decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple v. Samsung: Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal References Tribbles in Order Re Sealing ~pj
Friday, February 01 2013 @ 03:27 PM EST

More denials from the magistrate judge in Apple v. Samsung on new requests from the parties to seal documents. More sealing requests, you ask? Does this ever end? Yes, another long list, mostly denied. To the magistrate judge, the Hon. Paul Grewal, it feels like an invasion of Tribbles -- everywhere where he looks, there are more of them:
"What tribbles are to the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk, and Mr. Spock, the parties’ ever-multiplying sealing and redaction requests are to this case, Judge Koh, and the undersigned."
I know. All of a sudden, you like him.

: )

But Apple and Samsung must be groaning. The trouble with Tribbles, of course, is that there's no seeming end to them -- "they are born pregnant" and threaten to consume all the onboard supplies, but Judge Grewal, like Spock, is immune to their effects, so he refuses most of the requests, saying over and over that the parties have failed to show in a particularized way how revealing the materials would be harmful.

But as I read the list I can see how they might be, particularly because the parties are suing each other all over the place, not just in this one courtroom. Having said that, as a member of the public, I'm personally looking forward to reading every last one of them. I find these Tribbles adorably appealing.

His orders:

02/01/2013 - 2222 - ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 600 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 613 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 781 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 782 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 801 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 819 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 857 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 934 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 939 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 965 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 984 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 986 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 987 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 990 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 994 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 996 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 1041 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 1044 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 1047 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 1056 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 1067 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 1074 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 1088 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 2149 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, granting 2141 . (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2013) Modified on 2/1/2013 (ofr, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2013)

02/01/2013 - 2223 - ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENT IN PART by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 2117 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2013) (Entered: 02/01/2013)

As you can see, he lets them seal some documents and some in part and some he'll let them try again if they file a more particularized motion. But here's a few items from the long list that he won't let them seal. Do you think if you were Apple or Samsung, you'd prefer that we in the peanut gallery -- and competitors and their lawyers -- not get to read the following from this excerpted list?
  • Confidential, unredacted version of the Declaration of Christopher E. Price ISO Motion to Strike (“Price Declaration”)

    Samsung’s request on Apple’s behalf to redact portions of the declaration is DENIED. The proposed redactions consist of descriptions of the exhibits supporting Samsung’s motion to strike and Apple’s problematic discovery actions. The content of the redactions does not disclose any confidential or proprietary information. Apple has failed to make a particularized showing how this information would be detrimental if revealed….

  • For the reasons explained below, Samsung’s and Apple’s requests to seal or redact portions of the following exhibits are DENIED.
    • Exhibit 2 is an expert report from Stephen Gray that discusses the invalidity of two of Apple’s patents. The contents include information about the details of the patents, which are publicly available. The proposed redactions consist of references to Mitsubishi’s DiamondTouch26 technology, which also is not confidential. Apple has failed to make a particularized showing of harm that would result if these statements were revealed.

    • Neither Samsung nor Apple filed a supporting declaration to seal Exhibits 3, 4, or 5.

    • Exhibit 11 is an expert report from Andries Van Dam that discusses the invalidity of Apple’s patents. The contents include information about the details of the patents, which are publicly available. The proposed redactions consist primarily of publications describing touchscreen technology that are not confidential.

    • Exhibit 12 is an expert report from Dr. Brian Von Herzen in which he discusses the invalidity of Apple’s patents. The report primarily contains descriptions of patents, which are publicly available documents. The parties’ respective proposed redactions also primarily consist of descriptions of patents or whether inventors copied previous technology. Neither of these types of information are the appropriate subject matter for sealing.

    • Exhibit 13 is a letter between Apple’s and Samsung’s attorneys regarding the expert reports. The letter references the various reports and the patents and publications used in those reports to support the invalidity contentions. This information is not confidential and neither party has made a sufficient particularized showing that harm would result if the letter were disclosed

    • Exhibit 16 contains Samsung’s responses to Apple’s second set of interrogatories. Samsung’s responses consist primarily of denials that Samsung’s products do not infringe Apple’s patents. The exhibit contains content that is neither proprietary nor confidential, and Samsung has failed to make a particularized showing that this information would be detrimental if disclosed.

    • Exhibit 17 consists of a rebuttal expert report from Stephen Gray in which he discusses how Samsung’s products do not infringe Apple’s patents. The report includes information about publicly available features of the devices and publicly available information about the patents at issue. The proposed redactions concern Samsung’s “hold still” feature, which is publicly available on its devices. Samsung has not made a particularized showing that this information would be detrimental if disclosed.

    • Exhibit 18 is a rebuttal expert report from Dr. Brian Von Herzen in which he discusses how Samsung’s products do not infringe Apple’s patents. The report includes information about publicly available features of the devices and publicly available information about the patents at issue. Samsung’s proposed redactions include Apple’s prosecution history and limitations to its touch screen technology, which are not confidential. Apple’s proposed redactions include inventors’ statements about the nature of the patented products. Neither Apple nor Samsung has made a particularized showing that all of the content of their proposed redactions would be harmful if disclosed.

    • Exhibit 19 is a rebuttal expert report from Stephen Gray in which he discusses how Samsung’s products do not infringe Apple’s patents. The report includes information about publicly available features of the devices and publicly available information about the patents at issue. Samsung’s proposed redactions consist of references to the ability of a user to use two fingers to scroll on a touch screen, which is a publicly available feature of the devices. Apple’s proposed redactions consist of statements about patent conception dates. Neither party has provided a particularized showing how this information would be detrimental if disclosed….

  • Exhibit 23 contains excerpts from an expert report from Woodward Yang regarding Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s patents. Samsung offers no supporting declaration for its proposed redactions. Apple seeks to redact information about how many of its components it buys from Samsung; references to its responses regarding what operating systems are available in its products and how much the programs differ; and publicly available features from its devices. Apple has not made a particularized showing of how this information would be detrimental if disclosed….

  • Exhibit 9 is an excerpt from an expert report by Woodward Yang regarding Apple’s infringement of Samsung’s patents. Apple seeks to redact portions describing its use of Samsung components in its devices, information about the operating systems in its devices, and its arguments regarding whether its products infringe. Apple has not made a particularized showing of how this information would be detrimental if disclosed.
I know I'd be interested in reading all these experts telling all the ways Samsung doesn't infringe Apple's patents, including the expert stating that some of them are invalid. And wouldn't everyone like to know exactly what Samsung components Apple uses in its products or what Apple did in discovery that was "problematic"? And I know without asking you that you are interested in details on "information about the operating systems in its devices".

For Apple, this case has been a bit of a worst nightmare, in that the more people learn about the nuts and bolts of the company's business, the less magical it all appears. It's like pulling back the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.

Magistrate judges don't count that as a good reason to seal, of course, but to tell you the truth, I feel for Apple. This lawsuit has been detrimental to its brand in a very big way. Even if they someday collect a billion dollars, which I doubt, things will never be the same.

But then again, Apple initiated this lawsuit, and once you file a lawsuit, the other side does get to rummage through your underwear drawer, and in the US, you are gambling that a judge will let you keep certain materials from the public. In this courtroom, that gamble failed.


  


Apple v. Samsung: Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal References Tribbles in Order Re Sealing ~pj | 129 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
out of the box
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 04:36 AM EST
"I know. All of a sudden, you like him."

Yes, things are changing. Back in 1992 (Oh, is it really that long?!) Bill Clinton became the first cool, yes, and I mean cool, president ever.

See for yourselves.

People who dare to go out of the box without losing dignity tend to be more likeable. Judge Grewal already has my vote.



---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 07:50 AM EST
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 07:51 AM EST
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 07:55 AM EST
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 07:56 AM EST
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A judge who knows tribbles is a great judge indeed
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 07:59 AM EST

That was one OS the best episodes of the original series. As I've been
writing more fiction myself, I've ended up trading message with David
Gerrold one or twice. Man has a wicked sense of humor.

Way e
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung: Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal References Tribbles in Order Re Sealing ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 09:05 AM EST
Apple (A$) has grown to deserve as much spite as M$. Apple
deserves no sympathy what so ever.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung: Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal References Tribbles in Order Re Sealing ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 11:00 AM EST
"This lawsuit has been detrimental to its brand in a very big way."

It's a little hard to feel that much sympathy for self inflicted injuries.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I like Grewal, but..
Authored by: albert on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 11:39 AM EST
.. I don't like the Tribbles metaphor. Tribbles were cute and harmless. I'm
thinking along the lines of head lice, or roaches, or that itch that just
doesn't go away..

[ Reply to This | # ]

I find these Tribbles adorably appealing...
Authored by: mtew on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 02:57 PM EST
Intended pun?

---
MTEW

[ Reply to This | # ]

Partners in Crime
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 03:40 PM EST
Doc.2222:

The proposed redactions consist of information regarding
Samsung’s participation in standards setting organizations,
...
primarily consists of a dispute between the parties’ attorneys
about the breadth of the attorney-client privilege.
...
Apple seeks to redact portions describing its use of
Samsung components in its devices
...
Apple seeks to redact portions of the deposition describing
whether alternative designs for the corners of the original
iPhone were considered.
...
he discusses his methodology in analyzing Apple’s
licensing agreements. He does not reveal the content
of any of the agreements &c, &c, &c.

Magistrate Judge Grewal seems to have come the realisation that
this is a commercial dispute between the parties that has little
to do with patents, or contracts, and that everything should be
on the table open, or not here at all. He also is probably annoyed
with himself and Judge Koh that they didn't a lot earlier do a Posner,
send both parties away with a flea in their ears.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung: Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal References Tribbles in Order Re Sealing ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 12:29 AM EST
As an employee, it is usual that the copyright for code I write is owned by my
employer. As an external supplier/contractor you better believe that if the
contract is to transfer copyright of work I create, it should be compensated in

that contract. More typical is a license including a license for that source
code.

In the case of a student who is not being paid to attend class, indeed is
compelled under a legal burden to attend and cannot simply decline and
negotiate for a better offer that does not involve giving up their copy rights,

this is *NOT* business as usual. In fact, if you want to consider the flow of
finance in this transaction, it is often the student is the paying customer of
the educational institution - how do you feel about paying someone to take
that burdensome copyright off your hands?

The main lesson you are teaching students here is that their entire life's work,

everything they produce from their own labor, every original contribution and
though, already belongs to someone else. How does that inspire a generation
to create and build something new? Or do we want a generation of
consumers of nothing but imported content? (Jumping to the likely
conclusion of a generation trained to pay to consume, with active dis-
incentive to produce)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sympathy for Apple
Authored by: DannyB on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 10:49 AM EST
I have none.

This isn't the Apple computer that I loved in the 80's and 90's. It isn't the
Apple that was so far ahead of the rest of the industry that it looked like
everyone else would never catch up. It wasn't the Apple that produced a torrent
of innovations the just kept coming and coming seemingly without end. It wasn't
until the mid 90's with Copeland and the dire need for a real OS underneath that
things started falling apart.

I have to admit being charmed by Steve Jobs when I was younger. He was
attractive, well spoken and seemed to have a lot to do with the seemingly
endless innovations pouring out of Apple.

My delusion was somewhat shattered when both (A) Apple stumbled in the early to
mid 1990's, and (B) I read The Mac Bathroom Reader. This book was very credible
to me because many things it said matched up with my personal knowledge, yet
many things I didn't know I found to be quite shocking about Steve Jobs. I had
never had any idea of how badly he treated people in general, and some people in
particular.

I was unhappy with Apple going with NeXT for its new OS instead of BeOS. I had
a lot of high end and expensive Apple hardware. It was clear that a new OS
would be along in a few years before my hardware "aged out" and was
not usable. Apple in one step obsoleted a huge amount of hardware -- and
software, prematurely. I got into Linux. I didn't have bad feelings about
Apple, I just wished them well and moved on with this new exciting Linux thing.
And OpenOffice. And other things. It was like I had discovered an endless
toybox of cool stuff in open source.

I had expected a patent thermonuclear war for a few years. I just didn't think
it would be Apple, yes *apple* of all companies, to start it.

After Steve Jobs death, and a lot of information becoming more public about his
life, I had a complete change of heart about the man. If I had known in my
youth what I now know, I would not have been as spellbound. In hindsight, Apple
never was about "the rest of us" it was about "the rich of
us".

I had realized that a lot of the innovation in the earlier Apple had happened
without Steve Jobs help. It happened after he left when he was stripped of his
power by Scully. In fact, it was Jobs who was holding things back. I did
personally know in the early days that it was Jobs who insisted that the Mac
have only 128 K and that's it. Forever. Software developers (including myself)
were screaming at Apple that if they wanted cool third party software they
needed to add some memory to the machine to enable the kind of promise that
people could see in the Macintosh. It was Jobs who didn't see the need for a
hard drive. Really? How do you do anything with two incredibly slow floppy
drives? It was Jobs that said "no color" and "no slots".
It's amusing that the Mac II was the first huge advancement after Jobs left, and
that's when the flood of innovations came. Lots of memory. Color. Slots.
CD-ROM. Lots of SCSI peripherals. ADB. Ethernet cards. Huge monitors. Much
better graphics cards. And so on.

But back to my subject line. Not only did Apple start this thermonuclear war,
it is clear to me that Apple wants nothing less than an absolute monopoly on
smartphones, and perhaps even mobile phones in general.

Now I believe monopolists are evil. And Microsoft's history is like a
re-telling of the book Big Blue: IBM's Use and Abuse of Power. But if Apple had
gotten the monopoly that Microsoft had, it is clear to me now that Apple would
have been far worse.

It is clear that Steve Jobs was passionate in his dislike or even hatred of
Android. But that passion is because these pesky kids at Google disrupted his
dream of having an absolute monopoly on a unique high priced product.

I find Apple's arrogance distasteful. (And I have to admit to the "been
there done that" when I was younger and an Apple fan.) But Pride goes
before destruction, and haughtiness before a fall.

I have no sympathy. Let Apple burn.



---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )