Samsung destroyed evidence twice, Apple wants to tell the jury

14. E.N. posted on 01 Aug 2012, 22:19 9 13

Samsung's incompetence alone could cost them the case.

28. taco50 (banned) posted on 02 Aug 2012, 02:01 2 16

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 posted on 02 Aug 2012, 02:03 3 12

Samsung is trying to cover something up.

• This comment is posted in response to #28 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #28 Hide

48. InspectorGadget80 posted on 02 Aug 2012, 19:38 0 0

And Apple pays its way to the court to find samsung guilty

• This comment is posted in response to #33 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #33 Hide

47. InspectorGadget80 posted on 02 Aug 2012, 19:37 0 1

Your comment is incompetence and irrelevant

30. Mxyzptlk posted on 02 Aug 2012, 02:02 3 13

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 posted on 02 Aug 2012, 08:46 2 0

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

4. remixfa posted on 01 Aug 2012, 21:33 24 7

also from the same company that fights the use of ITS OWN DESIGNS aka, the Sony rip off designs, in the case.

29. quakan posted on 02 Aug 2012, 02:02 6 0

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 posted on 02 Aug 2012, 07:25 3 0

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.

• This comment is posted in response to #29 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #29 Hide

15. E.N. posted on 01 Aug 2012, 22:24 5 6

Deleting evidence is much worse

20. remixfa posted on 02 Aug 2012, 00:07 11 2

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. posted on 02 Aug 2012, 00:32 2 0

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?

• This comment is posted in response to #20 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #20 Hide

25. tedkord posted on 02 Aug 2012, 01:57 4 1

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...

• This comment is posted in response to #22 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #22 Hide

32. taco50 (banned) posted on 02 Aug 2012, 02:03 1 11

The razr is natural evolution. Samsung is copying.

• This comment is posted in response to #25 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #25 Hide

31. taco50 (banned) posted on 02 Aug 2012, 02:03 1 11

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.

• This comment is posted in response to #20 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #20 Hide

44. Non_Sequitur posted on 02 Aug 2012, 07:26 1 0

APPLE'S DESIGN DOESN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE SONY'S. None of them look that much similar! It doesn't matter!

• This comment is posted in response to #31 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #31 Hide

21. Techvue posted on 02 Aug 2012, 00:26 3 2

Wonder how the judge sleeps at night. She is really terrible.

23. E.N. posted on 02 Aug 2012, 00:38 1 0

Lol, exactly

18. -box- posted on 01 Aug 2012, 22:59 0 1

Not even catching up, just staying a step ahead of obsolescence

27. tedkord posted on 02 Aug 2012, 01:59 3 1

You'll be long dead and gone before that day comes.

37. roscuthiii posted on 02 Aug 2012, 02:53 1 0

Oh yeah, Samsung is definitely fumbling the ball.

50. InspectorGadget80 posted on 02 Aug 2012, 19:47 0 0

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.

39. roscuthiii posted on 02 Aug 2012, 03:09 1 2

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 posted on 02 Aug 2012, 19:49 0 0

We dont need a company like apple to pay their way out of the court room

52. InspectorGadget80 posted on 02 Aug 2012, 19:50 1 0

Apple cries more time than samsung.