doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it is what a jury decides and sometimes you get a bad jury that might view things with a bias regardless of the evidence.
So so so true! I've done Jury Duty, honestly I lost some confidence in the human race, Its amazing how obvious something can be & people have such different perception of the same thing.
Basically toss a coin, a Jury or your peers doesn't mean much to me, i wont tell my lawyer friends this tho
Only the latest 4S and the new iPad use UTMS licensed Qualcomm baseband chips. Whether or not "patent exhaustion" can be claimed with the Qualcomm chips is a different story. Previous iPhones and iPads used Intel and Infineon baseband chips that did not carry licensing costs. A Dutch court has already ruled on this and found Apple to be guilty of infringement, and must pay an undisclosed amount.
The idea that it is the 'licensing cost' that Apple is balking about is the actual red herring in the room. Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking" since they allegedly 'deceived' the ETSI standards-setting group. Interestingly, Apple seems to be standing alone in this allegation of 'deception'...how convenient.
So tell us about the agreements Infineon and Intel have with Samsung re UMTS patents?
Are they unlicensed chips?
btw Apple was found not to infringe this patent by a German court and found only to be partly infringing in the Netherlands.
They were not infringing two other Samsung UMTS patents and one Samsung patent was ruled invalid.
Only the latest 4S and the new iPad use UTMS licensed Qualcomm baseband chips. Whether or not "patent exhaustion" can be claimed with the Qualcomm chips is a different story. Previous iPhones and iPads used Intel and Infineon baseband chips that did not carry licensing costs. A Dutch court has already ruled on this and found Apple to be guilty of infringement, and must pay an undisclosed amount.
The idea that it is the 'licensing cost' that Apple is balking about is the actual red herring in the room. Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking" since they allegedly 'deceived' the ETSI standards-setting group. Interestingly, Apple seems to be standing alone in this allegation of 'deception'...how convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Please...every company of Samsung's size has a laundry list of 'scandals', including Apple.
Apparently a Dutch court did not believe Apple's 'deception' story as well, since they have been found guilty of infringement and ordered to pay an undisclosed sum to Samsung.
Just give it up already. How many times are you going to repeat the same things over and take things out of context?
Apple has never, ever said that Samsung's IP is "free for the taking". You are outright lying by making such a statement. What they are saying is a couple of specific patents should not be included because of how Samsung "declared" them. This represents a fraction of the sum total of Samsung's patents regarding telecommunications. You are taking Apple's position on a few patents and trying to imply Apple treats all Samsung IP the same way. This just isn't true.
Apple has nowhere near the number of scandals as Samsung. How many Apple CEO's went to prison? How many times has Apple been ordered to pay fines in the hundreds of millions for price fixing (Samsung has 3 I can remember off the top of my head)? How many Apple employees have been in the news recently for bribery? Which Apple employee leaked inside information to a hedge fund about upcoming products? Go on, name any "scandal" or "conviction" you can come up with for Apple.
As for the Dutch ruling, you left out several key parts. Like the fact that Samsung will have to license to Apple on FRAND terms. Or the fact that Samsung failed to get a sales ban (even though they tried). Or the fact Samsung failed on the other 3 patents in the same case and has to pay Apple 800,000 Euros in court costs relating to the failed patents. Some even say Apple's licensing costs might not even be enough to cover those 800,000 Euros Samsung now owes them.
I wonder why you keep leaving out so many important details all the time? Perhaps you'd care to explain?
So tell us about the agreements Infineon and Intel have with Samsung re UMTS patents?
Are they unlicensed chips?
According to ComputerWorld...
Originally Posted by ComputerWorld
The court ruled that Apple infringes on Samsung's UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) patent by using Intel and Infineon baseband chips in the iPhone 3G, 3GS and 4 and the iPad 1 and 2. By using these chips without paying a license fee, Apple has caused harm to Samsung since August 2010, the court said in the verdict.
The verdict does not include the iPhone 4S and the new iPad because they use Qualcomm baseband chips.
If Apple isn't disagreeing with having to pay licensing costs for UTMS technology, why is section VII of their US trial brief titled "SAMSUNG’S STANDARD-SETTING DECEIT RESULTS IN WAIVER OF ITS RIGHTS TO ASSERT THE PATENTS AGAINST APPLE"?
Apple has stated of how they see the FRAND value of SEP of Samsung. Both parties have admitted that offers have been made, and denied on both sides. How far back those talks and offers have gone (thats not known, certainly be my).
As for the court filings, when it comes to court time, both parties of any case typically play hard ball. Apple (in this case since we are referencing their filing) will argue for paying nothing, for everything, and will ask for prices generally higher then what juries or courts would offer.
But that doesn't mean offers have never been made, or that the amounts offered here are the highest level ever offered.
For example on my earlier post I try to make clear that the real issue is finding the "Truth" between both parties feelings on issues.
"Apple infringes on Samsung's EP1188269 patent that describes an "apparatus for encoding a transport format combination indicator for a communication system," according to the court in The Hague. The court also noted that the regional court in Mannheim, Germany, ruled in March this year that Apple does not infringe on the same patent."
Seems pretty subjective, they infringe in the Netherlands but not in Germany, I wonder what would happen if your iPhone straddled the border, would it explode at the half infringement?
Just give it up already. How many times are you going to repeat the same things over and take things out of context?
Apple has never, ever said that Samsung's IP is "free for the taking". You are outright lying by making such a statement. What they are saying is a couple of specific patents should not be included because of how Samsung "declared" them. This represents a fraction of the sum total of Samsung's patents regarding telecommunications. You are taking Apple's position on a few patents and trying to imply Apple treats all Samsung IP the same way. This just isn't true.
Apple has nowhere near the number of scandals as Samsung. How many Apple CEO's went to prison? How many times has Apple been ordered to pay fines in the hundreds of millions for price fixing (Samsung has 3 I can remember off the top of my head)? How many Apple employees have been in the news recently for bribery? Which Apple employee leaked inside information to a hedge fund about upcoming products? Go on, name any "scandal" or "conviction" you can come up with for Apple.
As for the Dutch ruling, you left out several key parts. Like the fact that Samsung will have to license to Apple on FRAND terms. Or the fact that Samsung failed to get a sales ban (even though they tried). Or the fact Samsung failed on the other 3 patents in the same case and has to pay Apple 800,000 Euros in court costs relating to the failed patents. Some even say Apple's licensing costs might not even be enough to cover those 800,000 Euros Samsung now owes them.
I wonder why you keep leaving out so many important details all the time? Perhaps you'd care to explain?
You left out the one covered by this thread. Samsung was sternly told by the last judge that US law requires them to retain evidence when a lawsuit was pending. They failed to do so - even after a very clear order.
Considering Samsung Electronics Co exchanges on the Korean Exchange, how would the SEC even have oversight?
I'm not sure, but I believe that since depository receipts are traded in the US that the SEC can get involved. In any event, it's irrelevant - this is not an SEC matter. It's a trial court matter (see below).
There are still a lot of grey areas still in the way that the implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley works for foreign firms -- even those listed -- in the US. Not everything applies (for example, Samsung doesn't even bother with any detailed segment reporting like many US firms do).
Also, I am not sure if it's the DoJ that would have oversight here, as opposed to the SEC.
As I pointed out previously, this is not a Sarbox issue.
The issue is that Samsung was ordered that in the US, legal standards require retention of evidence when a lawsuit is imminent. They failed to do so - even after getting chastised by a court not too long ago. It's not a securities (SEC) case, it's a trial matter (which is why it's being handled at the trial court level). In principle, sanctions could be ordered against Samsung, but a more common response is what happened here - the jury is instructed that Samsung destroyed evidence and the jury is free to consider that as proof of guilt.
Apple has never, ever said that Samsung's IP is "free for the taking". You are outright lying by making such a statement. What they are saying is a couple of specific patents should not be included because of how Samsung "declared" them. This represents a fraction of the sum total of Samsung's patents regarding telecommunications. You are taking Apple's position on a few patents and trying to imply Apple treats all Samsung IP the same way. This just isn't true.
When Apple states that they should not pay for IP that everyone else pays for, have been ruled against in other courts, and make outrageous claims to justify (Samsung deceiving ETSI), how is this not the same as claiming "free for the taking"?
Also, I never said Apple treats ALL Samsung IP the same way. You are putting words in my mouth, exaggerating my comments, and throwing out a straw man.
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Apple has nowhere near the number of scandals as Samsung. How many Apple CEO's went to prison? How many times has Apple been ordered to pay fines in the hundreds of millions for price fixing (Samsung has 3 I can remember off the top of my head)? How many Apple employees have been in the news recently for bribery? Which Apple employee leaked inside information to a hedge fund about upcoming products? Go on, name any "scandal" or "conviction" you can come up with for Apple.
Fair enough, I would agree that Samsung has more 'scandals' than does Apple, but I think this can be attributed more to a difference in regulation than some 'company moral compass'. In many other countries, these 'shady practices' are common. Walmart realized this when they expanded into Mexico and found multiple instances of bribery as this is commonplace in the country. Same can be said for South Korea as they have a much more 'laissez faire' attitude towards business.
However, Apple is not perfectly clean. They have recently been fined for misleading advertising in Australia and fined in Italy for consumer guarantee issues. Don't forget the looming e-book price fixing DoJ investigation as well.
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
As for the Dutch ruling, you left out several key parts. Like the fact that Samsung will have to license to Apple on FRAND terms. Or the fact that Samsung failed to get a sales ban (even though they tried). Or the fact Samsung failed on the other 3 patents in the same case and has to pay Apple 800,000 Euros in court costs relating to the failed patents. Some even say Apple's licensing costs might not even be enough to cover those 800,000 Euros Samsung now owes them.
First, these were 3 seperate cases, not 1 ruling. Samsung must pay Apple for the 2 lost cases, but Apple must pay for the 1 case that they lost as well. The net result of this is not 800k Euros as you suggest. As to how much the penalty will be for patent infringement, this is undecided, so how can you possibly figure the outcome?
Even if a sales ban was not granted, how does this change the fact that Apple infringed on Samsung's patent?
Are you sure about Apple needed to cover court cost in the Dutch case. I freely admit I am not up on the various differences in Europe, but I thought if you were the party brought to trial, that you didn't have to also cover cost. Again I freely admit to not knowing.
Are you sure about Apple needed to cover court cost in the Dutch case. I freely admit I am not up on the various differences in Europe, but I thought if you were the party brought to trial, that you didn't have to also cover cost. Again I freely admit to not knowing.
I think you may be correct. The first case where infringement was found may be a wash.
"Because both Apple and Samsung in this way won part of the lawsuit, they both had to pay their own litigation costs, the court ruled. Both parties agreed that the winner had to pay for all the litigation costs."
Aren't there American laws requiring the retention of emails for 7 years?
Not in the least. Content of a document determines which regulatory requirements apply to it how long it is retained, not media. No more than you would make a law saying you must keep "paper" for seven years.
Responding appropriately to a preservation order is another matter though. Typically a company of this size ordering a preservation would do some kind of crawl based on a key terms pertinent to pending litigation and isolate responsive documents until the criteria are more clearly defined in conference with opposing counsel. And it seem like Samsung was negligent in that regard.
Two weeks is on the shorter side for automated email management systems, but not unheard of. A month is more typical for short term storage, but that is for user business operation need rather than from any regulatory driver.
According to Samsung's trial brief, the picture looks completely different when it isn't Apple 'cherry-picking' the phones to compare.
Also, a list of their design prototypes in 2006...
Incredibly disingenuous.
Note that the ones pre-2006 that look similar to the iPhone are listed as prototypes. The ones after 2006 are commercial products. So one can conclude from Samsung's own chart that before 2006, they didn't sell anything that looked like the iPhone and after 2006, they did.
Note that the ones pre-2006 that look similar to the iPhone are listed as prototypes. The ones after 2006 are commercial products. So one can conclude from Samsung's own chart that before 2006, they didn't sell anything that looked like the iPhone and after 2006, they did.
It's reported that the FC700, supposedly one of those Samsung 2006 "prototype" images, made it to market before the iPhone. Personally I don't have any doubt that Samsumg was exploring cleaner, simpler smartphone designs prior to the iPhone's release. That's pretty obvious from the second set of images. It still doesn't change the fact that at least the older Galaxy S series of phones strayed a bit too close to Apple's design patent IMO. Of course that might not matter legally if the design patent isn't held to be valid anyway which is one of the aims of Samsung's defense.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it is what a jury decides and sometimes you get a bad jury that might view things with a bias regardless of the evidence.
So so so true! I've done Jury Duty, honestly I lost some confidence in the human race, Its amazing how obvious something can be & people have such different perception of the same thing.
Basically toss a coin, a Jury or your peers doesn't mean much to me, i wont tell my lawyer friends this tho
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Only the latest 4S and the new iPad use UTMS licensed Qualcomm baseband chips. Whether or not "patent exhaustion" can be claimed with the Qualcomm chips is a different story. Previous iPhones and iPads used Intel and Infineon baseband chips that did not carry licensing costs. A Dutch court has already ruled on this and found Apple to be guilty of infringement, and must pay an undisclosed amount.
The idea that it is the 'licensing cost' that Apple is balking about is the actual red herring in the room. Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking" since they allegedly 'deceived' the ETSI standards-setting group. Interestingly, Apple seems to be standing alone in this allegation of 'deception'...how convenient.
So tell us about the agreements Infineon and Intel have with Samsung re UMTS patents?
Are they unlicensed chips?
btw Apple was found not to infringe this patent by a German court and found only to be partly infringing in the Netherlands.
They were not infringing two other Samsung UMTS patents and one Samsung patent was ruled invalid.
Samsung had to pay €800,000 in costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Only the latest 4S and the new iPad use UTMS licensed Qualcomm baseband chips. Whether or not "patent exhaustion" can be claimed with the Qualcomm chips is a different story. Previous iPhones and iPads used Intel and Infineon baseband chips that did not carry licensing costs. A Dutch court has already ruled on this and found Apple to be guilty of infringement, and must pay an undisclosed amount.
The idea that it is the 'licensing cost' that Apple is balking about is the actual red herring in the room. Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking" since they allegedly 'deceived' the ETSI standards-setting group. Interestingly, Apple seems to be standing alone in this allegation of 'deception'...how convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Please...every company of Samsung's size has a laundry list of 'scandals', including Apple.
Apparently a Dutch court did not believe Apple's 'deception' story as well, since they have been found guilty of infringement and ordered to pay an undisclosed sum to Samsung.
Just give it up already. How many times are you going to repeat the same things over and take things out of context?
Apple has never, ever said that Samsung's IP is "free for the taking". You are outright lying by making such a statement. What they are saying is a couple of specific patents should not be included because of how Samsung "declared" them. This represents a fraction of the sum total of Samsung's patents regarding telecommunications. You are taking Apple's position on a few patents and trying to imply Apple treats all Samsung IP the same way. This just isn't true.
Apple has nowhere near the number of scandals as Samsung. How many Apple CEO's went to prison? How many times has Apple been ordered to pay fines in the hundreds of millions for price fixing (Samsung has 3 I can remember off the top of my head)? How many Apple employees have been in the news recently for bribery? Which Apple employee leaked inside information to a hedge fund about upcoming products? Go on, name any "scandal" or "conviction" you can come up with for Apple.
As for the Dutch ruling, you left out several key parts. Like the fact that Samsung will have to license to Apple on FRAND terms. Or the fact that Samsung failed to get a sales ban (even though they tried). Or the fact Samsung failed on the other 3 patents in the same case and has to pay Apple 800,000 Euros in court costs relating to the failed patents. Some even say Apple's licensing costs might not even be enough to cover those 800,000 Euros Samsung now owes them.
I wonder why you keep leaving out so many important details all the time? Perhaps you'd care to explain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So tell us about the agreements Infineon and Intel have with Samsung re UMTS patents?
Are they unlicensed chips?
According to ComputerWorld...
Originally Posted by ComputerWorld
The court ruled that Apple infringes on Samsung's UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) patent by using Intel and Infineon baseband chips in the iPhone 3G, 3GS and 4 and the iPad 1 and 2. By using these chips without paying a license fee, Apple has caused harm to Samsung since August 2010, the court said in the verdict.
The verdict does not include the iPhone 4S and the new iPad because they use Qualcomm baseband chips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
If Apple isn't disagreeing with having to pay licensing costs for UTMS technology, why is section VII of their US trial brief titled "SAMSUNG’S STANDARD-SETTING DECEIT RESULTS IN WAIVER OF ITS RIGHTS TO ASSERT THE PATENTS AGAINST APPLE"?
Apple has stated of how they see the FRAND value of SEP of Samsung. Both parties have admitted that offers have been made, and denied on both sides. How far back those talks and offers have gone (thats not known, certainly be my).
As for the court filings, when it comes to court time, both parties of any case typically play hard ball. Apple (in this case since we are referencing their filing) will argue for paying nothing, for everything, and will ask for prices generally higher then what juries or courts would offer.
But that doesn't mean offers have never been made, or that the amounts offered here are the highest level ever offered.
For example on my earlier post I try to make clear that the real issue is finding the "Truth" between both parties feelings on issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
According to ComputerWorld...
"Apple infringes on Samsung's EP1188269 patent that describes an "apparatus for encoding a transport format combination indicator for a communication system," according to the court in The Hague. The court also noted that the regional court in Mannheim, Germany, ruled in March this year that Apple does not infringe on the same patent."
Seems pretty subjective, they infringe in the Netherlands but not in Germany, I wonder what would happen if your iPhone straddled the border, would it explode at the half infringement?
You left out the one covered by this thread. Samsung was sternly told by the last judge that US law requires them to retain evidence when a lawsuit was pending. They failed to do so - even after a very clear order.
I'm not sure, but I believe that since depository receipts are traded in the US that the SEC can get involved. In any event, it's irrelevant - this is not an SEC matter. It's a trial court matter (see below).
As I pointed out previously, this is not a Sarbox issue.
The issue is that Samsung was ordered that in the US, legal standards require retention of evidence when a lawsuit is imminent. They failed to do so - even after getting chastised by a court not too long ago. It's not a securities (SEC) case, it's a trial matter (which is why it's being handled at the trial court level). In principle, sanctions could be ordered against Samsung, but a more common response is what happened here - the jury is instructed that Samsung destroyed evidence and the jury is free to consider that as proof of guilt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Apple has never, ever said that Samsung's IP is "free for the taking". You are outright lying by making such a statement. What they are saying is a couple of specific patents should not be included because of how Samsung "declared" them. This represents a fraction of the sum total of Samsung's patents regarding telecommunications. You are taking Apple's position on a few patents and trying to imply Apple treats all Samsung IP the same way. This just isn't true.
When Apple states that they should not pay for IP that everyone else pays for, have been ruled against in other courts, and make outrageous claims to justify (Samsung deceiving ETSI), how is this not the same as claiming "free for the taking"?
Also, I never said Apple treats ALL Samsung IP the same way. You are putting words in my mouth, exaggerating my comments, and throwing out a straw man.
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Apple has nowhere near the number of scandals as Samsung. How many Apple CEO's went to prison? How many times has Apple been ordered to pay fines in the hundreds of millions for price fixing (Samsung has 3 I can remember off the top of my head)? How many Apple employees have been in the news recently for bribery? Which Apple employee leaked inside information to a hedge fund about upcoming products? Go on, name any "scandal" or "conviction" you can come up with for Apple.
Fair enough, I would agree that Samsung has more 'scandals' than does Apple, but I think this can be attributed more to a difference in regulation than some 'company moral compass'. In many other countries, these 'shady practices' are common. Walmart realized this when they expanded into Mexico and found multiple instances of bribery as this is commonplace in the country. Same can be said for South Korea as they have a much more 'laissez faire' attitude towards business.
However, Apple is not perfectly clean. They have recently been fined for misleading advertising in Australia and fined in Italy for consumer guarantee issues. Don't forget the looming e-book price fixing DoJ investigation as well.
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
As for the Dutch ruling, you left out several key parts. Like the fact that Samsung will have to license to Apple on FRAND terms. Or the fact that Samsung failed to get a sales ban (even though they tried). Or the fact Samsung failed on the other 3 patents in the same case and has to pay Apple 800,000 Euros in court costs relating to the failed patents. Some even say Apple's licensing costs might not even be enough to cover those 800,000 Euros Samsung now owes them.
First, these were 3 seperate cases, not 1 ruling. Samsung must pay Apple for the 2 lost cases, but Apple must pay for the 1 case that they lost as well. The net result of this is not 800k Euros as you suggest. As to how much the penalty will be for patent infringement, this is undecided, so how can you possibly figure the outcome?
Even if a sales ban was not granted, how does this change the fact that Apple infringed on Samsung's patent?
Are you sure about Apple needed to cover court cost in the Dutch case. I freely admit I am not up on the various differences in Europe, but I thought if you were the party brought to trial, that you didn't have to also cover cost. Again I freely admit to not knowing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mswood
Are you sure about Apple needed to cover court cost in the Dutch case. I freely admit I am not up on the various differences in Europe, but I thought if you were the party brought to trial, that you didn't have to also cover cost. Again I freely admit to not knowing.
I think you may be correct. The first case where infringement was found may be a wash.
"Because both Apple and Samsung in this way won part of the lawsuit, they both had to pay their own litigation costs, the court ruled. Both parties agreed that the winner had to pay for all the litigation costs."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
There is only ONE THING that matters in any of this. And it's absolutely stunning and glorious in its sheer simplicity:
According to Samsung's trial brief, the picture looks completely different when it isn't Apple 'cherry-picking' the phones to compare.
Also, a list of their design prototypes in 2006...
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Even if a sales ban was not granted, how does this change the fact that Apple infringed on Samsung's patent?
They didn't infringe on the exact same patent in Germany, as was mentioned by the court.
Apple is offering Samsung $0.0049 for each patent in this US case.
Is there any proof that these were made in 2006?
"Spoilation?"
Lawyers are such nebs.
Except "spoilation" is a real word and was used in the correct context and one can't say the same about your use of "nebs."
It’s “spoliation.”I could see someone maybe mistaking this for an iPhone:
But I don't see anyone looking at an iPhone and thinking 'oh that reminds me of an LG Prada'
It's the hardware plus the UI that makes the Samsung Galaxy more of a (bad) clone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Aren't there American laws requiring the retention of emails for 7 years?
Not in the least. Content of a document determines which regulatory requirements apply to it how long it is retained, not media. No more than you would make a law saying you must keep "paper" for seven years.
Responding appropriately to a preservation order is another matter though. Typically a company of this size ordering a preservation would do some kind of crawl based on a key terms pertinent to pending litigation and isolate responsive documents until the criteria are more clearly defined in conference with opposing counsel. And it seem like Samsung was negligent in that regard.
Two weeks is on the shorter side for automated email management systems, but not unheard of. A month is more typical for short term storage, but that is for user business operation need rather than from any regulatory driver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
The phones in that photo remind me of the LG Prada more than the iPhone. Plus I think it's about more than the phone looking like a chocolate bar.
I could see someone maybe mistaking this for an iPhone:
But I don't see anyone looking at an iPhone and thinking 'oh that reminds me of an LG Prada'
It's the hardware plus the UI that makes the Samsung Galaxy more of a (bad) clone.Are you blind?
In a discussion involving one of the iPhone's distinguishing features you trot out a picture that is entirely irrelevant.
Three is greater than one.
Incredibly disingenuous.
Note that the ones pre-2006 that look similar to the iPhone are listed as prototypes. The ones after 2006 are commercial products. So one can conclude from Samsung's own chart that before 2006, they didn't sell anything that looked like the iPhone and after 2006, they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Incredibly disingenuous.
Note that the ones pre-2006 that look similar to the iPhone are listed as prototypes. The ones after 2006 are commercial products. So one can conclude from Samsung's own chart that before 2006, they didn't sell anything that looked like the iPhone and after 2006, they did.
It's reported that the FC700, supposedly one of those Samsung 2006 "prototype" images, made it to market before the iPhone. Personally I don't have any doubt that Samsumg was exploring cleaner, simpler smartphone designs prior to the iPhone's release. That's pretty obvious from the second set of images. It still doesn't change the fact that at least the older Galaxy S series of phones strayed a bit too close to Apple's design patent IMO. Of course that might not matter legally if the design patent isn't held to be valid anyway which is one of the aims of Samsung's defense.
That is e-mail is actually short for evidence-mail.