Judge orders Google to hand over search documents in Samsung patent case

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Google on Thursday was ordered to acquiesce to Apple's request for information regarding what methods the search giant is using to sift through internal documents related to Android, with the resulting data being part of a second U.S. patent infringement suit against Samsung.

Galaxy Nexus


U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal issued the order compelling Google to reveal how it is selecting documents to furnish as part of the discovery process in the so-called "Galaxy Nexus" patent case, reports Bloomberg.

?The court cannot help but note the irony that Google, a pioneer in searching the Internet, is arguing that it would be unduly burdened by producing a list of how it searched its own files,? Judge Grewal wrote in the order.

Google now has two days in which to provide the requested information, which include search terms used to find documents related to the case, as well as the employees from whom the documents originated. Apple asked for the documents as the Samsung products in suit all use the Android mobile operating system, and information related to the OS is vital to the proceedings.

Previously, Google argued that furnishing the information would be too burdensome, and noted that it was a third party to the ongoing case. Judge Grewal disagreed, saying, "Third party status does not confer a right to obfuscation or obstinacy.?

The suit is Apple's second swing at Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and is separate from the two companies' high profile jury trial which ended in a $1.05 billion verdict. The landmark Apple v. Samsung case is still in post-trial proceedings, the most recent news being a Nov. 12 trial date set by presiding Judge Lucy Koh. The new trial is seeks to recalculate the $450.5 million in damages Judge Koh vacated in March due to uncertainty over the jury's findings regarding 14 Samsung devices.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member


    Google on Thursday was ordered to acquiesce to Apple's request for information


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Previously, Google argued that furnishing the information would be too burdensome...


     


    Google is disinclined to acquiesce to your request.


     


    Means 'no'.


     


    We're too busy being evil.


     


  • Reply 2 of 30
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    Ok

    [I]Edit: Expanding on my earlier comment..[/i]

    Is the quotation mark that close to the question mark"
  • Reply 3 of 30
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 18,888member
    "Obfuscation and obstinacy". Says it all.
  • Reply 4 of 30
    tonyleetonylee Posts: 21member

    Quote:


    The court cannot help but note the irony that Google, a pioneer in searching the Internet, is arguing that it would be unduly burdened by producing a list of how it searched its own files,? Judge Grewal wrote in the order.



    Wow, Google really think they can pull this poor excuse on the court.  They have enough manpower and money to follow the court order.

  • Reply 5 of 30
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,432member


    Oh, boy. Google's reveal could be highly entertaining... in the groaner category.

  • Reply 6 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,808member


    Same Judge Grewal that dinged Apple for their incomplete document search and retrieval by using improper search terms. The guy has quite a bit of experience dealing with these techs and sees thru many of their delay tactics. Good for him.


     


    Having said that I personally expect Apple's demand for additional documentation not previously requested to be denied since Google is not a defendant and Apple prefers it that way, but that's going to be ruled on at some later date.

  • Reply 7 of 30
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 18,888member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Same Judge Grewel that dinged Apple for their incomplete document search and retrieval by using improper search terms. The guy has quite a bit of experience dealing with these techs and sees thru many of their delay tactics. Good for him.


     


    Having said that I personally expect Apple's demand for additional documentation not previously requested to be denied since Google is not a defendant and Apple prefers it that way, but that's going to be ruled on at some later date.



    1) It's Grewal. Not Grewel.


     


    2) Nice to see you've become a legal expert, and can predict how a judge would rule! When/how did that happen?

  • Reply 8 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,808member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    1) It's Grewal. Not Grewel.


     


    2) Nice to see you've become a legal expert, and can predict how a judge would rule! When/how did that happen?



    My opinion? It's been a gradual thing. I'm still working on it. How's your willingness to offer an opinion coming along?


     


    Edit: Thanks for the spell-check too. I missed that one.

  • Reply 9 of 30
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Same Judge Grewel that dinged Apple for their incomplete document search and retrieval by using improper search terms. The guy has quite a bit of experience dealing with these techs and sees thru many of their delay tactics. Good for him.


     


    Having said that I personally expect Apple's demand for additional documentation not previously requested to be denied since Google is not a defendant and Apple prefers it that way, but that's going to be ruled on at some later date.



     


    Google provides the means for SEARCHING for the required information.


     


    Now are you trying to imply that Google is NOT a search company.


     


    Google is part of the method, as such they are responsible for what is found or not found.

  • Reply 10 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,808member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    Google provides the means for SEARCHING for the required information.


     


    Now are you trying to imply that Google is NOT a search company.


     


    Google is part of the method, as such they are responsible for what is found or not found.



    Absolutely. I feel the same and said as much when making my comment about the judge recognizing a delay tactic when he sees one.

  • Reply 11 of 30
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    My opinion? It's been a gradual thing. I'm still working on it.



     


    It still appears to need a little work.


     


    It's seems to be a little off-kilter from where I'm standing.


     


    Maybe it's just the angle.

  • Reply 12 of 30
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    Now are you trying to imply that Google is NOT a search company.



     


    Not so much a search company, just not a GOOD one.


     


    Hehe!


     


    Do you see what I did there?


     


    I made a funny based on their informal corporate motto...

  • Reply 13 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,808member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


     


    It still appears to need a little work.


     


    It's still appears to be a little off-kilter from where I'm standing.


     


    Maybe it's just the angle I'm on.



    That's probably it.

  • Reply 14 of 30
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    That's probably it.



     


    It probably wouldn't be so noticeable if their weren't so many others standing over here as well.


     


    You really should get that looked at.

  • Reply 15 of 30
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


     


    Not so much a search company, just not a GOOD one.


     



     


    image


     


    Edit:-


     


    Derail imminent.

  • Reply 16 of 30
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     



     


    The Goodies.


     


    F*cking classic!

  • Reply 17 of 30
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,972member
    hill60 wrote: »

    Well at least youtube works great, and it only cost them $1.65 billion.
  • Reply 18 of 30
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post



    Well at least youtube works great, and it only cost them $1.65 billion.


     


    It does.


     


    That was very innovative of them!

  • Reply 19 of 30
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,972member
    wovel wrote: »
    Ok

    Edit: Expanding on my earlier comment..

    Is the quotation mark that close to the question mark"

    How does one expand on Ok?
  • Reply 20 of 30
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,972member
    gtr wrote: »
    It does.

    That was very innovative of them!

    When you can't innovate, compensate (those that do)
Sign In or Register to comment.