|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 11:28 PM EDT |
Yes, they did open the door for a response. In a normal trial, without a
captive judge, Samsung would be able to present their rebuttal of that
statement.
That's the point Quinn is making.
It's like a prosecutor accusing you of premeditated murder, committed in New
York, on January 1, 2012 and the judge won't allow you to present your videotape
evidence that you were in LA on January 1, 2012.
That's why Quinn calls it "fundamentally unfair". It clearly IS
"fundamentally unfair".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 11:36 PM EDT |
Parent asks ...
"If Apple in their opening statements mentioned the F700 was
a copy of iphone, aren't they not open the door for a response?"
There would be nothing stopping Samsung from addressing this
in their opening statement as well. But this is not a carte blanche
opportunity for Samsung to bring into evidence F700 information.
Opening statements are special, in that they are not evidence
and some lawyers might be able to say things in the opening and
closing statements, that they might not be able to at any other time.
I do think it an excellent point that if the F700 was available just
a month or so after the iPhone debut, that this proves that Samsung
had it under development long before the iPhone came out.
Simply because of the realities of the time and effort involved in
bringing such products to market, making production quantities of
a knock-off in such an interval is well beyond unrealistic.
Hopefully Apple will somehow goof and either mention the F700 or
bring up the timing of the F700 compared to the iPhone. The fact
that Apple dropped it from the devices they are complaining about
proves to me that Apple knows it would make it clear that Samsung
did NOT just copy Apple. So Apple will do everything they can
to avoid mention of the F700 during the trial itself, to try to
keep the door on F700 information firmly shut, except of course
for opening and closing statements.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 04:46 AM EDT |
| Wow, Samsung must be a really great company if they can copy the iPhone first
advertised 27 Feb 2007 and release the F700 on 30 Mar 2007, 33 days
later!
Or was it the first unveiling in Jan 2007 for the iPhone and Feb 2007
for the F700 - still only a month in it.
Even more interesting is the LG Prada [caveat lector] of Dec
2006.
LG apparently were considering suing Apple over copying the design
until the iPhone's form factor was revealed as coming from 2005. LG appear to
have acted honourably unlike Apple in this respect; goodwill(Apple) -= lots; [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Opening doors - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 07:56 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
