't. Pathetic.

post #12 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

Samsung is really hard to fight.

 

because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.

 

 

How does that make them "hard to fight"? If anything, it (Samsung's legal blunders) makes them *easier* to fight. 

post #13 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

Samsung is really hard to fight.

because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.

He should've said "some" like the F700, the Japanese guy, and now this. I'd rather see a case judged on all the evidence available not with one party handcuffed, but Samsung is mostly to blame here so it's hard to sympathize. The legal team should've had all their ducks in a row and were given ample chance to do so.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #14 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

Samsung is really hard to fight.

 

because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post


A rather bold statement.
I really do wish you could enlighten the rest of the class with your knowledge. Any references to which you stake your claim?
Silence on your part will imply that your theory is based on wild conjecture rather than factual evidence.

 

It's called a drive-by troll. The iHaters came up with this talking point alleging the judge is on the take from Apple. They're splattering that talking point all over the tech forums. Wait until the verdict comes in favor of Apple. The reaction is going to be spectacular.


Edited by lkrupp - 8/17/12 at 5:00am
post #15 of 50

email deletion after 2 weeks? i suppose they don't have HIPPA, PCI, or Sarbanes-Oxley over there - but still, how do you conduct business when you don't have an email from three weeks ago? 

post #16 of 50

You could have mentioned that you were joking.

How could you write that statement. :)

post #17 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

Samsung is really hard to fight.

 

because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.

Oh really?  You could have mentioned that you were joking. 

post #18 of 50

Besides filing late, there was actual evidence that Samsung had in fact destroyed evidence that may support Apple's case. Not so with Apple, there was no evidence whatsoever that they had destroyed anything.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm ready for this to be over. Samsung clearly copied the Apple. They know it. The court knows it. At the end of the day, it's not likely that anything will be done about it. A slap on the wrist if anything, then it will be business as usual.

post #19 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

Oh really?  You could have mentioned that you were joking. 

Or perhaps, more appropriately, "I'm just trollin,' "

Perhaps there should be a trolling emoticon? (or perhaps there already is one?)

 

(8^@)=

post #20 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


(8^@)=

Nice.
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 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

 

 

It's called a drive-by troll. The iHaters came up with this talking point alleging the judge is on the take from Apple. They're splattering that talking point all over the tech forums. Wait until the verdict comes in favor of Apple. The reaction is going to be spectacular.

 

It is so obvious too.   It is like the same person repeating the same "opinion" over and over regardless the topic or argument.

post #22 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

 

 

It's called a drive-by troll. The iHaters came up with this talking point alleging the judge is on the take from Apple. They're splattering that talking point all over the tech forums. Wait until the verdict comes in favor of Apple. The reaction is going to be spectacular.

 

Judge finds fault with Apple = Judge is not so biased after all (even though she wasn't to begin with.)

 

Samsung's idiocy gets them into trouble with Judge = Judge must be getting paid off/getting free Apple gear.  LMAO

 

Really? LIke, REALLY??? Come on . . .   *rolleyes*

post #23 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

Samsung is really hard to fight.

 

because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.

 

I'm 99% sure what he actually meant to say was "It is really hard for Samsung to fight, because from day one the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple."  

 

That is a logical sentence for the point he's trying to get across.  The English language is quite tough for non-native speakers to master.  I encounter this kind of unintentional miscommunication on a daily basis with non-native speakers.  I think he's totally wrong, but at least now you know what he was trying to say.

post #24 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Or perhaps, more appropriately, "I'm just trollin,' "

Perhaps there should be a trolling emoticon? (or perhaps there already is one?)

 

(8^@)=

 

(8^@)=

 

Hmm...  somehow when I see this, something like 845032 comes to my mind.

post #25 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

Not sure what you were implying there...

Just saying that Samsung got slammed there. A bit esoteric and in left field but it was both late and the first think that came to mind, and I can't recall any other time that song came to mind after reading an AI article so I added it. I thought it might be fun, if nothing else.

"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 #26 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

A rather bold statement.
I really do wish you could enlighten the rest of the class with your knowledge. Any references to which you stake your claim?
Silence on your part will imply that your theory is based on wild conjecture rather than factual evidence.


He is saying that the two judges on the trial are partial because Samsung is unable to meet any deadlines that have been in place for over a year. It is also clear from the way Samsung complains about rules Samsung pushed for, the judges are to blame. In short, his post was as well reasoned as a Samsung motion.
post #27 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

...but still, how do you conduct business when you don't have an email from three weeks ago? 

A: Illegally.

"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 #28 of 50

I think this case will not got to the jury but will be settled. I think Samsung might cave first after all they have "proven" they have great industrial designers and can make great products that look nothing like Apple's going forwards. (that was sarcasm). Apple has a lot at stake here too if they lose even parts of this case. Besides the bad press we can expect a hit on the company's perceived value, the copy cat products flood gates will be opened and companies will be embolden to rip off Apple's entire product line. I think a settlement will happen with non-disclosed payments and licenses agreements. 

post #29 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post

I think this case will not got to the jury but will be settled. I think Samsung might cave first after all they have "proven" they have great industrial designers and can make great products that look nothing like Apple's going forwards. (that was sarcasm). Apple has a lot at stake here too if they lose even parts of this case. Besides the bad press we can expect a hit on the company's perceived value, the copy cat products flood gates will be opened and companies will be embolden to rip off Apple's entire product line. I think a settlement will happen with non-disclosed payments and licenses agreements. 

I think Samsung might have to pay Apple more than they asking for in the trial. Maybe not in cash, but in some way. My reasoning is that even if Apple is only awarded a fraction of what they are claiming for damages and even if not all claims by Apple are acknowledged by the court (both I think are likely) Apple still gets the precedence set by the court which will help protect them against other companies thinking about doing the same thing. If they settle, Samsung is still the most successful Android-based vendors 2nd in the handset business to Apple, to me, that validates Samsung's shady actions. How much is the precedence worth in a one time pay out? Sometimes beating your opponent so badly that others will think twice before fighting you.

"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 #30 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post

I think this case will not got to the jury but will be settled. I think Samsung might cave first after all they have "proven" they have great industrial designers and can make great products that look nothing like Apple's going forwards. (that was sarcasm). Apple has a lot at stake here too if they lose even parts of this case. Besides the bad press we can expect a hit on the company's perceived value, the copy cat products flood gates will be opened and companies will be embolden to rip off Apple's entire product line. I think a settlement will happen with non-disclosed payments and licenses agreements. 

Which is what should have happened long before this trial began. Some pundits are already labeling the new Samsung tablet as the first tablet designed completely by lawyers. It is obvious that the thing was designed to get around Apple's objections.
post #31 of 50

Yeah, I think I agree... they may settle out of court for undisclosed licensing terms. I don't think they'll be able to have a cash settlement and still have it be hidden though. Apple will likely still seek around $2B in compensation. Since that's around 40% profit last quarter, I think Samsung will do anything to keep that number from showing up in any meaningful way on their next quarter's report since they just had a record quarter.

 

Still, Apple wants the public to know that ( in their opinion ) Samsung copied them. I'm not sure Apple would take the money. I think they want to effect of judgment against Samsung.

As Steve Jobs most famously said,  Apple has plenty of money.

 

I guess it all depends on how strongly the Apple legal team thinks they're doing in their case.

A lost case for Apple will only embolden competition, but.. really... aren't they all being pretty darn bold right now? Will that really have any material impact?

 

A loss for Samsung will be catastrophic to their image, and significant impact to their finances.

Samsung should have never let this go to trial.  They have the most to lose from anything.

The fanboys will never lose their loyalty, but if CNN or USA today  puts up the headline "Samsung found guilty" that alone will affect sales from the average consumer.

post #32 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I think Samsung might have to pay Apple more than they asking for in the trial. Maybe not in cash, but in some way. My reasoning is that even if Apple is only awarded a fraction of what they are claiming for damages and even if not all claims by Apple are acknowledged by the court (both I think are likely) Apple still gets the precedence set by the court which will help protect them against other companies thinking about doing the same thing. If they settle, Samsung is still the most successful Android-based vendors 2nd in the handset business to Apple, to me, that validates Samsung's shady actions. How much is the precedence worth in a one time pay out? Sometimes beating your opponent so badly that others will think twice before fighting you.

Emphasis on the bolded part.

I don't expect Samsung to write Apple a check for $2.5 B or anything even close to that if the two sides settle.

Rather, Apple is going to want an ironclad agreement from Samsung that they will immediately stop using Apple's IP. That will be combined with a payment that is large enough to not be considered a token payment. While it is unlikely that Samsung will agree to admit guilt in a negotiated settlement, a payment in excess of $100 M would be as good as an admission of guilt in the eyes of most observers.

I expect that a negotiated settlement would involve:

1. Cash payment from Samsung to Apple of $100-500 M.
2. Samsung immediately agrees to stop using questioned Apple technologies and designs in future phones and no longer produce any of the existing designs (they may be allowed to sell those which are already in inventory). This will include changing the design of their charger and cable and their packaging (some of which has already been done).
3. Apple MIGHT agree to grant Samsung a license for some (but not all) of the disputed utility patents, and probably none of the design patents.
4. Samsung drops any claims for royalties on items that have already paid royalties (Qualcomm chips, for example).
5. For any items where royalties have not yet been paid, Apple agrees to pay Samsung the lowest royalty rate of anyone before deducting cross-licensing payments (due to Apple's high volume, this is reasonable).
6. A hefty discount on future purchases of Samsung goods by Apple.

If the two sides are able to come to an agreement, I really believe that it would have to be very similar to that.
"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 #33 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

email deletion after 2 weeks? i suppose they don't have HIPPA, PCI, or Sarbanes-Oxley over there - but still, how do you conduct business when you don't have an email from three weeks ago? 

 

Probably the same way we did before email. Printing it, storing it in a file folder, in a file cabinet. With the computer you can just save individual emails, copy paste the contents of them, etc. If needed. If you need to do anything you don't want a paper trail for, you have a meeting and don't take notes.

 

2 weeks seems like an arbitrary MS Exchange email retention policy to deliberately destroy emails for corporate espionage, or they don't hire competent email administration to separate the storage of their engineer's and CEO's from their customer support.

post #34 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

2 weeks seems like an arbitrary MS Exchange email retention policy to deliberately destroy emails for corporate espionage, or they don't hire competent email administration to separate the storage of their engineer's and CEO's from their customer support.

 

They don't use MS Exchange, or any other "off the shelf" email administration service...  As noted in the article, they use a proprietary Samsung-built system called "mySingle".  The importance of this is that they designed, programmed and implemented their own email server.  This negates any suggestion that they weren't competent to change system-wide settings -- as they built the entire thing themselves.

 

No, this reeks of a constant and ongoing cover-up to me.

post #35 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcode View Post

 

They don't use MS Exchange, or any other "off the shelf" email administration service...  As noted in the article, they use a proprietary Samsung-built system called "mySingle".  The importance of this is that they designed, programmed and implemented their own email server.  This negates any suggestion that they weren't competent to change system-wide settings -- as they built the entire thing themselves.

 

No, this reeks of a constant and ongoing cover-up to me.

 

The system is designed such that any email that supports their case is saved and any email that harms their case is deleted. Quite a remarkable piece of programming really.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #36 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I expect that a negotiated settlement would involve:
1. Cash payment from Samsung to Apple of $100-500 M.
2. Samsung immediately agrees to stop using questioned Apple technologies and designs in future phones and no longer produce any of the existing designs (they may be allowed to sell those which are already in inventory). This will include changing the design of their charger and cable and their packaging (some of which has already been done).
3. Apple MIGHT agree to grant Samsung a license for some (but not all) of the disputed utility patents, and probably none of the design patents.
4. Samsung drops any claims for royalties on items that have already paid royalties (Qualcomm chips, for example).
5. For any items where royalties have not yet been paid, Apple agrees to pay Samsung the lowest royalty rate of anyone before deducting cross-licensing payments (due to Apple's high volume, this is reasonable).
6. A hefty discount on future purchases of Samsung goods by Apple.
If the two sides are able to come to an agreement, I really believe that it would have to be very similar to that.

 

Let's put down the dream pipe.

 

What you said is closer to what Apple would get if Apple wins (excluding 6, that's totally irrelevant)

 

Either way, this thing will be appealed, so this trial so far is just pop-corn material.

post #37 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


He should've said "some" like the F700, the Japanese guy, and now this. I'd rather see a case judged on all the evidence available not with one party handcuffed, but Samsung is mostly to blame here so it's hard to sympathize. The legal team should've had all their ducks in a row and were given ample chance to do so.

 

Samsung knows what they're doing. They're going to lose so they want to have as many possible "reasons" to file an appeal as possible. This way they can avoid paying Apple or changing business practices until the appeal, buying themselves another year to delay the inevitable. Meanwhile, over that year they can further cement their position in the market so when the time comes to pay up it won't matter.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #38 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

email deletion after 2 weeks? i suppose they don't have HIPPA, PCI, or Sarbanes-Oxley over there - but still, how do you conduct business when you don't have an email from three weeks ago? 

Uh... thats the only way they can conduct business, an evidence trail would only get in the way.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

Samsung is really hard to fight.

 

because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.


Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself? Perhaps you mean, "Samsung is in for a hard fight because the judge ...." But then, that would be wrong.

post #40 of 50

If Apple wins, how would its stock be affected? If it loses?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Samsung's 'me too' evidence spoliation filing