Judge penalizes Samsung for failing to produce source code in Apple infringement trial
United States District Court Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal has granted Apple its requested Motion for Sanctions, penalizing Samsung for refusing to provide evidence in a timely fashion.
Apple requested the court sanction Samsung in March, arguing that Samsung has repeatedly failed to produce documents and source code ordered by the court, and that theses delays were creating an onerous burden because of the time consuming analysis of Samsung's continually changing Android code made asserting any claims of patent infringement a "moving target."
Two weeks ago, Samsung was found by the same judge to be in violation of a court order requiring the firm to product documents mentioning Apple's products, evidence Apple plans to use to prove that Samsung willfully infringed upon its designs. This resulted in a fine.
Now, Samsung's delay tactics have resulted in an additional and more serious rebuke by Judge Grewal, who ordered that "Samsung's failure to adequately produce source code to Apple violated the court's December 22 Order," as reported by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.
The source code was supposed to document how Samsung had worked around design or technical elements Apple had patented, including the "overscroll bounce" described in U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381.
Instead of producing this evidence, which could be used to help Samsung's case (but could also be used by Apple to prove additional or continued infringement) the company chose instead to keep Apple and the court waiting.
Attorneys for the iPhone maker argued that it was "too late for Apple to make meaningful use of any late produced source code" from Samsung, and petitioned the judge to ban Samsung from "relying on or in any way using the source code it failed to timely produce under the December 22, 2011 order."
Judge Grewal has now subsequently ruled that "Samsung shall be precluded from offering any evidence of its design-around efforts for the '381, '891 and '163 patents, and shall not argue that the design-arounds are in any way distinct from those versions of code produced in accordance with the court's order. Samsung must instead rely solely on the versions of code that were produced on or before December 31, 2011."
Mueller explains, "In other words, Samsung may have to assume liability for continued use of old, possibly infringing code because the new, possibly non-infringing code wasn't shown in time."
Apple requested the court sanction Samsung in March, arguing that Samsung has repeatedly failed to produce documents and source code ordered by the court, and that theses delays were creating an onerous burden because of the time consuming analysis of Samsung's continually changing Android code made asserting any claims of patent infringement a "moving target."
Two weeks ago, Samsung was found by the same judge to be in violation of a court order requiring the firm to product documents mentioning Apple's products, evidence Apple plans to use to prove that Samsung willfully infringed upon its designs. This resulted in a fine.
Now, Samsung's delay tactics have resulted in an additional and more serious rebuke by Judge Grewal, who ordered that "Samsung's failure to adequately produce source code to Apple violated the court's December 22 Order," as reported by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.
The source code was supposed to document how Samsung had worked around design or technical elements Apple had patented, including the "overscroll bounce" described in U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381.
Instead of producing this evidence, which could be used to help Samsung's case (but could also be used by Apple to prove additional or continued infringement) the company chose instead to keep Apple and the court waiting.
Attorneys for the iPhone maker argued that it was "too late for Apple to make meaningful use of any late produced source code" from Samsung, and petitioned the judge to ban Samsung from "relying on or in any way using the source code it failed to timely produce under the December 22, 2011 order."
Judge Grewal has now subsequently ruled that "Samsung shall be precluded from offering any evidence of its design-around efforts for the '381, '891 and '163 patents, and shall not argue that the design-arounds are in any way distinct from those versions of code produced in accordance with the court's order. Samsung must instead rely solely on the versions of code that were produced on or before December 31, 2011."
Mueller explains, "In other words, Samsung may have to assume liability for continued use of old, possibly infringing code because the new, possibly non-infringing code wasn't shown in time."
Comments
Okay, let's think.
What reasons other than "they obviously stole it" could there be for Samsung to have not been able to get this in on time? They had months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Okay, let's think.
What reasons other than "they obviously stole it" could there be for Samsung to have not been able to get this in on time? They had months.
ummm...
"My dog ate it"???
we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc
we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.
Well, if Apple is ever accused of copying someone (instead of the other way around) and they do the same thing Samsung is doing here, your position can be taken into account.
That's not true. Apple has been forced to provide source code to competitors in the past.
Furthermore, there are generally very severe restrictions on the use of the source code and your software engineers can't get access to it. It is restricted to experts and lawyers in most cases.
Besides, Samsung never appealed that order on the basis of confidentiality, so they can't really use that argument. In addition, it's unlikely that Apple could learn very much from Samsung about OS development.
I wish I had money to flush down the toilet like Samsung.
Big friggin surprise.
They might learn that Samsung stole from a lot of other companies, too! Wouldn't benefit OS development, but it could affect the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Okay, let's think.
What reasons other than "they obviously stole it" could there be for Samsung to have not been able to get this in on time? They had months.
Umm.
Because we are Samsung and Apple is mean!
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc
we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.
Of course not. It's called an interlocutory appeal, and allows a party to appeal a ruling of the District court to the Appeals Court to argue that the order should be modified or rescinded. No, courts do not allow delay after delay without sanctions and there are legal remedies for it.
Please no more opinions unless you have a clue.
Probably Deleting all the "Property of Apple corp" rem statements as we speak.
Well, Samsung is a person, according to the law, Throw Samsung in jail for the bullshit and violating the Judge's orders.
If I was the judge, I'd do it to show how ridiculous it is anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusj0015
Well, Samsung is a person, according to the law, Throw Samsung in jail for the bullshit and violating the Judge's orders.
If I was the judge, I'd do it to show how ridiculous it is anyway.
Yep, the entire company. I support this.
Build even bigger buildings with barred windows around each of Samsung's buildings. Handcuff the levers of all of their construction equipment. The televisions are going to resist, so we're gonna have to tazer them. Transport the audio hardware to a Tibetan monastery and force it to take a vow of silence. And then just IMEI-block their phones.
Android is available to anyone and I am sure apple has engineers that coulld pull Samsungs Nonsense layer off a device if the really wanted to. I agree with you that this is not about protecting source code from ip theft IMHO they are doing this to hide their ip theft.
2. The sun was in their eyes?
3. Thought the judge was talking to the OTHER Samsung?
4. Their car broke down?
5. When the deadline was given they thought they were referring to the Seoul timezone?
6. Oh, the judge meant THIS year?
7. It's in their other pair of pants?
8. Sorry. No understand English!
9. Their legal team was too busy designing the S III:
http://www.redmondpie.com/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-is-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/
I wish I had a toilet I could flush Samsung down...
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc
we all know Samsung "borrowed" ideas from Apple, but think of it this way: if a judge ordered Apple to provide it's source code to a competitor, would Apple just hand it over? NO, there would be delay after delay and appeal after appeal until the code wasn't valuable to anyone anymore.
That's not the issue. the issue is does Apple comply with court orders?
By failing to comply Samsung has shown twice now they have no respect for this judge who represents US law.
You're barking up the wrong tree here with your hypothetical which is so meaningless as to be ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp
Android is available to anyone and I am sure apple has engineers that coulld pull Samsungs Nonsense layer off a device if the really wanted to. I agree with you that this is not about protecting source code from ip theft IMHO they are doing this to hide their ip theft.
There are some versions of Android "available to anyone" and then there are other versions protected by "trade secrets", which is what Google claimed when asked to produce Nexus code in one of the Motorola trials.
Doing it without permission would probably come under illegally obtaining evidence.