I'm on Samsung's side this time. There's no reason that photo had to be excluded.
Why would you side with adding false evidence into a trial unless you wanted to confuse the jurors?
They have no "evidence." What they have 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.
Good response. Yesterday I thought the release of the information quite questionable, today Quinn's declaration has convinced me it was entirely fair game.
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.
In a courtroom, the Judge decides on the law. There is a big space between the walls of legislation, binding legal precedent and local Court rules and the Judge is free to go anywhere within them. The actions of Samsung's lawyers might have been designed to pressure the Judge to admit the evidence they wanted but it seems to have had the opposite effect . Ticking off the Judge is seldom a good strategy unless you're building a cause for appeal.
If this evidence was so important, why was it not disclosed according to the schedule laid down by the Court? Perhaps Samsung didn't discover it, which suggests that the preparation has been botched. Or perhaps the lawyers thought that if they presented it on time then Apple could counter it. So they tried for a Perry-Mason moment, and lost.
Samsung just made it easier for Apple to win this case.
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.
Samsung isn't stupid. They know exactly what they're doing. Not sure it will work though as Apple isn't as hated in the general public as the tech forums would have people believe and Samsunf, no matter how hard it tries, doesn't come off as this poor defenseless little company that.s being bullied by the big bad Apple.
... the judge wanted all the trial information to remain public knowledge. Lesson/moral? You reap what you sow.
Quite...and anyone who thought Samsung would go meekly to the gallows or that Apple isn't well prepared for hardball, needs to take notice.
I think Apple got the best they could by giving Lucy Koh a prod and provoking her exasperation at Samsung's expense. In fact in the long run, it's likely Samsung will have to pretty much repeat ad nauseum the same story while Apple attempts to shred their credibility with damning two-faced evidence.
What is immediately obvious?....Samsung is playing to the mob via red-top style banner headlines. Fine, the real business is to be compelling enough to win a legal argument and I've no doubt Apple will throw a few low blows in response.
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.
There are not going to be any favorable from this judge since there is a Jury...
In addition to being misleading and an attempt to sway public opinion, the Samsung release is a direct criticism of the judge. By saying the excluded material proves Samsung's position, they are in effect accusing the judge of making, at best, errors in judgement. I know of no judge that tolerates a litigant's public criticism well.
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.
I think you might be the one guilty of confabulating a bit here. Let's get a few things clear straight away. #1 if the judge said she wanted the case to be tried in public, that automatically implies that the evidence is not protected from the public domain, anyone can request it and be granted access to it. #2 The First Amendment protects free speech, and so if there is no trial information that is protected from public knowledge, there can be nothing wrong in disclosing that information. #3 No one, so far as I can see, violated the judge's order. The judge decreed that the information in question should be shielded from the jury. Quinn made a convincing argument, using legal precedent, to demonstrate leaking this info in no way can influence the jury (unless the jury fails to adhere to its orders, which is not a reasonable assumption according to the law), and therefore the judge's order is not being violated by this disclosure. To suggest that it is, is to twist the decree and to "confabulate" the issue.
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.
I see you aren't a fan of nuance. First off, the general public cannot pressure the court in any way. Second, it was excluded from the jury. Full stop. Why are you engaging in hasty generalizations here? That your idea of civil discourse?
What can we expect from Samsung? This is a company known for various corruption and bribery scandals in Korea. Even it's owner and chairman made a public apology few years ago. Even a lot of Koreans(those who are not economically well to do) are hoping Apple screws Samsung big time. Those people will get what they want. This is America, Justice will prevail.
I think you might be the one guilty of confabulating a bit here. Let's get a few things clear straight away. #1 if the judge said she wanted the case to be tried in public, that automatically implies that the evidence is not protected from the public domain, anyone can request it and be granted access to it. #2 The Fifth Amendment protects free speech, and so if there is no trial information that is protected from public knowledge, there can be nothing wrong in disclosing that information. #3 No one, so far as I can see, violated the judge's order. The judge decreed that the information in question should be shielded from the jury. Quinn made a convincing argument, using legal precedent, to demonstrate leaking this info in no way can influence the jury (unless the jury fails to adhere to its orders, which is not a reasonable assumption according to the law), and therefore the judge's order is not being violated by this disclosure. To suggest that it is, is to twist the decree and to "confabulate" the issue.
Where is my reasoning inaccurate? What facts are not veridical? I'm happy to be proven wrong and to change my perspective. But I'm not seeing much of an argument from many of you, and this response isn't much of one now is it?
Would pissing off the judge help in the appeal process in anyway? I too think he is playing long game, in that it's guaranteed they will appeal if in the even they should lose. No one can doubt that. So what are strategies for appealing?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy
I'm on Samsung's side this time. There's no reason that photo had to be excluded.
Why would you side with adding false evidence into a trial unless you wanted to confuse the jurors?
They have no "evidence." What they have 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Good response. Yesterday I thought the release of the information quite questionable, today Quinn's declaration has convinced me it was entirely fair game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni
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.
Absolutely. You nailed it.
Just like they "think" it's "ethical" and "lawful" to blatantly steal Apple's designs.
Samscum needs to get REAL people who actually are ethical and know the laws.
If this evidence was so important, why was it not disclosed according to the schedule laid down by the Court? Perhaps Samsung didn't discover it, which suggests that the preparation has been botched. Or perhaps the lawyers thought that if they presented it on time then Apple could counter it. So they tried for a Perry-Mason moment, and lost.
Samsung just made it easier for Apple to win this case.
Man, a lawyer using "ethical" and "lawful" to describe their actions and expecting people to believe him..
...what, has hell frozen over?
Quite...and anyone who thought Samsung would go meekly to the gallows or that Apple isn't well prepared for hardball, needs to take notice.
I think Apple got the best they could by giving Lucy Koh a prod and provoking her exasperation at Samsung's expense. In fact in the long run, it's likely Samsung will have to pretty much repeat ad nauseum the same story while Apple attempts to shred their credibility with damning two-faced evidence.
What is immediately obvious?....Samsung is playing to the mob via red-top style banner headlines. Fine, the real business is to be compelling enough to win a legal argument and I've no doubt Apple will throw a few low blows in response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
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.
There are not going to be any favorable from this judge since there is a Jury...
Kick him square in the nuts.
I think you might be the one guilty of confabulating a bit here. Let's get a few things clear straight away. #1 if the judge said she wanted the case to be tried in public, that automatically implies that the evidence is not protected from the public domain, anyone can request it and be granted access to it. #2 The First Amendment protects free speech, and so if there is no trial information that is protected from public knowledge, there can be nothing wrong in disclosing that information. #3 No one, so far as I can see, violated the judge's order. The judge decreed that the information in question should be shielded from the jury. Quinn made a convincing argument, using legal precedent, to demonstrate leaking this info in no way can influence the jury (unless the jury fails to adhere to its orders, which is not a reasonable assumption according to the law), and therefore the judge's order is not being violated by this disclosure. To suggest that it is, is to twist the decree and to "confabulate" the issue.
I see you aren't a fan of nuance. First off, the general public cannot pressure the court in any way. Second, it was excluded from the jury. Full stop. Why are you engaging in hasty generalizations here? That your idea of civil discourse?
I'd like to see this too. Given the lawyer's declaration, I fear it would raise First Amendment issues. That might play well in the appeal courts no?
What can we expect from Samsung? This is a company known for various corruption and bribery scandals in Korea. Even it's owner and chairman made a public apology few years ago. Even a lot of Koreans(those who are not economically well to do) are hoping Apple screws Samsung big time. Those people will get what they want. This is America, Justice will prevail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
I think you might be the one guilty of confabulating a bit here. Let's get a few things clear straight away. #1 if the judge said she wanted the case to be tried in public, that automatically implies that the evidence is not protected from the public domain, anyone can request it and be granted access to it. #2 The Fifth Amendment protects free speech, and so if there is no trial information that is protected from public knowledge, there can be nothing wrong in disclosing that information. #3 No one, so far as I can see, violated the judge's order. The judge decreed that the information in question should be shielded from the jury. Quinn made a convincing argument, using legal precedent, to demonstrate leaking this info in no way can influence the jury (unless the jury fails to adhere to its orders, which is not a reasonable assumption according to the law), and therefore the judge's order is not being violated by this disclosure. To suggest that it is, is to twist the decree and to "confabulate" the issue.
nice try. :-)
Where is my reasoning inaccurate? What facts are not veridical? I'm happy to be proven wrong and to change my perspective. But I'm not seeing much of an argument from many of you, and this response isn't much of one now is it?
To be expected, Apple want's "emergency sanctions". The whole case will look like a circus the next several days IMO.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57484757-37/apple-seeks-emergency-sanctions-against-samsung/
Would pissing off the judge help in the appeal process in anyway? I too think he is playing long game, in that it's guaranteed they will appeal if in the even they should lose. No one can doubt that. So what are strategies for appealing?