Koh already rules against Samsung; objection to video on patents overruled
Now, on the eve of the second patent trial between Samsung and Apple, Judge Lucy Koh has overruled Samsung's objection of the video. The Korean manufacturer argued that the video would be "highly prejudicial" since it would show Apple's devices on a video about patents. Apple, on the other hand, wants the jury to see the 17 minute clip. During the first trial, the jurors saw a similar video, but it was so dated that it probably was created before Apple was a household name.
The jury hasn't been selected, and already Sammy is 0-1 on objections.
18. PapaSmurf (Posts: 9339; Member since: 14 May 2012)
That jury looks as if they've stepped out of the 90's...
45. Finalflash (Posts: 1983; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)
They are easily influenced by self interested idiots like that one guy in the previous jury. They really need to get knowledgeable people in juries instead of random people.
40. Ashoaib (Posts: 2568; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
Overruling is obvious bcoz objection was made by samsung not apple
2. AfterShock (Posts: 3697; Member since: 02 Nov 2012)
Not much hope of no bias.
7. Sauce (unregistered)
I see what you did there.
3. blingblingthing (Posts: 466; Member since: 23 Oct 2012)
I'm not against the video. I'm against apple being included in it.
This will likely only lead a juror to think apple and patents to hand in hand.
Use something else like maybe IBM or Microsoft getting a patent for something.
8. joey_sfb (Posts: 3703; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
I think the US legal system is flawed and bias if they show apple devices on a court instructions video.
Thinks for a moment Samsung has many patents too and should they be shown on any court instructions video? The answer is no as well.
11. Sauce (unregistered)
This would be the same thing if Apple were in a Korean court, with a Korean jury. There would be a video showing Samsung. It's home field advantage. Don't fight in court if you can't handle it lol.
12. blingblingthing (Posts: 466; Member since: 23 Oct 2012)
You want a fair fight, you want facts to reign and not a personal allegiances. You don't need apple in the video.
14. Sauce (unregistered)
In the corporate world, there are no things as fair fights. This isn't the 8th grade playground.
Welcome to the real world.
24. DigitalJedi_X2 (banned) (Posts: 346; Member since: 30 Jan 2012)
But this takes place in a court of law. Where its supposed to be fair and impartial . A court of law is not the corporate world.
25. clothnapkin (Posts: 1; Member since: 30 Mar 2014)
This is not the corporate world. And Judge Koh's actions are extremely questionable.
Imagine a murder trial, with an African-American defendant. Now imagine the jury being forced to watch a video explaining the actual qualifications for murder and the suspect on the video is African-American. In what justice system would this make sense? Not in the United States.
How is this not being seriously looked at? This is a pretty blatant act of injustice and I have not seen something this outlandish in a while.
27. PBXtech (Posts: 994; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
Too bad both sides are acting like it's a kindergarten playground.
13. willard12 (Posts: 957; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
I guess a hypothetical wrong makes a right.
28. joey_sfb (Posts: 3703; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Sauce its Apple that start the lawsuit. You really believe Apple should be the only player in the mobile phone business?
One store to do all your fried chicken, one store for pizza, one for cars..etc. Samsung may appear strong now. Soon someone with better ideas better deals will lead.
Open competition ensure a better and fair deal for all consumer.
29. Sauce (unregistered)
Mr. Joey, because someone "started" a law suit, the other side doesn't have to accept. They can pay a settlement fee and move on.
30. Taters (Posts: 3673; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
Lol what? So if someone starts a fight you think the other side should let them beat you up and move on? Of course you fight.
That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard on phonearena and that is saying a lot.
36. Sauce (unregistered)
29 was a continued response to 11.
Example A for the less educated like yourself: Apple came to a settlement with the public against a class action lawsuit against Apple that claimed Apple had revoked rights to fix/support those with water damaged devices. Apples water sensors were faulty and to avoid a big trial and lose a ton of money (AS SAMSUNG IS DOING RIGHT NOW IF THEY LOSE), Apple agreed to a settlement, which comes out cheaper for their pocket.
47. Taters (Posts: 3673; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
Speaking of the less educated.....how is that even remotely the same? Apple settled because they know they should and would lose...otherwise they wouldn't settle.
In this case there is no way Samsung should lose and all the claims are sketchy. You do not settle in that case. It's common sense. Of course Samsung made a mistake and underestimated the massive US company politics here but in no way they should take it up the ass. I don't know what kind of screwed up world you live in but taking it up the ass is not the educated way. Far from it....lol
49. Sauce (unregistered)
Samsung has been far from winning this fight from the beginning. A couple appeals and continuations but they are already ONE BILLION in debt if this case goes sour for them, which most likely will. Samsung (unlike that Apple example I gave) doesn't think they can lose. It's a d*ck measuring contest with them now and they chose the wrong choice.
54. Taters (Posts: 3673; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
The one billion was ridiculous and absolutely makes a farce out of the USA jury/ legal system.
Do you honestly believe that the high powered legal team suggested that they settle and Samsung told them to F off? They didn't settle because Apple had no business getting more money than a settlement offer.
31. Taters (Posts: 3673; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
Except the Korean government was fair to Apple and this court isn't fair to Samsung. Typical US bulls**t.
39. stealthd (Posts: 1002; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
South Korea banned all sales of the iPhone (and Blackberry) until 2009. There was no patent dispute, it was solely to protect Korean phone manufacturers like Samsung and LG. Still think that's fair?
48. downphoenix (Posts: 2553; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
Samsung and LG didnt really have a smartphone market there until after 2009. So the damage to Apple and the others were pretty much negligible.
38. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5975; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
It is all about jury nullification. If you can get the jury to ignore the other side's arguments, you have won. Getting Apple devices in a video (and especially if there are no Sammy devices in the same video) can prejudice the jury.
Don't be surprised if Sammy uses this ruling as one of their reasons for appeal.
4. blingblingthing (Posts: 466; Member since: 23 Oct 2012)
17 minute video of what,a rectangle being cut?
5. zekes (Posts: 217; Member since: 14 Aug 2012)
Sometimes you just keep your shut samsung that's what the judge is for so I'm happy they got slammed by this don't prejudge
19. blingblingthing (Posts: 466; Member since: 23 Oct 2012)
Prejudge? They objected for something they felt could skew a fair ruling. Sort of like apple would do if they found out a juror worked for Samsung.
6. taz89 (Posts: 2014; Member since: 03 May 2011)
Well if a video that makes apple look positive and innovative etc regardless who you are , that thought will be in your subconscious.
10. dontneedtoknow (Posts: 154; Member since: 17 Feb 2014)
If they said that it is biased to show a logo, then that would give you a getter chance. You tried to slam another company Sammy.... I agree with her decision but I think it's a dick move to put Apple logo in the video.
15. express77 (unregistered)
i dont understand why patents are given for rounded corners, slide to unlock, candy etc.
32. stealthd (Posts: 1002; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
Well, you just referred to a design patent, a utility patent, and a trademark. They're all completely different things, so looking those up would be a good place to start.
17. alouden (Posts: 232; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Samsung is screwed. Simple. Any judge with one functioning neuron would agree the video is highly prejudicial. Could they not prepare a video with no branding?
Could be grounds for an appeal.
20. Deaconclgi (Posts: 372; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)
Looks like it is time to give this case to a different judge.
35. Krjal (Posts: 82; Member since: 19 Dec 2013)
I think it was time about a year ago but she's still there...
21. swordmaster2551 (Posts: 10; Member since: 27 Mar 2014)
Holy ****, this judge, does he/she not know what bias is? That video is so pro apple it hurts and the jury is going to be influenced by that.
23. jroc74 (Posts: 5201; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Yup...like I said in that other article about this....Samsung might as well just write a blank check now....
33. Lampriya (banned) (Posts: 245; Member since: 05 Oct 2013)
Destroy that thief called samsung!!! Dont let them copy u again, Apple
41. Ashoaib (Posts: 2568; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
You right wrong, right apple instead of samsung... apple a thief
37. Nkolsen (Posts: 59; Member since: 28 Mar 2013)
I think US should change their name to United States of Apple.....OMFG that is not a describing video, it is an apple commercial. Thank god i dont live in a country with a legal system that actually let people as stupid judge Koh sit in their court rooms.....
42. Ashoaib (Posts: 2568; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
United states of apple?? hahaha... thats innovative...
52. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6874; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
I'm thinking of moving to another country where patent office aren't being paid and manipulated by the greedy fruit
46. Altair (Posts: 362; Member since: 02 Feb 2012)
Shamesung, I hope jury will punish you with 5 billion penalty. You piece of cheap blastic copycat.
50. networkdood (Posts: 6329; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
Not like American courts have intelligent jurors...I will be surprised if Samsung wins as the cards are stacked against them...
53. garyII (Posts: 160; Member since: 26 Feb 2014)
the jury will be like eaten an poison apple if they got to watch the video...haha, just like the sleeping beauty...then the whole result will be just in the hand of the judge...hahahahaha