Steve Jobs' anti-Android sentiments not a factor in patent trial, judge says

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
A U.S. District Court judge on Wednesday approved a request to bar statements regarding Google's Android OS made by late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs from a patent trial case against Samsung.

Apple sought to bar Jobs' anti-Android sentiments from entering the court proceedings and argued that the statements were not relevant to the patent struggle at hand, reports Reuters.

Jobs was famously quoted in his biography as having said Android is a "stolen product" and that he was "willing to go thermonuclear war" against Google's mobile operating system.

Samsung wanted to introduce the statements in court, arguing that the "thermonuclear" quote "speaks to Apple's bias, improper motives and its lack of believe in its own claims in that they are a means to an end, namely the destruction of Android."

The full statement from Walter Isaacson's "Steve Jobs" reads: "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

According to what Jobs told Isaacson, he followed-up his claims by telling former Google CEO Eric Shmidt that "I don't want your money," in regard to a possible settlement. "If you offer me $5 billion, I won't want it. I've got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that's all I want."

Steve Jobs


For its part Apple said the quotes are inadmissible and only serve as a distraction. Judge Koh agreed and said the statements were not germane to the issue on trial.

"I really don't think this is a trial about Steve Jobs," Judge Koh said at Wednesday's hearing.

The day was not a complete loss of Samsung, however, as evidence pertaining to Apple's Chinese operations was deemed eligible for discussion though not in terms of human rights violations. Taxes paid by Samsung in the U.S. can also be discussed but tax avoidance issues regarding the payments are restricted.

Apple first filed suit against Samsung products which allegedly infringed on the "look and feel" of the iPhone and iPad. Most recently the Cupertino-based company won a temporary U.S. injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 as well as an identical sales ban for the Galaxy Nexus, though the latter was ultimately stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The Apple v. Samsung jury trial is set to begin on July 30 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 49
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member


    Hearsay that can't be refuted because the person that was allegedly quoted is dead has no place in a court of law.

  • Reply 2 of 49
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Hearsay that can't be refuted because the person that was allegedly quoted is dead has no place in a court of law.



    But it's was not thrown out because of that.


    It was thrown out because what Steve Jobs said is completely irrelevant to the case.

  • Reply 3 of 49


    ^ Both would be valid reasons. If the first argument didn't work they could have gone with the hearsay argument.


     


    In other words, Samsung had a snowball's chance in hell of getting Jobs statements into court.

  • Reply 4 of 49
    raptoroo7raptoroo7 Posts: 138member


    I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.


     


    What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal.  Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark.  Neither side won, neither side lost per se.  But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control.  Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance.  Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.


     


    Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.


     


    BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me.  I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.

  • Reply 5 of 49
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,225member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post


    I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.


     


    What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal.  Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark.  Neither side won, neither side lost per se.  But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control.  Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance.  Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.


     


    Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.


     


    BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me.  I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.



    Thanks for the laugh.

  • Reply 6 of 49
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    raptoroo7 wrote: »
    I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.

    So what? It's a red herring.

    The case is about whether Samsung violated Apple's design patents. That means that Apple has to prove that Samsung violated that patents and must withstand any challenges to the validity of the patents. Jobs' feelings (or even Apple's mission) are irrelevant. Either the patents were violated or they weren't.
  • Reply 7 of 49
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post


    I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.



    Really? Their sole mission?


    So they have no "mission" to sell iOS devices and computers and software?


     


    Quote:


    Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.



    In case you haven't noticed, Steve Jobs has been dead for 9 months now.

  • Reply 8 of 49
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post


    I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.


     


    What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal.  Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark.  Neither side won, neither side lost per se.  But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control.  Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance.  Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.


     


    Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.


     


    BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me.  I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.



     


    I guess you missed the part, the glaringly obvious part where Steve Jobs was not particularly against Android, per se but was against the parts of Android he felt were stolen.


     


    If Google had of developed Android in a unique and original way, Job's would have had no need for the "thermonuclear" sentiments.


     


    I'll give you two cents on the dollar, to rid your conscience of the burden of owning Apple products.

  • Reply 9 of 49
    mac.worldmac.world Posts: 340member
    Interesting that the head of a companies public statements about annhialating a competitor by any means has no bearing on a case in which Apple is using patents to destroy the competition? Interesting decision by Judge Koh. Seems as though she is doing everything possible to favor Apple.
  • Reply 10 of 49
    mac.worldmac.world Posts: 340member
    hill60 wrote: »
    I guess you missed the part, the glaringly obvious part where Steve Jobs was not particularly against Android, per se but was against the parts of Android he felt were stolen.

    If Google had of developed Android in a unique and original way, Job's would have had no need for the "thermonuclear" sentiments.
    Hmmmm. So when Apple steals ideas like wireless syncing, notification bar, notification center, mobile tabbed browsing, the split keyboard, opening apps from the lockscreen, and ota OS updates, they are unique and original stolen ideas?

    I love the hypocritical thinking of the Apple fanbase.
  • Reply 11 of 49
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    That's an interesting set of arguments.

    raptoroo7 wrote: »
    I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.
    At (absolute) best that is a serious dose of hyperbole. If Apple, or any other similar company for that matter, has a sole mission, it is to design and sell products and thus make money. Simply destroying Android, even if that were possible, does not achieve that basic mission.

    What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal.
    So you see bias. Based on what evidence? That her opinion differs from yours?

    Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark.  Neither side won, neither side lost per se.  But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control.
    Are you saying that his ruling against Apple was correct and based on his opinion that there should be no software patents, even though the law permits them?

    Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance.  Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.
    Falling behind in what sense? Which dominance are they losing? If they can't compete, how come they continue to generate by far the highest profits?

    Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.
    So now she should be removed because you disagree with her?

    BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me.  I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.
    Presumably, since they are falling behind so badly, you will be ditching your Apple products in favor of superior Android technology?
  • Reply 12 of 49

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post



    Interesting that the head of a companies public statements about annhialating a competitor by any means has no bearing on a case in which Apple is using patents to destroy the competition? Interesting decision by Judge Koh. Seems as though she is doing everything possible to favor Apple.


     


    Statements he made in private to a biographer. Can you find a single source where Jobs made such a comment in an official capacity while at Apple? Can you find me some official press release by Apple where they stated the same thing?


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post





    Hmmmm. So when Apple steals ideas like wireless syncing, notification bar, notification center, mobile tabbed browsing, the split keyboard, opening apps from the lockscreen, and ota OS updates, they are unique and original stolen ideas?

    I love the hypocritical thinking of the Apple fanbase.


     


    Those things were all in other software before Android and iOS, so technically they both stole from third parties. Or do you actually believe that Android invented them all?

  • Reply 13 of 49
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    mac.world wrote: »
    hill60 wrote: »
    I guess you missed the part, the glaringly obvious part where Steve Jobs was not particularly against Android, per se but was against the parts of Android he felt were stolen.

    If Google had of developed Android in a unique and original way, Job's would have had no need for the "thermonuclear" sentiments.
    Hmmmm. So when Apple steals ideas like wireless syncing, notification bar, notification center, mobile tabbed browsing, the split keyboard, opening apps from the lockscreen, and ota OS updates, they are unique and original stolen ideas?

    I love the hypocritical thinking of the Apple fanbase.

    As has been pointed out many times, if Apple steals IP then they are subject to the same process as any other company, and have been sued many times with varying levels of success. If they are not being challenged over other technology or implementations such as the examples that you quote, do you think that is out of corporate sympathy? Maybe the other companies turning the other cheek and taking the moral high ground? What's your thinking on that?
  • Reply 14 of 49
    mac.worldmac.world Posts: 340member
    muppetry wrote: »
    As has been pointed out many times, if Apple steals IP then they are subject to the same process as any other company, and have been sued many times with varying levels of success. If they are not being challenged over other technology or implementations such as the examples that you quote, do you think that is out of corporate sympathy? Maybe the other companies turning the other cheek and taking the moral high ground? What's your thinking on that?
    Might have something to do with the patents still pending from the uspto. The notification center being a huge one. Apple is in for a world of hurt when that one gets approved, likely next year based on the 4-5 years it takes the uspto to approve patents.
  • Reply 15 of 49
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    mac.world wrote: »
    muppetry wrote: »
    As has been pointed out many times, if Apple steals IP then they are subject to the same process as any other company, and have been sued many times with varying levels of success. If they are not being challenged over other technology or implementations such as the examples that you quote, do you think that is out of corporate sympathy? Maybe the other companies turning the other cheek and taking the moral high ground? What's your thinking on that?
    Might have something to do with the patents still pending from the uspto. The notification center being a huge one. Apple is in for a world of hurt when that one gets approved, likely next year based on the 4-5 years it takes the uspto to approve patents.

    Maybe, but more likely, if that patent is granted and if Apple is found to infringe, they will trade one of their own "world of hurt" patents off against that one and no one loses. Seems to be mostly how it works, and why these companies are so agressive in their pursuit of patent acquisition and enforcement.
  • Reply 16 of 49
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post





    Might have something to do with the patents still pending from the uspto. The notification center being a huge one. Apple is in for a world of hurt when that one gets approved, likely next year based on the 4-5 years it takes the uspto to approve patents.


     


    Is that because Apple took it from the Newton and OSX?


     


    I was using the "notification centre" Apple had on iPhones in 2007 a couple of minutes ago, when I sent an email while on a phone call, a zero length swipe on the green notification across the top of my screen, took me back to the in call menu so I could switch off speakerphone and return to the call.


     


    What do you think about the scrolling patents Apple was just awarded, seeing as how you brought up "world of hurt"?


     


    All Apple has to do when using anything from Android is give acknowledgement in the open source license agreements in the legal information part of their phones.


     


    Like Google does with Chrome and Android, where they acknowledge Apple's open source contributions.

  • Reply 17 of 49


    Patenting appearance is such a difficult thing. Cars mostly look the same. Some are big and some are small. They all have doors, tires, windows, and windshield wipers. Where were the patent wars back in the beginning of the car age?



    So a phone that fits in a pocket and has a similar screen size with curved edges is a copy of another device that also fits into a pocket is a patent infringement? If it were a size for size copy I would say it infringes a patent. If not, then it's just similar.

     

  • Reply 18 of 49

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post


    Patenting appearance is such a difficult thing. Cars mostly look the same. Some are big and some are small. They all have doors, tires, windows, and windshield wipers. Where were the patent wars back in the beginning of the car age?



    So a phone that fits in a pocket and has a similar screen size with curved edges is a copy of another device that also fits into a pocket is a patent infringement? If it were a size for size copy I would say it infringes a patent. If not, then it's just similar.

     



    Because you lack a discriminating eye doesn't mean the rest of the world does as well. Cars have always looked different and uniquely designed to me and millions of others. And yes. There were patent trials through most, if not all f the last century... whether you are ignorant of them or not.

  • Reply 19 of 49

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


    Because you lack a discriminating eye doesn't mean the rest of the world does as well. Cars have always looked different and uniquely designed to me and millions of others. And yes. There were patent trials through most, if not all f the last century... whether you are ignorant of them or not.





    I have a very discriminating eye. My first subscription to Hot Rod Magazine began in the late sixties. Way back when I was a gear head I could tell the differences between model years and option packages of just about every American car. I was a car salesman in the 2000s.


     


    Similar doesn't mean copy. That is the problem with design patents. Looks don't always go hand in hand with functionality, especially with electronics.

  • Reply 20 of 49

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post


    I disagree and do see it as relevant to the case.  Apple's sole mission is to destroy Android and frankly any competing OS that stands in their way.  Jobs was quoted and his disdain towards Android, Google and their OEM's was well known and documented.


     


    What I am starting to see is a bias by Judge Koh, and future grounds for appeal.  Judge Posner's dismissal of the Motorola vs Apple case was on the mark.  Neither side won, neither side lost per se.  But he is 100% right in the fact that software patents (and by extension the USPTO) and horribly flawed and out of control.  Regardless of Apples cash flow and their war chest they are starting to fall behind and losing their dominance.  Fact is they simply cannot compete with the sheer multitude of Android devices on the market.


     


    Bottom line, this case is far from over, its going to be appealed and clearly Judge Koh should be removed due to her bias.


     


    BTW, I own a significant amount of Apple products so no need to plant the Android Fanboy card against me.  I see this as a tech and legal issue and nothing more.



     


    You just earned that card, buddy. Congratulations. You will receive your Android Fanboy card directly from Google's fulfillment center within 6-8 weeks.

Sign In or Register to comment.