Samsung calls decision to share evidence with media 'ethical' and 'lawful'

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In a court-ordered filing on Wednesday, Samsung lawyer John Quinn defended the move to release previously excluded evidence to media outlets on Tuesday, saying the move was both "ethical" and "lawful."

Quinn, a high-powered attorney and managing partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, was dressed down yesterday by Judge Lucy Koh for emails Samsung sent to reporters containing exhibits blocked from consideration by the jury in the company's trial against Apple.

Judge Koh, who is presiding over the case, was made aware of the "leak" by Apple attorneys late Tuesday and ordered Samsung to enter a brief detailing who authorized the email and why. In the party's response, Quinn denies any wrongdoing and claims the action was in response to reporters' requests for information.

The Court has pushed for an open trial, denying on numerous occasions requests to seal deemed-sensitive documents by both Apple and Samsung, and Quinn noted as much in his declaration:
"Far from violating any order, Samsung's transmission to the public of public
information disclosed in pretrial filings is entirely consistent with this Court's statements—made
in denying both parties‟ requests to seal documents—that ?[t]he United States district court is a
public institution, and the workings of litigation must be open to public view. Pretrial
submissions are a part of trial.?


Samsung sent out slides on Tuesday of former Apple designer Shin Nishibori's deposition regarding a Sony-styled iPhone as well as a statement which claimed the excluded exhibit "would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design."

Quinn leverages a number of court statutes as well as lawyers' First Amendment rights to free speech in his defense. He goes on to say the move was not intended to sway jury opinion.

From Quinn's declaration:
"Samsung's brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to press inquiries was not motivated by or designed to influence jurors. The members of the jury had already been selected at the time of the statement and the transmission of these public exhibits, and had been specifically instructed not to read any form of media relating to this case. The information provided therefore was not intended to, nor could it, ?have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.?
Due to the suit's implications, media outlets have been clamoring to dig up as much information as possible regarding the proceedings which began Monday. As a result, the slides along with pages of legal documents, were released to the public.

«13456789

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 176
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    But they didn't decide to share the evidence with the court when they had full opportunity to do so alongside all other legal evidence.


     


    Right.

  • Reply 2 of 176
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member
  • Reply 3 of 176
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,694member


    Weasel.


     


    Again, Sony did not have a product that looked like the iphone prototype at the time. this prototype never did see the light of day either.

     

  • Reply 4 of 176
    cash907cash907 Posts: 893member


    Unless the judge specifically forbade them from making rejected evidence public, it's completely lawful.


     


    Seems to me like Samsung is playing the long game here, and doesn't expect a favorable outcome from this judge. These tactics seem like they are setting up evidence that they were discriminated against, which they can use during the appeal, as well as building up their image in the court of public opinion.

  • Reply 5 of 176
    cash907cash907 Posts: 893member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Samsung and court orders don't quite mix, for some reason.


     


    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/04/25/samsung_in_violation_of_court_order_to_produce_documents_about_apple.html





    There was no court order prohibiting them from doing this.

  • Reply 6 of 176
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,627member


    Judge tells Samsung to exclude something, they make it public.  Way to go Samsung.  That will certainly make your case solid.. *rolls eyes*

  • Reply 7 of 176
    johndoe98johndoe98 Posts: 278member
    Good response. Yesterday I thought the release of the information quite questionable, today Quinn's declaration has convinced me it was entirely fair game.
  • Reply 8 of 176
    johndoe98johndoe98 Posts: 278member
    sflocal wrote: »
    Judge tells Samsung to exclude something, they make it public.  Way to go Samsung.  That will certainly make your case solid.. *rolls eyes*

    Did you even read the declaration? Quinn's point, repeated multiple times, was that the information was already public, so this is a non-issue. Additionally, the judge only told Samsung to exclude it from the jury, not the public. Again, the judge wanted all the trial information to remain public knowledge. Lesson/moral? You reap what you sow.
  • Reply 9 of 176
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    Given that said documents were 'excluded' from the legal proceedings... So Be It.
  • Reply 10 of 176


    I'm on Samsung's side this time.  There's no reason that photo had to be excluded.

  • Reply 11 of 176
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member


    How can documents that were specifically excluded from the trial, be argued to be "part of the trial" simply because they were excluded in the pretrial (which is part of the trial)?  


     


    I mean WTF?  


     


    If that's true then what's the point of the pretrial or including/excluding evidence at all? 


     


    This is all just theatrics intended to position Samsung as an aggrieved party acting morally, but tripped up by the evil machinations of Apple and trampled under the wheels of justice by a biased judge, etc. etc. blah, blah.  I'd rather they just argue the case on the facts. 

  • Reply 12 of 176
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,627member


    Well, the trolls and shills are out in full force here and approving of Scamsung going against a judge's order.



    Just shaking my head in disappointment.

  • Reply 13 of 176
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    daharder wrote: »
    Given that said documents were 'excluded' from the legal proceedings... So Be It.

    "Your Honour, in all fairness you never said that the documents were excluded from the illegal proceedings. And I assure you, there is nothing legal about the way our client has proceeded."
  • Reply 14 of 176
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post


    Unless the judge specifically forbade them from making rejected evidence public, it's completely lawful.


     


    Seems to me like Samsung is playing the long game here, and doesn't expect a favorable outcome from this judge. These tactics seem like they are setting up evidence that they were discriminated against, which they can use during the appeal, as well as building up their image in the court of public opinion.



     


    I don't think you understand how the law works.


     


    I'm going to go with the judge on this one and not some anonymous armchair lawyer on the Internets that assures me this is "lawful." Especially when they give no reasons and no backing arguments to that effect.  

  • Reply 15 of 176
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post





    Did you even read the declaration? Quinn's point, repeated multiple times, was that the information was already public, so this is a non-issue. Additionally, the judge only told Samsung to exclude it from the jury, not the public. Again, the judge wanted all the trial information to remain public knowledge. Lesson/moral? You reap what you sow.


     


    You're exaggerating and confabulating a bit here.  


     


    You say the judge "wanted all the trial information to be public" but that's not the case is it?  The judge only said that she wanted the case to be tried in public.  She didn't in any way say that every single piece of evidence and so forth had to be public.  


     


    By not carefully reading what the judge is saying and not being exact in what you're saying in response, you just muddle things up.  


     


    It's also completely irrelevant whether the information was public already.  Violating a judges order is .... violating a judges order.  It doesn't matter if the order is to come to court in your underwear with cream cheese spread in your hair.  If that's the order then that's the order.  This isn't negotiating with your mum to stay out later, this is a court of law.  The judges power is almost absolute.  

  • Reply 16 of 176
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    sflocal wrote: »
    Well, the trolls and shills are out in full force here and approving of Scamsung going against a judge's order.

    Just shaking my head in disappointment.

    It's impossible to gauge how a jury will vote. All we have is what we know about this case and previous cases. What strikes me as a bad sign for Samsung's tactics are so flippant and devious this early into the case. It's as if they've gone into the case with no confidence in winning so they are trying every underhanded tactic they can think of right out of the gate. It's like when Commodus stabs Maximus in the back before fighting him thinking it would give him an edge. Unfortunately for Samsung Apple wasn't in shackles before the trial. (Only example I could think of ????)
  • Reply 17 of 176


    deleted

  • Reply 18 of 176
    enjournienjourni Posts: 254member


    This is a pretty obvious (and pathetic) attempt by Samsung to try to sidestep the court by appealing to the general public and starting a controversy, hoping the court will cave in to outside pressure.


     


    If the court ordered it excluded, then it's excluded. Samsung might disagree, but then then they should appeal, not do something the court specifically told them not to do.

  • Reply 19 of 176
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,135member


    This lawyer keeps forcing the issue. When the trial starts up again on Friday, I wonder if the judge will sanction him.

  • Reply 20 of 176
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    brucepondo wrote: »
    They have no "evidence." It is misleading and not based in facts, that is why the judge would not allow it.

    The information that Samsung presented doesn't sync up with Apple's well-documented, creative time-line for the iPhone.

    Apple had initial designs for the iPhone in the year 2005, a full year before the Sony Walkman prototype Samsung is holding up as evidence or prior art was made public. Sony never had a phone with that design, much less a year before the first iPhone designs were being worked on.


    TL/DR: Samsung's "evidence" of prior art is a lie.

    That's certainly a reason to not allow it. So far all I've seen is a drawing. Apple had actual prototypes of dozens of models. Is a single 2D drawing evidence of anything when it's void of how it could actually be a real product? I'm trying to not judge on tactics, just the known facts but they are making it very difficult to do that.
Sign In or Register to comment.