Samsung issues rebuttal to Apple's request for sanctions in motion to strike [u]

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
A late Thursday filing in the Apple v. Samsung trial saw Samsung issue a motion to strike an earlier Apple request which asked the Court hand down sanctions against the South Korean company for providing excluded case evidence to the media.

Update: This story has been revised to reflect that Samsung filed a PROPOSED order. Previously the order was presented as a signed judgment.

Samsung is seeking a motion to strike Apple's request which asked the court to give a favorable ruling on the Cupertino company's claim that Samsung infringes on certain iPhone patents.

In the response, Samsung claims Apple was seeking an "unprecedented sanction of outright dismissal of Samsung?s defenses to its design patent claims, in the guise of an alleged "recommendation" about Samsung?s release of information that was already publicly available." It goes on, claiming Apple cited no basis for the sanctions and calls the request "frivolous at every level."

From Samsung's response:
Apple?s request is an affront to the integrity of the jury. Apple proceeds on the groundless assumption that the jury, already instructed by the Court not to read media accounts, will violate the Court?s instructions and do precisely that. As explained in the Quinn declaration, Apple?s premise is factually unfounded and contrary to settled law. Nowhere does Apple even address, let alone refute, these points.
Samsung's lead lawyer, John Quinn, on Tuesday released an email to the press containing demonstrative exhibits which included text of a deposition from former Apple designer Shin Nishibori regarding a "Sony-styled" iPhone. Apple countered that same day, promising a request for sanctions from the Court for what it called "egregious" misconduct.

Box Takedown
Samsung removed the exhibits from online file sharing site Box.com


Sometime during the two parties' arguments, Samsung took down the exhibits it had previously uploaded to Box.com, though the images have already been widely circulated and posted on mainstream media websites.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 110
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member


    So she still hasn't ruled on the original Samsung infraction?  Seems odd. 

  • Reply 2 of 110
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    So she still hasn't ruled on the original Samsung infraction?  Seems odd. 

    Especially since this isn't the first time. Foss says that Samsung has already been sanctioned FOUR times in this trial alone for evidence abuse. Koh has to do something.
    http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/apple-wants-ruling-in-favor-if-its.html

    She has indicated that she won't accept Apple's recommended sanctions and, frankly, I didn't expect her to. Apple's proposal was pretty extreme (possibly intentional). It will be interesting to see what she does. But, in the end, Samsung has seriously botched this trial.
  • Reply 3 of 110

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



     But, in the end, Samsung has seriously botched this trial.


    Just as Samusng said, this would assume the jury has ALREADY violated the Court's instructions making the jury botched anyways. Don't be an iSheep and selectively read what you want to heat. 

  • Reply 4 of 110


    hear

  • Reply 5 of 110
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Especially since this isn't the first time. Foss says that Samsung has already been sanctioned FOUR times in this trial alone for evidence abuse. Koh has to do something.

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/apple-wants-ruling-in-favor-if-its.html

    She has indicated that she won't accept Apple's recommended sanctions and, frankly, I didn't expect her to. Apple's proposal was pretty extreme (possibly intentional). It will be interesting to see what she does. But, in the end, Samsung has seriously botched this trial.


     


    I agree except for the "botched trial" bit.  I agree they might have but I don't think it's certain yet.  


     


    They seem to me to be employing a lot of tactics to get the average idiot to think that it's all some vast conspiracy against them and that Apple are in league with the Tri-Lateral Commission or some such nonsense.  The trouble is that juries are made up of the same sort of ordinary people who tend to believe in that kind of crap so it could easily work.  A judge tends to decide a verdict based on a detailed analysis of the facts.  A jury tends to decide based on which of the defendants is most likeable and which tells the most exciting story.  


     


    Remember OJ Simpson! :-)

  • Reply 6 of 110


    This isn't true. This is the proposed order by Samsung.  The judge has not issued an order as of 8:35PM pacific.

  • Reply 7 of 110


    Because this article is bunk.  The judge hasn't issued an order. The author is mistakenly assuming Samsung's proposed order is the order.

  • Reply 8 of 110
    sennensennen Posts: 1,465member


    Judge Koh is biased against Samsung. Fact.

  • Reply 9 of 110
    diddydiddy Posts: 282member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


    Judge Koh is biased against Samsung. Fact.



     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    Can you cite evidence of this outside of your own opinion.  Calling out Samsung's offences doesn't count.  I'm going to need hard proof backed by legal evidence.  Shouldn't be hard if it is, as you claim, a fact.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 10 of 110


    "Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!  So we don't get to win on the cheap?"


     


    Your captive judge had no choice.  There were absolutely no grounds for sanctions.


     


    John Quinn is schooling the judge and Apple's imbecile lawyers.

     

  • Reply 11 of 110
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by sennen View Post

    Judge Koh is biased against Samsung. Fact.


     


    Either prove it deal with the fact that you've no evidence thereof.

  • Reply 12 of 110

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


    Judge Koh is biased against Samsung. Fact.



     


    You have presented no arguments in favor of your claim that the judge is biased. Fact.

  • Reply 13 of 110
    sennensennen Posts: 1,465member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Either prove it deal with the fact that you've no evidence thereof.



    Oh, ffs TS.

  • Reply 14 of 110
    Wow, judge Koh said that Quinn showed good cause for his actions. Based on all the flak I took in the other thread for saying pretty much the same thing, I guess all the people there probably think that Koh doesn't know the difference between the terms open and public in a legal context... Oh the irony.
  • Reply 15 of 110
    jigjag69 wrote: »
    Just as Samusng said, this would assume the jury has ALREADY violated the Court's instructions making the jury botched anyways. Don't be an iSheep and selectively read what you want to heat. 

    Don't say that around here, you will be scolded.
  • Reply 16 of 110
    dickprinterdickprinter Posts: 1,060member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jigjag69 View Post


    Don't be an iSheep and selectively read what you want to heat. 



     


    Trolling a bit, newbie?


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jigjag69 View Post


    Don't be an iSheep and selectively read what you want to heat


     




     


    What is that, classic Android autocorrect?

  • Reply 17 of 110
    dickprinterdickprinter Posts: 1,060member


    The trolls have awoken....

  • Reply 18 of 110


    Jeez. People. This article is wrong!  Judge Koh did NOT issue this ruling. Argh.

  • Reply 19 of 110
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    farkus wrote: »
    "Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!  So we don't get to win on the cheap?"

    Your captive judge had no choice.  There were absolutely no grounds for sanctions.

    John Quinn is schooling the judge and Apple's imbecile lawyers.

    Really? When Samsung has already received sanctions FOUR TIMES in this trial? Yep, they really schooled the judge.

    johndoe98 wrote: »
    Wow, judge Koh said that Quinn showed good cause for his actions..

    You might want to learn to read.

    The judge said that Samsung has shown good cause for their motion to discard Apple's proposed remedy. There's absolutely nothing in any of Koh's orders (or verbal statements, for that matter) that suggests that Samsung had good cause for releasing the information that they did.
  • Reply 20 of 110
    eric475eric475 Posts: 177member


    Apple never stole anyone's invention, innovation, gui or ui so they should win this slamdunk case.


     


    :P

Sign In or Register to comment.