Despite day off from court proceedings, Judge Koh has busy day with rulings
cannot show devices from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey (which was released in 1968). Add that to the designs from Sony that former Apple designer Shin Nishibori allegedly referred to when drawing early design sketches of the Apple iPhone, and you can feel why Sammy feels that the judge is not allowing the jury to see the whole picture. And don't forget the Samsung F700. Even though pictures of the device have been around for years, Samsung was blocked by the judge from showing the jury this phone which Samsung claims was in development before the Apple iPhone. The Samsung F700 does resemble the iPhone with its capacitive touchscreen, but there is a side-sliding QWERTY keyboard that is not a feature of Apple's smartphone. The F700, as we told you, was the subject of an end-around where Samsung released to the media slides and pictures of the phone along with testimony from a deposition taken by the ailing Nishibori. This earned Samsung's legal team the ire of Judge Koh.
As part of her ruling on Thursday related to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Judge Koh ruled again that Samsung cannot show the jury any of the Sony-inspired Apple iPhone designs. The judge also said that Samsung can use a Compaq and Fidler tablet to prove that Apple's patents are invalid, but not to prove that it didn't infringe on Apple's patents.
The trial continues on Friday with Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller on the stand. Schiller was in the middle of testifying on Wednesday when court recessed.
1. issa8 (Posts: 54; Member since: 26 Jul 2011)
I don't understand... Why would she block a defendant from trying to prove their innocence? Shouldn't the defendant be allowed to show whatever they want that might prove their case?
Maybe I'm just ignorant about how all this works but it just seems really sketchy. What is going on? How did they go about picking this judge?
7. RORYREVOLUTION (Posts: 3045; Member since: 12 Jan 2010)
Seriously, couldnt have said it better myself. She showed her biased bullcrap before this trial even began. Apple just wants to create an monopoly and their sheep are too stupid or blind to realize it. You say you want Apple to ban products but you fail to realize it will hurt you also in the end. No competition means, no further advancement in technology in their products for much higher prices.
22. gallitoking (Posts: 4693; Member since: 17 May 2011)
motion pictures are fictional.. is that simple.. and about the Sony designs are irrelevant.. as that only shows that Samsung did in fact copied... good job by the judge not biting into Samsung bogus claims..
34. RORYREVOLUTION (Posts: 3045; Member since: 12 Jan 2010)
Gallitoking, enjoy paying 500 dollars on contract for your next iphone.
38. remixfa (Posts: 14251; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
the point of 2001 is that the idea of a big square tablet with rounded edges and a centered screen was NOT dreamed up by Apple. That is exactly what they use in that 1968 movie. If what they used was a little more thin and had a metalic paint coating, it would be near exactly what an ipad looks like.
I'd think that pretty much invalidates Apple's claim right there. An author thought of the design 40+ years prior. They should sue apple for infringement.
39. Zero0 (Posts: 592; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
Designs aren't fictional.
And if Apple copied Sony, then Apple's design patents are invalid, which means that Apple shouldn't be compensated for Samsung's alleged copying.
58. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Android fanboys who are also programmers will be the first to point out Apple didn't copy Sony because Apple writes it's own code.
23. Angkor (Posts: 108; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
Judge Koh is discrimination against Samsung. How about old Star Trek movie, can Samsung show to the public?
37. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5987; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Judges make mistakes. A company of which I was a member of the executive team had a similar experience. We lost at the trial court level. On appeal the entire award was nullified and the case was remanded with instructions for the trial court judge. Right after that, the other party filed for BK. Sh*t happens.
48. jroc74 (Posts: 5219; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Why can they NOT show the F700???? Thats an actual Samsung phone....that came out in early 2007?
56. -box- (Posts: 3933; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
Even with 2001:ASO out, there's still Star Trek: TNG (episode 1 even), Serenity (Joss Whedon's Firefly movie), as well as numerous other PRODUCTION tablets that preceded the maxiPad.
57. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
You have a lynch mob mentality because if she didn't rule in Samsung's favor, then she must be against Samsung. Oh please!
Judge Koh has a thankless job because Samsung and Apple couldn't comes to terms. If you recall, she wanted Samsung and Apple to work out their differences out of court! She also asked the Samsung legal team if they could recognize the difference between and iPad and the Samsung tablet (as she held both devices) and the Samsung attorney stated something to the effect, "not at a distance of ten feet."
She's been fair to both sides. Instead, the android fanboy camp attack her education (despite possessing a Harvard law degree), her ethnicity (that she's somehow defective because she's Asian), etc.
Lastly, in America, the defendant CANNOT be allowed to do what they damn well please. I'm not a lawyer, but there are established rules governoring evidence.
3. PAPINYC (banned) (Posts: 2315; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
Lucy, me love you loooooong time (baby)!
33. MISTER_H (banned) (Posts: 97; Member since: 08 Jul 2012)
There much better than rotten fruit.
4. pkiran1996 (Posts: 165; Member since: 22 Oct 2011)
This Judge is clearly incompetent and biased in Apple's favour. How can you refuse to let a defendant show evidence? Her arrogance is disgraceful.
5. SonyFTW2020 (Posts: 305; Member since: 03 May 2012)
The devil dont sleep.........But when a pebble is droped into a pond you can not stop the ripples from rippling out once it is droped...
In other words the truth will get out one way or the other and its effects will be more gradient than that of the attempts to conceal to try and conceal it.
6. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
Ok, bye bye, PhoneArena.com mates, I'm tired and going to sleep, no more judge Koh...
8. jaafar2k (Posts: 17; Member since: 14 Oct 2011)
Samsung has zero chance in this court
They are going to loss this case
9. jmoita2 (Posts: 930; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)
Judge iKoh is definitely NOT a looker...lol!!!
17. thedarkside (Posts: 652; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
no shes not.
we have proven to me, that the force is strong within you. someday you will make a superb leader of the sith.
10. structureman116 (Posts: 136; Member since: 14 Sep 2010)
Because she clearly has a favorite in this BS case!!!
11. master0fursinz (Posts: 104; Member since: 26 Apr 2010)
i hate how she just outright said no to them showing their own F700 which came out long before and had out before the iphone. this judge is crazy.
21. 14545 (Posts: 1201; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
She has basically blocked them from defending themselves, and is clearly not impartial in this case. They(samsung) have more restrictions on their defense than any defendant in history. That would be like telling an alleged murderer that he can't use a video of the murder as evidence of his innocence. There only hope is an appeal after apple wins.
26. master0fursinz (Posts: 104; Member since: 26 Apr 2010)
they should pull out the oldies and show off the i700 windows mobile series. they were all large screens and buttons that slimmed down to what we now have today.
30. 14545 (Posts: 1201; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
Their, not there. I had a temporary brain fart.
72. jmoita2 (Posts: 930; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)
True that. She would be a superb judge at a Soviet style trial... wait, this is it!!!
12. MartyK (Posts: 729; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
At least Samsung has several hundred grounds to have this case thrown-out on appeal.
13. thedarkside (Posts: 652; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
way to give sammy the disadvantage you whuer.
14. Aeires (unregistered)
I think at this point Samsung should just move ahead with a request to have the case moved to a higher judge. From what I've read about Koh, she's an extremely hard worker that has some background in IP, but is a rookie judge and her decisions are showing she's in over her head with this case. Too much is riding on the outcome for an inexperienced judge to preside over. She clearly has no clue on the concept of prior art.
18. Zayuh24 (Posts: 149; Member since: 21 Nov 2011)
My thoughts exactly. Samsung has no chance of winning this under Koh. It doesn't even seem legal that Samsung isn't allowed to use any of its evidence to prove its case.
20. Diego! (Posts: 526; Member since: 15 Jun 2009)
Samsung's attorneys should ask for her removal. She is totally insane. They won't be able to prove anything if she is still ruling this trial.
I just can't believe it!
16. master0fursinz (Posts: 104; Member since: 26 Apr 2010)
Heck sammy should request a new judge thats not so biased towards apple and will look at both sides. it may seem like a cry baby move and might tick off Koh but when you disallow evidence that is made from your own company its like shes just low ballin them.
Or maybe shes hating on Sammys cust service record with her own experience with them. either way shes on a sliding scale with her leaning towards apple.
27. Aeires (unregistered)
In less than a years time, there'll be a made for TV movie. Bank on it.
29. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6895; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
U shouldnt even be on this site.
63. tedkord (Posts: 6030; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Oh, God no. There are too many damned judge shows on now, and I'm sick of sitting through them as my wife watches. Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, Judge This, Judge That.
I want to punch my TV while she's watching them.
25. Angkor (Posts: 108; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
Samsung should request the US Supreme Courts to remove Judge LUCY KOH for discrimination and unfair trials.
40. remixfa (Posts: 14251; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
"On January 20, 2010, on the recommendation of Senator Boxer, President Obama nominated Koh to fill a seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. "
Well.. found yet ANOTHER thing Obama has screwed up...
There is just no reason she should be so one sided. Its ridiculous... well, exept for her personal writings which may shed some light on the issue...
"Koh had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2010. She received some questions from Republican Senator Jeff Sessions regarding her writings in law school where she said that minority judges must maintain the "disguise of objectivity" or face challenges. " Disguise of objectivity... aka, give them your poker face even though you made up your mind long before the trial was over and all the evidence was presented. Doesnt sound very impartial to me.. also sounds like a judicial activist instead of a Judge.
This is her first case of merrit. How did she end up in this position? She has zero experience in the matter. This court case could possibly change the face of mobile electronics which is one of the worlds biggest growth vectors right now... and the judge will be mediated by a rookie activist with an obvious impartiality.
47. networkdood (Posts: 6329; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
I will admit it does not look good for Samsung and the court's bias has already showed up before the case began. APPLE is the darling of America - I wonder how much influence our government is having on this case and on the judge.
55. remixfa (Posts: 14251; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Starts to make you wonder exactly what SJ and Obama talked about in those private meetings in 2010/2011, eh? Now that Obama's fresh judicial pick is the one to oversee this case... with no prior experience in a case of this magnitude OR in mobile patent issues.
Let the conspiracy theories run wild!!
67. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
You're pathetic to spin a conspiracy theory on this. Even for a troll like you this is a whole new level.
41. mukrenol (Posts: 90; Member since: 03 Sep 2011)
what are FAIR trial... judge....
i wonder if Koh is sponsored by iProducts....
42. joey_sfb (Posts: 3725; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
She has placed her bet on Samsung losing by issuing a preliminary injunction against galaxy tab and galaxy nexus. If Samsung were to win, if will show that she is incapable of making sound decision.
As far as she is concerned all bets are off, Samsung must lose!
The iPad and iPhone are good products, the Galaxy tab series are viable choices as they offer customer a different choice. Their UI is different, their screen size is different, their whole eco-system such as online and cloud services are different.
To me Apple has declared war against the right for other businesses to compete and that against consumer interest, my interest!
My Macbook Pro is due for an upgrade and i have been eyeing on the retina display Macbook Pro on the sideline. This trial has made me decided against buying any Apple products.
I will support Samsung and put my money there instead.
43. renegadeXC (Posts: 4; Member since: 02 Aug 2012)
This is gonna sound racist, but being Asian myself, I believe I have the right to say. It seems to me that Asians, once the become citizens of a "Caucasian" country have the tendency to try to "out-white" the white people. It's not the first time I have seen this kind of behaviour and I doubt it will ever be the last. Living in Australia, its extremely evident. They try to be more white than the whites. They go all-out to protect their "new" country from other Asians. Who do you really think is behind the anti-immigration policies? These Asians who already citizens are the ones hell bent against other Asians getting citizenship. Unfortunately, I believe Judge Koh is one of them. Apple is seen as an American company which she must protect at all costs, Samsung is the Asian invader who's now a threat to the American giant. I know this post may inflame some people here, but remember I'm Asian and I'm criticising my own people on this.
52. metoyou (Posts: 279; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
Im agree with you on this but to clarify few things. it's not they try to protect their new country rather being show off, arrogant and try to prove they are some fxcking loser no less no more just loser
61. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
They are called "bananas" as in yellow on the outside but white on the inside. However, it's racism period.
Lastly, there's no rule about racism within one's own ethnicity. Asians can be racist against other Asians.
45. networkdood (Posts: 6329; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
Well, if APPLE wins this case and wins the appeal then they could sue all OEMs....yippee....NOT!!
49. tedkord (Posts: 6030; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
This car won't be over no matter how this ends. Koh had given Samsung so much appeal material, they might just as well stop this trial and go to the next level. She even commented that they had appeal grounds based on her exclusion rulings.
53. networkdood (Posts: 6329; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
wow, talk about an incompetent judge....
51. Jay_F (Posts: 236; Member since: 29 Nov 2011)
Most of you are dumb as s**t. Attacking a judge solely because she doesn't just dismiss the case and give Samsung a big kiss on the lips. The real fandroids are really showing how petty and pathetic they are here. You all know nothing of the judicial system yet you're debating like you graduated law school and did research papers on Judge Koh. Take your heads out of your asses and keep your dumb biased comments to yourself.
62. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
It's more like android fanboys want to go lynch an Asian judge because she's not ruling in Samsung's favor.