Judge orders Google to hand over search documents in Samsung patent case
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Google on Thursday was ordered to acquiesce to Apple's request for information
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
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.
[I]Edit: Expanding on my earlier comment..[/i]
Is the quotation mark that close to the question mark"
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.
Oh, boy. Google's reveal could be highly entertaining... in the groaner category.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Not so much a search company, just not a GOOD one.
Edit:-
Derail imminent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
The Goodies.
F*cking classic!
Well at least youtube works great, and it only cost them $1.65 billion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Well at least youtube works great, and it only cost them $1.65 billion.
It does.
That was very innovative of them!
How does one expand on Ok?
When you can't innovate, compensate (those that do)