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
Well this is getting interesting. | 256 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Please
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 10:31 PM EDT
Hint in the title

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic thread
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 10:31 PM EDT
sew and sew

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 10:32 PM EDT
New and old

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Documents
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 10:32 PM EDT
Pretty please

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A correction (not the correction category)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 10:43 PM EDT
The link to Quinn's statement is incorrect. It points to the Apple letter.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who is Joby Martin
Authored by: argee on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 10:51 PM EDT
Joby Martin is referred at the very motion of Quinn's
statement. Who is he?


---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | # ]

When do the slander lawsuits start?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 11:21 PM EDT
Seriously, if they "Apple's Lawyers" are clearly lying to the public,
when do the slander suits start against them?

I personally would like to see every stinking one of them "Apple's
Lawyers" found to be in contempt of court for trying to sway the jury
through slanderous statements to the press and court by intentionally submitting
false statements to the court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Food Fight in Apple v. Samsung ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 11:26 PM EDT
PJ, you talk of Apple FUD, but all I see is Samsung FUD.

Well, I guess nobody suggested that you might be a neutral observer. Just as
well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Submit to slashdot.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 11:39 PM EDT
I just submitttd this article to slashdot I don't know if there is anything anyone here can do to push it along, but if you can please do so. Seems like there is a strong antiSamsung sentiment over there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Everybody talks about Samsung's actions
Authored by: pem on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 12:04 AM EDT
but isn't asking for sanctions something that a smart lawyer should reserve for
really egregious behavior?

I mean, I understand bringing it up to the judge, and letting her blow her top,
but this latest letter from Apple seems way over the top.

Especially the petulant part about "who drafted the statement and who
released it." Mr. Quinn already admitted that he vetted it, so it must
have been official. If the statement is sanctionable, then sanction him. If
not, then what does it matter what other players there were?

It will be interesting to see what the judge does with this. So far, with
injunctions, etc., she seems to be working really hard to be partial to Apple.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Food Fight in Apple v. Samsung ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 12:12 AM EDT
Maybe Samsung should push for a mistrialand start again.
This judge seems to have a pro apple bias IMHO so it might
be better if this was moved somewhere non prejudicial to
Samsung.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is the reporting on the judge accurate?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 12:42 AM EDT
After all the people that are telling us she was frothing at the mouth over
this, are the same people who claimed that Samsung lost credibility because they
deleted email, and that Samsung pulled a fast one by issuing a press release
with excluded information.

For all we know the judge prefaced all this with a statement like " I want
to hear Samsung's side of this." and the press conveniently forgot to tell
us.

I remember voir dire when I was called for jury duty. One of the jurors was late
coming back from a break and was called in the next batch for questioning. The
judge thought she went home and was livid. During questioning, the juror came
back in and apologized to the judge. He seemed then to write it off.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Angering the Judge
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 01:19 AM EDT

You are probably correct that Apple's letter overreaches, but, on the other hand isn't it part of the game? If the other side irritates the Judge, then improvise on an opportunity.

Maybe Quinn did play it just right. I would argue that getting the info out without irritating the Judge would have been a more effective tactic. Because when I read the quoted passage, I see Quinn all but saying the Judge is willfully making the trial unfair. Judge Koh gave her reasons, as far as I've heard Apple has not been allowed to bring in evidence after that deadline, and on appeal is a far better place to effectively pursue the issue of pre-release designs, if Samsung loses.

Quinn could have responded to the inquiries with the materials, a description and maybe a comment explaining why they could not have been submitted on time. All the comments about the jury not seeing all this evidence having been excised, he responds to Apple's use of publicity without irritating the Judge. Or maybe his game is to so anger the Judge that she makes a mistake and his appeal is based on her intemperance and bias.

Besides is the F700 really key to Apple's case? Does it look like the iPhone? What was the timing of its release? These are the points that will be considered by the jury? Wouldn't the preliminary drawings be a tangential curiosity to what the final product looked like.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well this is getting interesting.
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 01:47 AM EDT
I wonder if Samsung think it is highly unlikely they will will in a foreign
country against the local hero and are just aiming for the appeal.

Oh and putting the record straight with the press and public.






---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

he relied on the jury to follow his instructions... yes but
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 02:06 AM EDT
I wonder in the real world how many do follow these instructions to the letter.

Have there been any studies into this?

It could be argued that some of the jury may follow most of the instructions,
but that they are more likely to follow the ones they see as important.

Curiosity is a very strong trait in humans and is not easily curtailed.

Of course a sense of duty is also strong and being on the Jury, most ppl would
want to do the right thing.

I do wonder, with this case being so high profile, if it really will be possible
for them not to notice articles relating to it in the news, and not to give in
to temptation.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

What happens now?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 04:03 AM EDT
So, what happens now? The judge looks ready to sanction him whether they're
allowed to or not and Apple is only too happy to chime in.

I don't know the legal arcana about why these exhibits were disallowed, though,
but I have to wonder if Samsung would have been better off fighting that on
appeal?

Or has the judge somehow abused their discretion such that this could turn out
badly for the court itself when reviewed? I mean, one way or another this
raises serious questions about the courts fairness in this proceeding and I
think that whoever reviews this on appeal is going to have to deal with that one
way or another.

This judge seems pretty well frazzled, in my view. Would it be so bad if they
recused themselves and let someone fresh take over? Or does that just make a
bigger mess of things?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hey, wait a minute!
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 04:15 AM EDT
Apple's “Sony-style” CAD drawings and models were attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Martin Declaration. Apple itself publicly filed Shin Nishibori's testimony that the direction of the iPhone's design was completely changed by the “Sony-style” designs that Jonathan Ive directed him to make.
So, under the direction of Sir Jonathan Ive, Apple completely changed the iPhone design from Apple design principles to make it look like a Sony-styled phone as drawn by an ex-Sony designer.

Then they took the design principles that identified Sony phones and design-patented it as trade dress for their first ever product entry into the mobile phone market.

So, is it now illegal for Sony to make a Sony phone using the Sony design principles stolen by Apple? Are Samsung prevented from presenting the evidence of Apple changing the iPhone to copy the Sony design principles because Apple were too late in disclosure of that evidence?

Shouldn't Apple be sanctioned for failing to disclose their theft in a timely manner and also taken to court for fraud perpetrated on the USPTO in design-patenting another company's trade dress by a form of industrial espionage (recruiting that company's employee and directing the employee to reveal the company's trade secrets)?

This seems to me to be a civil action against Samsung to protect the fruits of Apple's criminal activity against Sony. It's a good thing I despise Sony even more than Apple.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Food Fight in Apple v. Samsung ~pj
Authored by: indyandy on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 06:51 AM EDT
Lovely response from Mr. Quinn. I particularly liked this bit:
Indeed, Apple's lawyers are no strangers to statements to the press regarding litigation in the Ninth Circuit. See id. at 1441 n.19 (Kozinski, J.) (“[Apple Computer's attorney] call[ed] the Ninth Circuit ruling [in Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.] 'intellectually dishonest' and 'extremely detrimental to the business of the United States.”) (brackets in original) (internal quotation omitted).

Every legal point he makes has the citations to back him up and it is very hard to argue with anything he says.

So what does Mr Lee, for Apple, cite?

He cites a couple of partial news sites which paint Samsung's actions in the worst possible way. How can I say they are partial?

Look first at the article by Connie Guglielmo on the forbes site. I won't post the URL but you can find it in Mr Lee's response if you must.

Samsung, After 'Begging' to Get Sony Into Apple Patent Trial, Flouts Judge And Releases 'Excluded Evidence' Anyway (Updated)

Updates to add comments from Samsung’s lawyer John Quinn filed to the court on Aug. 1 saying “excluded evidence” had been previously made public and that the company didn’t violate any legal or ethical standards.

Oh yes they did.

"Oh yes they did." sets the tone for the whole article. She had clearly read Mr. Quinn's statement (she quoted from it) so she presumably is literate enough to see that he had precedent and citations to show that he did no wrong. She presented no arguments to counter his claims so why did she say "Oh yes they did"?

She uses language and punctuation to say one thing but imply another. Look at:

Quinn, in a declaration to the court on Aug. 1, said the company didn’t release a “general press release” and that there was no court order preventing the company from sending reporters information about exhibits that he noted had already been made public in court documents prior to this week’s trial. Therefore, Samsung’s distribution of the documents didn’t violate any “legal or ethical standards,” he said.

Subliminal messages: "legal or ethical standards,” in quotes implies he stayed to the letter of the law while abusing the spirit of the law. Likewise “general press release” in quotes suggests he is playing wordgames and not being entirely honest.

He also took the time to jab at Apple — and at the media for supposedly buying into Apple’s argument that Samsung had copied the designs of its iPhone and iPad in their early coverage of the dispute. “The media has been reporting in salacious detail Apple’s allegations of Samsung’s supposed ‘copying,’ causing injury to Samsung‟s public reputation as a company. Moreover, Apple‟s baseless and public assertions that Samsung’s transmission to the media of public information constituted contempt of court and that these actions were intended to pollute the jury were themselves glaring falsehoods, highlighting why Samsung has every right to defend itself in the public domain from unfair and malicious attacks.”

"He also took the time to jab at Apple" clearly the action of a petulant child who doesn't get his own way.

Apple’s lawyer Harold McElhinny called the move the most blatant example of contempt of court it had ever seen and an intentional effort to “pollute the jury.”

Is this the kind of reporting Mr. Quinn is referring to? The comment is from Apple's lawyer so it is accepted without question, and it is certainly not a jab.

Apple and Samsung each delivered 90-minute opening statements on July 31. Apple, which sued Samsung in April 2011, says the company stole its designs for the iPhone and iPad and is asking for $2.5 billion in damages. Samsung says it, like many other tech companies, were “inspired” by Apple’s products and that it did not copy the designs. Samsung is seeking 2.4 percent of every Apple iPhone and iPad sold, Apple said in its opening statement.

No mention of the fact that Samsung owns essential patents for technology without which the iPhone would be an over-priced doorstop? No - that would make playing field a bit too level. Again the quotes around “inspired” suggest that "inspired" in this context really means "copied slavishly".

I have never heard of Ms. Guglielmo before, but I will know better than to go to her for an unbiased report in future.

Neither forbes nor allthingsd (the other cited site which is closer than forbes to being impartial) suggest there was a press release, and the register (not cited by anyone) uses the language "releasing the slides it wanted to use in court along with a statement to selected media outlets.", which tends to back up Mr. Quinn's story that it was replying to questions.

Finally, returning to Mr. Lee's complaint about Mr. Quinn's response, it seems to me that he is applying the age old principle whose originator I have so far failed to trace:

"If you have the law on your side, pound on the law. If you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts. If you don't have the facts or the law, then pound on the table."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Emergency motion?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT
That's rich. Where's the fire?

Come to think of it, I don't believe the phrase "emergency
motion" appears in the FRCP. Is there some local rule?

Regardless, it's quite obvious that Apple is leaping at the
opportunity to take as much advantage as possible from the
judge's apparent annoyance. I predict they will continue to
over-reach at every opportunity. Reminds me of SCO.
Eventually the judge will get annoyed, and not at Quinn.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Food Fight
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 11:18 AM EDT
It make me feel sick that I bought Apple products like my iPhone.

Let me see, my agreement with AT&T is up in October. It might be time to
consider a Samsung phone that runs Android to support Samsung. Or maybe I
should finally buy my first tablet - it won't be an iPad.

Looks like the makers of the iPhone are a fruity company that has become rotten.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slavish copying and irony
Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT
The company that built its business slavishly copying the
work of Xerox PARC is accusing Samsung of stealing its
design. This, when the design is an obvious combination of
elements.

My personal irony meter is on overload.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple wants Moon - appeal given
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT
Apple now wants Judge to rule that Samsung infringed as part of the sanctions.

Apple apparently believes that a trial is totally a waste of time.

The smart thing for the judge would be to declare a mistrial and recuse herself otherwise her reputation will be mud.

If it is not already mud.

No matter what happens this will all be appealed anyway.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Discovery issue, isn't it?
Authored by: jcr6 on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 01:28 PM EDT
Why didn't Samsung release this information during the discovery phase? Seriously, it would have changed the entire complexion of the case and we might have had a settlement by now. This snippet from Apple's motion:
Samsung already has been sanctioned four times in this case for discovery abuses. Most recently, Samsung was sanctioned for destroying evidence,
Did this "evidence" exist back then? I say this knowing quite a bit about chain of evidence w.r.t. my day job. As a former IBMer that was deeply grateful to Groklaw for helping defang SCOX, I must say I'm completely stunned at the reaction to Apple around here. Microsoft and RIM have both demonstrated that they can develop their own UI, why is it asking so much that Google should do the same? Heck, even Google told Samsung to change their design. So I don't get it. Sure, some of the numbers bandied about are silly, but that falls under the "If you don't ask, you can't receive" and the notion of an adversarial legal system, but there IS misconduct on Samsung's part, and calling someone an Apple sympathizer or "fanboy" isn't going to make for an intellectual conversation or a meaningful solution.

(Disclosure: I have friends at both Google and Apple, and members of my family own stock in both.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple has become a bully
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT
Bullies are not cool.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Food Fight in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 02:58 PM EDT
Groklaw effect,

I think you're being a bit smug here :)

In SCO vs whomever, SCO was already seen as the bad guy,
because SCO doesn't produce something everyone uses.
Everyone was using either a Linux Kernel OS or a BSD (which
already expunged the Unix code) Kernel, so SCO taking on
Linux was seen absurd.

In Oracle vs Google, again Oracle doesn't produce anything
that everyone is using. Oracle bought Java for the express
purpose of monetizing it, that's Oracle's motive for
acquiring anything. Unlike SCO, Oracle actually owns IP that
is in many computing devices, but it's not vital in anything
but Android. So at best Oracle had nothing to lose if they
lost the lawsuit, but Google, at worst faced having to re-
engineer the entire Android OS to expunge Java from it. If
Google lost, there was a very real possibility of all
Android devices being banned.

With this lawsuit, we're talking about the logical
progression. There is no coincidence between Apple producing
a touch screen phone, and suddenly everyone, Samsung,
Motorola, LG, HTC, RIM, Nokia, etc all coming out with them.
Motorola first came out with flip phones... inspired by
Star Trek. Touch-screen phones are a new concept, but
"square, screen-input" devices are not. The Apple newton,
Palmpilot, and many stylus-based devices predate the iPhone,
but none of these devices where phones. Many of RIM's
devices and early Android prototypes resemble the Treo
(circa 2002) So Apple has a valid point that only after the
iPhone came out, all the competition changed to multitouch
rectangular phones. Even Apple's own design prototypes show
it as more of an "ipod with phone function" rather than
"phone with iPod function." It's not like iOS was produced
overnight from a fork of OS X. iOS must have had to exist
somewhere for 2 years prior to the first working iPhone
prototype.

But unlike Oracle vs Google, or SCO vs anyone, Apple starts
the game already winning the PR. The worst thing that can
happen from a Apple loss, is nothing. The worst that happens
from a Samgsung loss is that nearly all the Android devices
are banned, and Samsung takes a financial loss, but Samsung
still survives, because Samsung makes just about everything
in Korea. If it were the other way around, Samsung getting
the iPhones banned, that's a good chunk of sales from Apple
(>50%) torpedoed. But Apple would still survive.

Neither company wins the PR battle, because most customers
buying Samsung devices, aren't brand loyal outside of Korea.
Apple customers are. At best, it may generate more sales for
Apple if there's a chance of the Apple devices disappearing,
and at worst, no difference. If there's a chance Samsung
devices get banned? Well customers just buy from whoever
else is selling a cheap smartphone.

So Samsung shouldn't think they're winning any hearts and
minds in the US yet if they're doing things that the court
is telling them not to do.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Food Fight in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 04:08 PM EDT
Apple are screwed. Samsung are using the <em>Marklar</em> defence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Food Fight in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 06:00 PM EDT
.

If Apple doesn't move for a mistrial, they don't mean what
they say. If the Judge sanctions Quinn, he has to move to
withdraw his firm from the case because he immediately has a
conflict with his client, Samsung, who has to pay for their
lawyer's actions.

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The "misconduct" is by Apple lawyers
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT
"The proper remedy for Samsung's misconduct is ..."

What misconduct? They broke no law, rule, guideline, professional courtesy nor specific request. Not even a gentleman's agreement was broken! Since when is doing everything by the book considered "misconduct"?

Where did Apple get such incompetent lawyers that they don't consider it beneath them to gush total drivel? That kind of remark is not even to the standard of a high-school debating team.

In a court of law, doesn't such baseless accusation itself constitute professional misconduct?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple and the BBC
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 07:16 PM EDT
I think there's a lot of truth to the Apple and media love
in. In the UK the BBC seems to include Apple in every
headline it can even when barely relevant as if it bolsters
readership. One example being that ARM profits were up the
headline was "Apple chip maker ARM ..." - it was a story
about ARM not Apple.

So Apple are abusing a powerful position and suckers are
buying it (I'd say like there products but that would be
failing to admit they've made some good products that I'll
never buy).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 09:55 PM EDT
Thanks for doing this fantastic work and being one of the few persons attached
to bringing out objectivity and truth and fighting misinformation and FUD.
That's appreciated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Media vehicle in montion
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 11:41 PM EDT
You have to wonder how many of these Anonymous comments/trolls have been
paid for or provided by Apple. Almost as fun to read as the article itself.

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds