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
Off Topic Thread | 155 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: Tkilgore on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 05:41 PM EDT
This is the canonical thread.

Note the previous correction by anonymous:

aggregious -> egregious

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple during it's close to the jury, was sticking the judge's ruling on "prior art" down their..
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:01 PM EDT
Apple during it's close to the jury, was sticking the judge's ruling on
"prior art" down their...

throats.

... and, at the same time, almost making a mokery of the judge's ruling (and
hopefully, the judge, at that point in time, fully understood the act that was
being played out, and, that there was a mistake in not allowing Samsung their
full due in court (by not allowing Samsung to present a fact of the matter in
their defense).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let them present it
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT
Civil trials should be about finding out the truth and providing justice. It's
not a game or something where you get disqualified on a technicality. If Samsung
is allowed to show this evidence it will bring us closer to the truth .. not
further .. therefore it should be allowed. "But then Apple wont have time
to refute it" .. uh then give Apple the time to refute it --if it's even
needed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Verdict-O-Matic
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT
Gotta see this: Joy of Tech Verdict-O-Matic

[ Reply to This | # ]

How much due to foreign company?
Authored by: thorpie on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT

One has to ask the bleeding obvious - how much of the one sided decisions is due to Apple being the home team and Samsung being foreign.

Can any foreign companies ever expect to get fair treatment under the US judicial system?

---
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's how it's supposed to be done
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:00 PM EDT

... cannot now claim that it is prejudiced by having the same standard applied to itself.
We saw such tactics out of SCOg as well - to paraphrase Judge Wells:
    SCOg can not now claim specific files and lines are not required when that is what they demanded out of IBM!
It's too bad Judge Wells didn't catch on sooner before IBM had to produce a server with the entire history of AIX.

This situation leaves me wondering how much Judge Koh might be unreasonably upset with Samsung.

What I mean is:

    A: Let's suppose that Apple has been quite vociferous in it's filings.
    B: Let's suppose Samsung has always ever really only responded in defense against said filings.
After all... isn't a filing undefended/unresponded to likely to default in the favor of the filer? As a result, a response must - by reasonable, fair default - be expected and allowed.
    C: Let's suppose one final thing: that Samsun only ever went on the offensive in situations such as this where what appears to be an unfair ruling was applied to them and they were simply trying to balance things out.
Now... with all that supposition in mind: should Judge Koh have any grounds to be upset at the number of filings done by Samsung when they were only ever responding to Apple's litigation tactics?

It'd be interesting to find out just how much of Judge Koh's irritation that is/was directed at Samsung was out of misunderstanding that Samsung was simply attempting to defend themselves.... as would be required by Law in order not to have a default Judgement against them applied.

We're likely to never know the truth behind either that or the suppositions supplied above.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judges are only human
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT
Certainly they are only human, but given their position, I'm going to hold them
to a higher standard than the average person. When I see judges like Gross
seemingly simply rubber stamping anything which crosses his desk, I'm also going
to need more evidence of his competence before I show him any respect. People,
even judges, must earn respect. It doesn't come automatically with the job
title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Appeal
Authored by: the_flatlander on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 07:45 PM EDT
>> In the appeal, if there is one, look for all that. [The evidence
Samsung was not allowed to present.] <<

Well, yes. Indeed, as noted in some of the coverage, at one point, Judge Koh
testily told the lawyers for one side, or the other, or both, that they could
relax, they'd already done everything they needed to to preserve the issues in
question for appeal. I think there's some reason to believe that Judge Koh was
doing what was needed to move this case to conclusion, being pretty sure that
this was only round one of what was very likely to be several rounds, and the
outcome here matters only a little in that the loser is sure to appeal, and I
suppose she thinks it likely to be remanded for re-trial.

The Flatlander

It's been hard to avoid believing that Judge Koh was stung by the earlier
interlocutory appeal, and that since then she's just been going through the
motions, as it were.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More on Adverse Inferences, and Fairness, or Lack Thereof, in Apple v. Samsung ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 10:46 PM EDT
Judge Koh, and her magistrate have by default ruled against
Samsung in anyway they could. This case has absolutely
<b>ZERO</b> to do with fairness. Judge Koh, had to be
slapped upside the head with the fairness of the issue
before she would rule for Samsung. It shouldn't be that
hard to get a fair ruling from a judge. There seems to be
clear bias here.

If Apple wins I do not see anyway that Samsung will not
appeal, and hopefully win there. Maybe, Judge Koh, was just
giving too much deference to her magistrate judge, who
clearly didn't care one wit about fairness. But, that isn't
an excuse for how Samsung has been treated by her court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread
Authored by: artp on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

No Off Topic comments on fairness, adverse relationships,
judges, law, courtrooms, Apple fans, telecom, cell phones,
evidence or Pooh Bear. Only because the magistrate might be a
Pooh Bear.

On topic posts will be punished by making you weigh nits.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: artp on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 12:21 AM EDT
URLs, please. They scroll off so fast.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Goes Here
Authored by: artp on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 12:27 AM EDT
Transcripts of files from the Comes v. MS trial. See link
above.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Differences between Apple iPhones and ANY Android devices whether Samsung or not are SO obvious!
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 03:05 AM EDT
Apple has spent this trial trying to convince the jury that it is difficult for a consumer to tell the difference between an iPhone and an Android Phone. Why didn't they bring in iPhones and Samsung phones (as configured by the shops) and let the jury have a play with them!

What a load of <censored>insert suitable swear word here</censored>!

As it happens I am about to replace my aging HTC Hero with a more modern smart phone. I did have a LOOK at one of the current Apple iPhones - shuddered - and moved on to the Android phones. After Apple's recent set of unnecessary attacks on Samsung I will almost certainly buy a Samsung phone (such as the S2) to spite Apple and because it is a better product. It looks NOTHING like the iPhone and does not behave anything like an iPhone. There were plenty of other customers in the shop who were non-techies but clued up and knew exactly what the differences were.

This trial should be view as exactly what it is - Apple trying to stop other companies competing with it through the flawed and (currently) ridiculous USA patent system (granting 1000's of totally obvious ideas with lots of prior art to existing USA companies) who then use these patents to (try to) stifle innovation - or more importantly competition. Even worse - trade 'agreements' forced on other countries (such as ACTA and worse) effectively extend USA law abroad thus disenfranchising foreign citizens such as myself - who are unable to vote out the US congressmen who vote for these unfair pieces of legislation!

Apple produce beautiful overpriced pieces of hardware which some like and many don't (such as branded jeans like 'Levi'). Samsung and other companies who produce hardware that can run Android produce not quite so pretty but very functional, workhorse and great value-for-money products that can more than compete with Apple products on their core turf.

Well done Apple! By your stupid (and undoubtedly anti-competitive) legal actions you have alienated many potential customers. I for one will never be buying another Apple product.

---
Support Software Freedom - use GPL licenced software like Linux and LibreOffice instead of proprietary software like Microsoft Windows/Office or Apple OS/X

[ Reply to This | # ]

More on Adverse Inferences, and Fairness, or Lack Thereof, in Apple v. Samsung ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 07:05 AM EDT

Keep in mind that there is no specific math for when you are supposed to figure out that litigation is likely. That is the trigger, when a reasonable party would figure that out. But if Samsung was supposed to know that date was the date, and if Apple itself was pointing to that date as the right one, what about Apple? Why didn't it start saving emails back then too?
That is a very telling question. Why is Apple screaming loudly what Samsumg might have done when keeping very quiet over what it has done to a worse degree?

As Samsung was Sanctioned by the magistrate and it has been reported (on Groklaw at least), then the only fair solution would have been for Apple to also have been sanctioned to a greater degree as they failed to keep the evidence (1) until must after Samsung and (2) they were the plaintiff and would know when the legal action would take place.

Or is it unfair in that in so sanctioning Apple, it would then put the question in to the mind of the jurors that if Apple screamed loudly about Samsung not keeping evidence and got them sanctioned for it when they themselves were guilty of not keeping evidence to a greater degree, then this whole case is about Apple screaming loudly that Samsung have copied them but could Apple in fact have been doing copying themselves to a greater degree? And so push the jury much more towards a not guilty verdict?

The Sanctions would be provided as evidence by the court of wilful(?) negligence(?) by both sides, but the earlier date of Apple's sanction request (and grant) related to its later keeping of [potential] evidence smacks of something not right in the Apple camp - too much like a Magician and the diversionary things done to keep you from seeing exactly what he's doing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And the point would be.....
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 23 2012 @ 11:39 AM EDT
"Did it pay off, trying to find fault with Samsung on this issue? I think
not. Not in the courtroom. But what about in the media? Did you see a lot of
articles about Samsung being too late, complaining out of dramatics instead of
substance, etc.? I did too."

The court of law is what matters not the media. Finish your thought PJ. What
exactly are you saying? Who cares what the media says or are you saying the
media will influence the judge and jury in the court room?

[ 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 )