Samsung destroyed evidence twice, Apple wants to tell the jury
While Samsung did delete email that it was ordered to hold as evidence for the current trial, the same thing occurred in 2004 in a district court in New Jersey. In that case, the court issued "adverse inference instructions" against Samsung because it did not prevent its email deletion policy from removing emails that were supposed to be saved as evidence.
Samsung has argued that the Magistrate Judge who ruled that the jury could hear about the Korean based firm's penchant for deleting evidence ruled incorrectly and that the jury should not be allowed to hear about this evidence spoilation in court. Apple says that Samsung has no legal footing in the matter and has asked Judge Lucy Koh to overrule Samsung's request.
For its part, Apple says that destruction of the emails might have destroyed evidence that might have been important to Apple's case. The Magistrate Judge, Paul Grewal, agreed that Samsung wronged Apple when it "continued throughout this case automatically to delete e-mails." Apple even gave an example of how the deleted emails can hurt them. Apple claims that Lee Min-hyuk, the principal designer of the Samsung Galaxy S that Apple says copied the iPhone, will testify but none of his emails were produced from his files by Samsung. Apple states that such email once existed because Samsung produced 75 of them after Lee received a notice to retain all documents, and because other custodians of the email kept them.
1. paulyyd (Posts: 320; Member since: 08 Jan 2011)
lol samsung digging its self deeper and deeper
14. E.N. (Posts: 2218; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
Samsung's incompetence alone could cost them the case.
28. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
I don't think it's incompetence. I think they're deleting evidence on purpose. Just like they're leaking information to the press they're not supposed to. Samsung is playing dirty.
33. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 2846; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Samsung is trying to cover something up.
48. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5637; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
And Apple pays its way to the court to find samsung guilty
47. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5637; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
Your comment is incompetence and irrelevant
30. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 2846; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
I know right? Seems like Samsung is desperate at this point. All they had to do in the beginning is be original instead of copying Apple. Even Google warned them not to copy Apple.
46. good2great (Posts: 1035; Member since: 22 Feb 2012)
PA needs to remove the thumb up/down feature on this site...
its getting ridiculous...lol
but yeah Samsung it's looking like the guilty one at this point in the case... maybe they can turn things around soon
2. Aeires (unregistered)
They weren't deleted, they're on sick leave in Hawaii.
3. guest (Posts: 88; Member since: 13 Jun 2012)
This is rich coming from the company that forced a key witness to "retire" one month before the trial began. Come on really? If the judge is going to allow this they should also let the jury know about the Apple employee that suddenly retired. Samsung's employee is going to testify Apple's employee won't even be in the courtroom.
4. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
also from the same company that fights the use of ITS OWN DESIGNS aka, the Sony rip off designs, in the case.
29. quakan (Posts: 1079; Member since: 02 Mar 2011)
Apple’s “Purple” Concept For iPhone Gets Sony-Inspired Designs Thrown Out Of Patent Trial...the Purple concept is from 2005 and the Sony design is from March 2006.
43. Non_Sequitur (Posts: 1111; Member since: 16 Mar 2012)
Oh my God, you guys. No one copied Apple. We're talking about rectangles with buttons here. No one design even comes close to the other, I'll be the first to admit it. This is ridiculous. Unless the design is a complete rip off of another thing, then it's NOT IMPORTANT.
I wish this would end so you all would STOP BITCHING.
20. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
how is it worse? You dont know what was said. All you can do is paint a picture about what was possibly said.. which is conjecture.. which is inadmissible.
However a direct, apple drawn copy of Sony's design which is very very similar to the iphone's final appearance is VERY damning to their own evidence that they are original and deserve patent protection on rounded rectangles.
I say let Apple talk about it, let Samsung explain their auto-dump security system.. but at the same time Let samsung's F-700 and "iSony" proof in as well. That would be "fair".
22. E.N. (Posts: 2218; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
Yes the fact that they deleted the evidence is pretty damn bad. You're exactly right, we have no clue what those documents said, which is why it's so bad!
Didn't Apple show that they've been working on the design well before Sony's design came in. The original iPhone looks tons more like the Project Purple than it does the ugly Sony mock-up.
And I think Samsung is deviating from the main point. They should be trying to prove that the Samsung Galaxy devices don't copy the iPhone. Instead they'refocusing a lot of their energy with this whole Sony deal to try to show that Apple copied Sony, thus invalidating the patent (which should be a whole different issue). Are they saying that they didn't copy the iPhone or that they did but it doesn't matter because Apple shouldn't have gotten the patent anyway since it's not theirs?
25. tedkord (Posts: 3914; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
So, what we have seen is that Apple, Sony and Samsung all had designs with rounded corner rectangle slabs before the iPhone was released. Sounds like the natural evolution of the market, not copying of a unique design...
32. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
The razr is natural evolution. Samsung is copying.
31. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Yes Apple showed they had the design well before Sony. Fandroids could care less about facts. They're still claiming the razr outsold the iPhone on VZW even though it was proven the iPhone was #1 again.
44. Non_Sequitur (Posts: 1111; Member since: 16 Mar 2012)
APPLE'S DESIGN DOESN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE SONY'S. None of them look that much similar! It doesn't matter!
5. sprockkets (Posts: 938; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)
How do these lawyers sleep at night? Besides being near their pile of money they make, seeing that ars said they bill around $850 an hour?
21. Techvue (Posts: 10; Member since: 25 Jul 2012)
Wonder how the judge sleeps at night. She is really terrible.
7. pikapowerize (banned) (Posts: 1869; Member since: 03 May 2012)
ohh boyyyy... its the end!!!!
9. phljcnth (Posts: 200; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
Oops! I deleted it accidentally on purpose!
10. Osman (Posts: 43; Member since: 07 May 2012)
Apple just got trolled(Again) by the Samsung (^.^) :|
11. Joshing4fun (Posts: 1037; Member since: 13 Aug 2010)
Ugh, why does anyone even care. There arguing about a 3 year old device which isn't even on the market anymore. Just throw this whole case out and let's get on with our lives.
12. tedkord (Posts: 3914; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
The older instance has no bearing on this case, but if emails were destroyed for this case, I see no reason they shouldn't be revealed to the jury. Samsung should explain what happened.
At the same time, Apple's former designer Shin should be compelled to testify, since he was directly involved in Apple using Sony designs to come up with iPhone ideas. The whole sudden retirement, he's too sick to testify but not too sick to run marathons crap shouldn't fly.
And since Apple brought up the F700, Samsung should be allowed to enter it into evidence.
13. Jay_F (Posts: 236; Member since: 29 Nov 2011)
It wouldn't have been deleted unless they have something to hide... Automatic deletion or not, they should have known, and there's in all likelihood some type of checklist companies go through with impending lawsuits that instructs them on the proper actions they should take to at least maintain their integrity.
16. onilink67 (Posts: 8; Member since: 18 Jun 2012)
Many companies have this policy but I've never heard of something as extreme as 20 days like Samsung has. I however find it hard to believe that someone at the level of a Principle Engineer didn't backup his emails to PST files or Islands I believe they are called in the lotus notes world. Most of these blame should be on this particular engineer as anyone in engineering would know have everything in writing because when bullets start flying later on they are your ammo.
17. steelcityball2k5 (Posts: 1; Member since: 01 Aug 2012)
I just don't understand why apple is wasting millions and millions of dollars trying to run Samsung into the ground... Why not take those funds and invest them into jumping ahead of the curve instead of just catching up every November.
18. -box- (Posts: 3565; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
Not even catching up, just staying a step ahead of obsolescence
24. stevetruman (Posts: 13; Member since: 27 Jul 2012)
way to go, samsung..!!! destroy yourself and let the case goes on and on.. and probly do the best to file bankrupty..!!!hahhahaha.. waiting for the day to happen..!!!!
27. tedkord (Posts: 3914; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
You'll be long dead and gone before that day comes.
34. quakan (Posts: 1079; Member since: 02 Mar 2011)
Nothing is deleted on the Internet. That email can still be archived somehow.
35. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Android fans do you think Samsung is killing their own case by repeatedly not following judges orders?
37. roscuthiii (Posts: 1717; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Oh yeah, Samsung is definitely fumbling the ball.
36. Seannyc (Posts: 59; Member since: 21 Jul 2012)
Don't trust those krazy koreans! Look at KIm Jong Ill!
samsung is deffianately not making the right moves!
jk jk im asian I can say it you cant ;)
50. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5637; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
U know judge koh is asian right? And samsung is south korea not north. Do a little history before you comment bout a company origin.
38. roscuthiii (Posts: 1717; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Well, if Apple wants to bring something not related to the case on hand, Samsung should be allowed to do the same. It's not like there aren't skeletons in Apple's closet.
With Judge Lucy Koh presiding over the bench though, I doubt they are given the reciprocation.
Koh's gotta go. She's either blatantly for Apple or just totally inept. Samsung's well on their way to botching their own case, we don't need the judge ushering it along.
39. roscuthiii (Posts: 1717; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Because of Koh's Korean descent, I believe what she is doing is trying to show that she isn't going to favor Samsung because of her heritage, but in the end that is still a travesty of justice when a judge is partial to one side over another in the blatant manner she has shown.
Then to, there's also her husband's business ties. That should have been deemed a conflict of interest from the start.
At best this should be declared a mistrial, at worst Lucy should be removed from the bench.
51. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5637; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
We dont need a company like apple to pay their way out of the court room
41. Shino (Posts: 159; Member since: 23 Jul 2012)
Bhaaa, Samsung - yellow pants! Gotcha! :))) Cheeky little b'staaads! :))) Show the judge ''the other hand''! :)
42. gesick (Posts: 1; Member since: 02 Aug 2012)
LOL,. there's nothing left original in this world,... all just innovations,... and if your product is great there is nothing to worry about,.... even they copy it,... just create a new one that will stand-out the rest,... ----anyway they just want our money----
45. fraydoe (Posts: 57; Member since: 27 Dec 2011)
omfg, seriously now its a little annoying, theyre like some little kids, the judge should just dismiss the case with a big STFU and DEAL WITH IT
52. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5637; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
Apple cries more time than samsung.
53. viper1983 (Posts: 31; Member since: 03 Aug 2012)
Samsung sheep may not like how this trial turns out