Judge Koh rules against three Samsung motions
Two of those motions were from Samsung asking for relief from previous rulings made by Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal in the run up to this trial. the third motion asked for clarification of Judge Koh's ruling against summary judgment filings. This last ruling had led to the court drawing up a document showing what evidence is allowed and what evidence is excluded.
Although the subject of an injunction by the district court, a stay from a Federal appeals court allows Samsung to continue to sell the Samsung GALAXY Nexus for now
So where does the movie fit in? In challenging the preliminary injunctions against the Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 and the Samsung GALAXY Nexus, Samsung referenced clips from 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Tomorrow People but whether it was an intentional omission or a mistake, Samsung never explained what the clips had to do with proving that Apple's patents were invalid or that Samsung did not infringe upon them. Using fictional characters as prior art has been successfully applied but only when the actions and ideas in the fiction match up to the action at the heart of the case. In other words, showing an iPad like device in 2001: A Space Odyssey make show prior art, but that is not what the court wants to see. If in the movie, this iPad-like device was the subject of a patent battle with the same issues as this case, perhaps Judge Koh would have allowed it.
38. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
just in the right of the Money, so I agree with you
and because she needs money from Apple, logically she must be a bad judge when she is not able to earn money in a right way
2. Orbitman (Posts: 108; Member since: 09 Oct 2011)
geez! samsung can't seem to catch a break in this one. things are not looking up for good ol sammy =/
25. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 2447; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
They shouldn't have copied Apple so many times. They wouldn't even be in this debacle had they just been more original.
Cue the many thumb downs.
37. Aeires (unregistered)
Keep telling yourself that. Apple will go after anyone they see as a threat, regardless of who they are or what designs they use.
3. Ubi2447 (Posts: 113; Member since: 14 Feb 2012)
Sorta feels rigged. I mean I know it's not but she really seems to be almost bias.
12. RORYREVOLUTION (Posts: 2800; Member since: 12 Jan 2010)
There's no doubt in my mind she is. I'm not going to resort to childish name calling or any stupid racist remark but I will tell you she is completely full of herself and I have no doubt in my mind she is under the table with Apple. There is no way this is a fair trial and it almost seems a pointless one. But of course, for "legal" purposes, she has to give Samsung a trial, just deny every request/remark that they make tho.
As I said before, if the competition gets banned, I know you apple fanboys love for 4GS2,3,4 devices that are all the same with a nice big fat contract price on them. But of course, you guys think you're so rich and cool so you'll have no problem with throwing away your money as long as you get your new idevice.
23. Lucas777 (Posts: 2115; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
can you please explain how she is going against the rules and laws of the US judicial system?
52. cheetah2k (Posts: 696; Member since: 16 Jan 2011)
Anyone with even half a brain can see there is "clear bias" going on here. Judge Koh should be dejected for this, as well as Judge Grewal for throwing forth his personal emotions to the trial being "peeved at Samsung" for the non-release of source code. How about being peeved at Apple for contempt of the court displaying images of a Galaxy Tab the same size as an iPad... Fair is fair right? Late source code or lying to the court - I dont know about you guys but I know whats worse.
19. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4735; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
As I have posted in numerous threads, this is staged for an appeal. There are plenty of examples of judicial error which will form the basis for an appeal by Sammy. They just need to keep putting their objections and the judge overruling their objections in the record. It is unfortunate, but sh*t happens. That is why there is a court of appeal.
Koh has been over-ruled before in this case (sales ban on G-Nexus), and it is looking like she will be over-ruled again.
27. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
She'll be overruled based on what? You have no idea what you're talking about.
31. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4735; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Her sales ban on the G-Nexus has been stayed through the duration of the trial. You are living a state of denial, so it is not possible to have a rational, objective conversation with you.
7. B3BLW29 (Posts: 232; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)
Judge Lucy Koh is either intelligent than rest of the world or she hates good old sammy..
15. frydaexiii (Posts: 1133; Member since: 01 Dec 2011)
I'm starting to think it went something like this.
Apple : Let us win and you'll be the first in the world to use the new iPhone.
Koh : *Fangasm* DOWN WITH SAMSUNG, ALL HAIL APPLE!
14. frydaexiii (Posts: 1133; Member since: 01 Dec 2011)
Wow, this is just incredible, it's like she's not even trying to act like she's a fair judge anymore.
"We got proof that we designed a phone that looks like the iPhone before the iPhone." Nope.
"Apple used Sony's design in the first place." Nope.
"They can't sue over a F****KING RECTANGLE!!!!" Yes, they can.
"Mommy, the used a rectangle shape for their phone and it's stealing all our customers!" OH NO THEY DIDN'T*Shakes Head* Samsung is guilty, I don't care what proof they have or what proof Apple doesn't have, they just are!
21. Lucas777 (Posts: 2115; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
honestly its like you dont even know what is happening with this trial…
apple has the patents for this design-- those patents are debatable but that isnt what this trial is about… this trial is only whether samsung infringed on those patents… therefor space odyssey has absolutely no relevance
also if samsung is not going to follow the rules of the United States judicial system, then their evidence will be thrown out as so…
33. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
But Patents only work if there is no prior art. Samsung has the right to prove prior art exists, that is what they are attempting to do. Not allowing the existence of prior art to be shown at a trial is a huge problem.
"I have a patent on something that existed before I patented it. So you copied me, just don't show anyone that I copied my design in the first place."
51. Lucas777 (Posts: 2115; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
the problem is this trial has nothing to do with whether the patents are valid or not-- that is a whole separate trial… the only thing this trial is deciding is whether or not samsung inflicted said patents, legit or not
16. SonyFTW2020 (Posts: 305; Member since: 03 May 2012)
Apple is hurting themselves remember that...
39. Rocksteady (Posts: 153; Member since: 29 Apr 2012)
winning in court, maybe.
Gaining public hatred, sure.
50. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
People love Apple, Internet trolls are the only ones complaining.
53. Rocksteady (Posts: 153; Member since: 29 Apr 2012)
Can't you discuss matters in a more adult fashion?!
sheeps are all over the place.
29. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Samsung is getting a nice butt kicking by Apple. Apple tried to reason with them and asked them to stop. Samsung blew them off so now here we are. I'm hoping Samsung faces some very heavy financial losses due to this trial.
32. frydaexiii (Posts: 1133; Member since: 01 Dec 2011)
Yeah? An idiot like you might not know this, but these news is just giving Samsung some free publicity, and I don't mean just in the US, it's in newspapers everywhere in the world.
People who originally did not even consider Samsung are now wondering, "Why would Apple sue them? They must be pretty good." and "Apple's trying to ban Samsung's phones? I should give them a look."
34. mrochester (unregistered)
I'm not sure if Samsung's publicity has been particularly positive as a lot of it has been Apple accusing them of copying and them having products banned or withdrawn.
36. Quezdagreat (Posts: 366; Member since: 05 Apr 2012)
You guys really think this lady is stupid? She is not the one bringing sci-fi movies to court trying to win a case. Samsung is trying everything possible not to lose this case. First they said apple copied from sony now their saying they got their design from a movie.
42. roscuthiii (Posts: 1602; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Yes, it's a little thing called 'prior art'. Since Apple's case is fundamentally a design patent, the 'art' part of prior art is pretty significant.
Koh's blatant bias is also pretty significant. But hey, US justice... best justice money can buy.
43. MartyK (Posts: 651; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
It's call "PRIOR ART" (Google or dictionary those two word) or Samsung F700 or SONY-Style phone..are you reading anything Samsung is claiming?
46. Quezdagreat (Posts: 366; Member since: 05 Apr 2012)
I don't care what they're claiming because I know they copy other companies ideas and if you think Samsung never copied anything, you are a idiot
47. burnab87 (Posts: 1; Member since: 03 Aug 2012)
Yea you really are stupid. They're proving that apple copied other designs, but the judge will have not acceptance of hearing that the prio art exist. Apple copied samsung copied the whole world copies. But the fact of the matter is that the more she denies the more it hurts apple. If she would allow all evidence and this rtial is a win for apple it ends any chance of an appeal. And nips this all in the bud hear and now. So yes she is stupid and so is apple's lawyers for allowing her to countinue with all these denying evidence. Every patent apple has filed since 2004 is a copy of prior works.
49. Quezdagreat (Posts: 366; Member since: 05 Apr 2012)
if apple copied them, why aren't they taking apple to court? this is about Samsung copying apple and apple actually having patents for the things Samsung copied.
40. Lwazi_N (Posts: 205; Member since: 23 Jun 2011)
Honestly, has Judge Koh ruled anything in favour of Samsung? I find this strange as Samsung does have a valid claim against Apple but Judge Potassiun Hydroxide here chooses to ignore anything Sammy says.
41. MartyK (Posts: 651; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
Samsung Attys, needs to stand up and say," hey Lady, can we hurry up we have appeals to file on you".
44. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5177; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
The stupid btch doesnt know how to be a fair judge. YOU HAVE to listen to both sides. She is on apple pay roll. Only the jury decides whos guilty
45. roscuthiii (Posts: 1602; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
At this point Samsung should just go all Oliver North on Koh and stare at her like she has a d**k growing out of her forehead for the rest of the proceedings. Koh's reached her verdict before this trial even started.
48. JaseelEbrahim (Posts: 31; Member since: 24 Jul 2012)
An Apple won't keep you away from Court