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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Rewriting History | 227 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Very good...
Authored by: jkrise on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:14 AM EDT
The more such Apple's media rubbish that comes to light, the better. The judge
and Apple's reputations stand sullied by the goings-on in this case. Shame on
them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Yes, but ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 10:31 AM EDT
Samsung 's Motion to Strike Apple's "Purported Recommendation" for Sanctions, as text ~pj
Authored by: Thalaska on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:35 AM EDT
Off Topic Here

Anyone caught on topic will be asked to compare and contrast all arguments in
the SCO vs Everbody and the Apple vs Samsung for similarities and differences.
Then sum them up in ASCII.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung 's Motion to Strike Apple's "Purported Recommendation" for Sanctions, as text ~pj
Authored by: Thalaska on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:37 AM EDT
Comes here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:42 AM EDT
So they can be fixed

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • wish to with - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 08:04 AM EDT
    • wish to with - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 08:06 AM EDT
  • News picks - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 05:12 AM EDT
Denied
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:42 AM EDT
Reports are in that Apple's motion for sanctions has been denied. Apparently
the judge, however frazzled, has enough sanity left to realize that there is
absolutely no way to justify sanctions here.

That said, I wish this lawyer the best of luck in dealing with an angry judge.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Touchdown by Samsung
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:48 AM EDT
And the information Samsung was not allowed to add to the case has now been
added to the case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

something really really important missing
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:58 AM EDT
"During his opening statement, Apple‘s counsel displayed a chart of a
number of Samsung phones he claimed pre-dated the iPhone. This was Slide
23:"

Let me see if I get this straight. So, Apple is allowed to show pictures from a
cherry picked timeline of Samsung phones, pre- and post-iPhone during their
opening statement.

But, Judge Koh wouldn't let Samsung show their version of what Samsung phones of
the time looked like.

This is so strange. One could possibly even call it a mystery.

There must be something really really important I missed here.


---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Good show
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 03:47 AM EDT
Love the graphics PJ. Why am I not seeing this
anywhere else?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Trolls R'us..? (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 05:43 AM EDT
  • Good show - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 07:50 AM EDT
    • Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 10:44 PM EDT
  • Good show - Authored by: PJ on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT
    • Good show - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 07:45 AM EDT
      • Good show - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 11:13 PM EDT
      • Good show - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT
Dear "Judge" Koh, we can all see you holding Samsung down
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 03:49 AM EDT
While Apple whales on them.

As you said, these proceedings are public, including your choice of rulings.

Remember Judge Jackson? There is a line.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Reversible error"
Authored by: Doghouse on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 04:49 AM EDT
Because each of the five factors favors dismissal, and in view of the availability of lesser sanctions, it would be reversible error to grant the relief Apple has "recommended."

Translation: "There is no way that we won't appeal this if you rule against us."

Actually, I felt whilst reading Samsung's filing that there was a continuing, albeit unstated, thread running through it: that their side of the story of the F700 design would have been a slam-dunk against Apple's case; that her refusal to let it be admitted would definitely be coming up at any appeal; and that if she didn't want the embarrassment of being reversed she'd better find a way to save face and let it in. But that's perhaps just me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Polling the IP Bar
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 06:06 AM EDT
Not "trolling" ye great ijiit, "polling"!!

This piece reminded me of something I've been wondering about:

Has anyone undertaken a survey of IP practitioners - litigators and others - to
find out how many read Groklaw and how much it has influenced their practice and
approach to IP?

Lawyers are hired to advocate their client's position, not Do the Right Thing,
so they're not suddenly going to see the light about software patents, et al,
but I'm curious to find out how much influence we've gained as a place to get
information and think accurately about the tech.

I would *really* love to know how many judges involved in IP cases have added
this site to their reading list, but I'm not sure there's an appropriate way to
find out.

Would anyone know how to go about doing that?



---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why is Judge Koh denying Samsung's right to defend itself?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 06:09 AM EDT

I mean what is her excuse? I haven't been able to find a reason why she won't
let Samsung defend itself.

Some commentators on Apple Insider are making strange claims that Samsung's
evidence was brought forward too late, but I just read that Apple had this
evidence in front of them at the beginning of February, 2012 and even used
discovery to question Samsung's designer about them in that same month. That's
six months ago. That's doesn't sound like an ambush and a reason to ban
evidence to me.

So that excuse doesn't hold water. Does anyone know what Judge Koh's
"reasoning" is (no matter how feeble) for disallowing Samsung to
defend itself?

Seriously, I don't know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung 's Motion to Strike Apple's "Purported Recommendation" for Sanctions, as text ~pj
Authored by: Rubberman on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 09:06 AM EDT
"There is no end to litigation nonsense, I've concluded, in
the US legal system. It is so depressing to watch."

Depressing, yes. Also, very entertaining! I found the Groklaw
coverage of Oracle vs. Google (and the world) to be quite
riveting! I give you two thumbs up and kudos for performing a
wonderful public service! Thanks, and keep up the great work!
(not enough exclamation points here...). :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

With or without merit, Apple has been handed a basis for Appeal
Authored by: jcr6 on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT
And of course Samsung has that (those?), too. Any bets on how many YEARS this case will continue on? Both parties are well-capitalized. Both parties will appeal nearly everything they can. It will probably hit the Supreme Court, heck maybe even more than once. Anyone think there will be a mistrial? (This is not a thread to predict the winner, merely the amount of TIME it will take to get one.

(If there IS one.)
 

[ Reply to This | # ]

Strange - This is wear having the whole record would help
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:50 PM EDT

It is important to remember that when Apple moved to exclude the F700 from evidence, Dkt. No. 1184-3, at 6, the Court denied Apple‘s motion, ruling that all evidence as to the F700 was admissible, "including to rebut an allegation of copying." Nonetheless, the Court later excluded all such evidence from Samsung‘s opening statement.
Ouch! If that's accurate1 that really raises the question of why the Court reversed Course. This seems like a very strong point for a successful appeal.
Additional images of the F700 and Samsung‘s related internal models for that design were timely produced to Apple on February 3, 2012, and Apple deposed the F700‘s principal designer, Hyoung Shin Park, on February 29, 2012. Over the course of her ten-hour deposition, Apple questioned Ms. Park at length about the development of the F700 design, including the time period in which F700 was developed, the nature of the project, the inspiration for the phone designs, and the additional designs that were created during the project. See Dkt. 1474. Apple‘s claim that the F700 copied Apple‘s patented designs was consistent with the allegations of its original Complaint, where it included the F700 as one of the accused products – although it later chose to drop this claim (Dkt. No. 1178 at 2), undoubtedly recognizing it was frivolous because the F700 predated the iPhone.
Oh my! If accurate, it sounds like Apple dropped their claims against the F700, likely didn't specify in pre-trial proceedings that they'd bring up the F700, then left the F700 in their presentation. What a way to get your Perry Mason moment.

And then the Judge followed up with preventing Samsung from speaking about the F700... Double Ouch!

Here's hoping that:

    A: If the trail is accurate
and
    B: The Judge realizes the connection
that she issues an appropriate order allowing Samsung to rebut Apple's F700 statements.

1: At this point, I'm far more inclined to take Samsung's representations at face value and less inclined to trust Apple's representations.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple knows they have no case
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT
The sanctions were denied.

And Apple wanted to seal this mornings
proceedings (jury not present).

That request was denied also.

Maybe Judge Koh has bought some
vowels.


---

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Request Rejected
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 03:28 PM EDT
According to the Los Angeles Times (via Google News), Apple's request has been rejected, though the story isn't completely over yet.

---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail

[ Reply to This | # ]

The problem
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 03:41 PM EDT
I am beginning to think that part of the "problem" --- and the reason
the judge was "livid" when Apple reported Samsung's press statement,
is that basically judges have come to expect that people will basically tell
them the truth. After all, judges are very powerful. They know that people
will "spin" things, but they still expect that basically, at the core,
they are told the truth. Their job is to unwrap the "spin."

The problem is that, increasingly in the US legal system, corporations are
willing to commit wilful perjury to win their case, and they seem to have no
problem finding attorneys willing to commit the perjury on their behalf. We
have seen so much blatant lying in the cases Groklaw follows, and the judges
seem to be horribly gullible.

The judges have not yet adapted to all the lies. They are programmed to believe
that each side tells a version of the truth, and when one side is willing to
perjure themselves they can achieve a temporary advantage. Until judges wise
up, the lies and perjury will continue.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rewriting History
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT
I keep tripping over this phrase, here on GL, and all over the
tech press, usually referring to Apple's attempts to deny the
admission of Samsung's historic designs. Now history is what
I saw happening, and what you saw happening may well be
different, even of the same event, because you saw it from a
different angle with a different set of preconceptions.

History is always being rewritten. There are libraries full of
history books written by people who saw or heard things differently.
Then with the passage of time more people will re-interpret
that history in the light of a new set of moral principles.
I hope the jury were taught enough of this basic philosophy
to see that both parties are right, and both are wrong, and
neither deserve a penny.

The unfortunate part is that the court system works in a
mysterious way that allows the parties to ration the quantity
and quality of history that the jury is allowed to consider.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RDF apparent, but Samsung blocks DVD
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 05:22 PM EDT
Apple wanted to submit into evidence a DVD that contained various Apple commercials over the years. A chart made it in, but the objection to the DVD was sustained.

But, following the 'action' here it is both nauseating and rewarding reading the 'drama' being spewed by Apple.

The Reality Distortion Field is apparent, as both Schiller and Forstall seem to be in sales pitch mode or something, and seemingly act as though the Apple tech is so great, and developing it was such 'hard work'.

The rewarding part is that Apple is using up a lot of their time.

---

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT
Please include a link incase the item scrolls off the front page.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In 36 years, I've never begged the court.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT
Samsung attorney John Quinn contributes The Register's Quote of the Week .
There are more quotes and comments in El Reg's unique style.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung trying to provoke a mistrial? Apple stupid enough to cause one?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT
Well, it seems to me Samsung may try to provoke a mistrial, since starting over
would get their evidence into the record. On the other hand, extremists like
Apple, Oracle and SCO have a habit of going too far with their tactics and
cutting their own throats. From where I sit, it seems to me Koh is trying
desperately to prevent a mistrial. So, the office pool is hereby under way:
which side will cause the mistrial? Putting my money on Apple.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung 's Motion to Strike Apple's "Purported Recommendation" for Sanctions, as text ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT
F700 exclusion. If it demonstrates development prior to iPhone, it
doesn't seem fair to exclude it.

[ 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 )