Judge penalizes Samsung for failing to produce source code in Apple infringement trial

Posted:
in Genius Bar edited January 2014
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."
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 41
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    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.

  • Reply 2 of 41
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    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"???

  • Reply 3 of 41
    desarcdesarc Posts: 642member


    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.

  • Reply 4 of 41
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by desarc View Post

    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. 

  • Reply 5 of 41
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    desarc wrote: »
    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 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.
  • Reply 6 of 41


    I wish I had money to flush down the toilet like Samsung.

  • Reply 7 of 41
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member


    Big friggin surprise. 

  • Reply 8 of 41
    jragosta wrote: »
    In addition, it's unlikely that Apple could learn very much from Samsung about OS development.

    They might learn that Samsung stole from a lot of other companies, too! Wouldn't benefit OS development, but it could affect the case.
  • Reply 9 of 41
    tylerk36tylerk36 Posts: 1,037member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    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!

  • Reply 10 of 41
    waldobushmanwaldobushman Posts: 774member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by desarc View Post


    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.

  • Reply 11 of 41
    stniukstniuk Posts: 90member


    Probably Deleting all the "Property of Apple corp" rem statements as we speak.

  • Reply 12 of 41
    marcusj0015marcusj0015 Posts: 199member


    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. 

  • Reply 13 of 41
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by marcusj0015 View Post

    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. image




    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.

  • Reply 14 of 41
    bigdaddypbigdaddyp Posts: 811member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • Reply 15 of 41
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    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.

    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/
  • Reply 16 of 41
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    bdkennedy wrote: »
    I wish I had money to flush down the toilet like Samsung.

    I wish I had a toilet I could flush Samsung down...
  • Reply 17 of 41
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by desarc View Post


    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.

  • Reply 18 of 41
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post





    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.

  • Reply 19 of 41
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,590member
    Better yet, how about filing criminal charges for evidence tampering and throw some people in jail!
  • Reply 20 of 41
    mac.worldmac.world Posts: 340member
    @FreeRange - Good luck arresting Korean citizens, in Korea.
Sign In or Register to comment.