Samsung's star lawyer justifies his decision to share evidence with the public, Apple wants heads to roll
A true and correct copy of a sample of the press inquiries seeking precisely the information that was provided—including requesting the trial demonstrative exhibits at issue—is attached as Exhibit A.
Contrary to the representations Apple’s counsel made to this Court, Samsung did not issue a general press release and more importantly, did not violate any Court Order or any legal or ethical standards. These false representations by Apple’s counsel publicly and unfairly called my personal reputation into question and have resulted in media reports likewise falsely impugning me personally.
As this Court has acknowledged, this is a case with genuine and substantial commercial and public interest and with enormous potential commercial impact. The media has been reporting in salacious detail Apple’s allegations of Samsung’s supposed “copying”, causing injury to Samsung’s public reputation as a company. Moreover, Apple’s baseless and public assertions that Samsung’s transmission to the media of public information constituted contempt of court and that these actions were intended to pollute the jury were themselves glaring falsehoods, highlighting why Samsung has every right to defend itself in the public domain from unfair and malicious attacks.
Samsung’s brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to media inquiries was lawful, ethical, and fully consistent with the relevant California Rules of Professional Responsibility (incorporated by N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 11-4) and legal authorities regarding attorneys’ communications with the press. California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose “information in a public record.” As shown above, all of the information disclosed was contained in public records.
1. hung2900 (Posts: 649; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)
That's why Koh was angry. She didn't want it to happen but no way for her to prevent it.
4. Aeires (unregistered)
So it was legal this whole time, can't wait to read the comments from the fruit camp. Some people can't accept the concept of parallel developments, three different companies developing similar phones at the same time. Just sad 1 of them thinks only they are allowed basic generic shapes.
14. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4729; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
There is sufficient judicial error at this point to give Sammy plenty of reason for an appeal. I suspect this latest iteration is more an effort to play a mind game with Apple's legal team. It would seem to be succeeding.
Memo to Apple - the truth shall set you free.
32. cheetah2k (Posts: 696; Member since: 16 Jan 2011)
All of this just makes Koh look fcuking stupid.. She obviously didn't learn from the last over-ruling..
2. easymomo (Posts: 72; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
I'm not somebody who loves plot theory and see plot everywhere but Koh, really really is making me change my mind.
6. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
1) Apple lies about who was the first
2) Samsung has 100 % proof that he had almost the same design before iPhone
3) judge denies the proof
4) Samsung wants to show Apple's lies and publish the 100 % proof
5) apple wants to punish the leak of the proof to hide his lies
this is really what the world wants?
rotten world has rotten companies (Apple) and rotten judges (Koh)
8. Zayuh24 (Posts: 147; Member since: 21 Nov 2011)
I was thinking the same thing. It baffles me how this case is progressing. And if Koh still wants to play her evil hand, Samsung will appeal her decision (yet again), get it overturned, and go on their way.
18. ardent1 (Posts: 1863; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
> Apple lies about who was the first
Except the fact that Apple has the patents, something the green camp keep forgetting.
Remember, a number of courts around the world have adjudicated in favor of Apple and against Samsung. Again, another fact the green camp keeps forgetting.
Remember, Apple has succeeded in getting Samsung products removed from the markets due to patent infringement. Again, another fact the green camp keeps forgetting.
Samsung is NOT without sin. Samsung is no Snow White.
24. hulumanu (Posts: 11; Member since: 26 Jul 2012)
Yes, Apple does have the patent, that is not in dispute. The question is.. Is it a valid patent? The US PTO seems to award patents to anyone with the intent to allow the US Courts to handle any disputes on them. That is what this trial is all about....
And, there have been other courts around the world that have adjudicated in favor of Samsung as well. What happens in the US is based solely on the parameters as they pertain to the US, not anywhere else. That, again, is what this trial is all about....
25. Techvue (Posts: 10; Member since: 25 Jul 2012)
Agree, many of Apple's patents are
old patent + "on a cell phone" But because cell phones have moved beyond items meant for only making phone calls, such patents might be overturned: i.e. Multi-touch gestures, tap to zoom, etc. These were all established in the industry before Apple added them to a phone.
What Apple is really trying to claim is that they are the only ones allowed to transfer technology to a cell phone - and they are not. The patents should be overturned.
27. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
there have been as many times where the judge has come down against apple as with apple. The win/loss percentage isnt in apple's favor.. its pretty even to slighly against apple.
Having a "patent" in the broken US patent system doesnt automatically make you the inventor. You know very well that there are patents out there awarded to multiple people over the same thing.
Part of this court case is actually challenging Apple's right to have those patents. The Sony-Jony and F-700 were major nukes to apple's claim of "first, and thus rightful patent holder". If the jury rules against apple for that, they are basically invalidating apple's claim on the patents as well.
33. cheetah2k (Posts: 696; Member since: 16 Jan 2011)
Whats the quickest way to nullify a patent?
Its called PRIOR ART!
9. willard12 (Posts: 375; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Judge Koh didn't even order the evidence to be sealed and she is upset. Yet, Apple releases all of their theories to CNN and that's OK with her. Too bad Apple is allowed to play by a different set of rules.
10. Angkor (Posts: 108; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
Why Apple wanted to block it? Since Apple has Judge Koh as their supporter.
11. darkvadervip (Posts: 242; Member since: 08 Dec 2010)
You all are blind as hell but just wait. When google testifies against Samsung and admit it was a copy then what you all going to say. Oh it's predictable" apple paid off google". It's a trip how y'all love android but even in detail writings google saw the design and told them not to do it. But you know Sammy its all about the money. I'm just wondering why HTC don't sue Samsung over them copying sense with touch wiz but you all not going to point that out no time soon.
16. taunjaswenson (Posts: 13; Member since: 30 Jul 2012)
Wait...so you think that Google, the makers of Android, are going to take the stand and testify AGAINST the biggest seller of Android devices, while defending its biggest competitor (Apple)?!?!?! I don't even know what to say to that... except, i hope you patent that crazy idea before Apple decides to say they thought it first!!
17. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
So, Samsung has evidence that they developed their F700 in 2006 before the iPhone. In your mind this is somehow Samsung copying the iPhone. So, if your case is going to revolve around this: Why didn't Apple sue LG for producing phones that look very similar as well? Is maybe because the LG Prada came to market first?
20. hulumanu (Posts: 11; Member since: 26 Jul 2012)
IMHO anything Google said in the past or what Google testifies now is moot. The core of this trial has to do with patents and what is patentable. The US patent office will patent ANYTHING and leave up to the courts to figure it out if the patent is valid. Google may have told Samsung what their OPINION was of the course that Samsung was taking, but Samsung probably already knew what Google was trying to convey, and felt they had grounds to continue anyway. Googles opinion back then and now does not matter.. what matters is how the court feels right now. Google should not even be brought into this mess.....
12. marchels14 (unregistered)
apple and judge koh both are trying to bring Samsung down i wont be surprised that apple will win. the articles i have read the judge hasn't done thinning in favor of Samsung just apple.looks suspicious.
29. zhypher_23 (Posts: 194; Member since: 04 Jun 2012)
They should change the judge already, this trial is getting out of hand already from the favors that Apple are gaining from iKoh, it's just insane.
13. whysoserious (Posts: 303; Member since: 20 Jul 2012)
Disapproves the use of the slideshow as an evidence on the court,
gets pissed off and imposes sanction when it was leaked in the media.
- Judge Koh trolling lvl: 99
21. paulyyd (Posts: 316; Member since: 08 Jan 2011)
usually when you disobey a judge, you should be punished, I don't see how this case is any different
22. hulumanu (Posts: 11; Member since: 26 Jul 2012)
I don't think Samsung disobeyed Judge Koh at all. As counsel stated all information "leaked" to the public was already out in the public.... Just because Judge Koh will not allow all relevant information to be presented in her courtroom, it does not preclude Samsung from defending itself in the court of public opinion. If the information that Samsung "leaked" in the slideshow is in fact false information or was brought to light only in discovery for this case - that is another story for a another courtroom as Judge Koh (Apple) does not want to bring it into this one. Bottom line is, according to Samsung, the information was out in the public already and could have easily been found by any paralegal, Samsung just packaged it up.
23. AstronautJones (Posts: 99; Member since: 01 Aug 2012)
If you read the article, you would have seen that he didn't disobey the judge.
28. joey_sfb (Posts: 1477; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
'Apple wants heads to roll', to score a 'Fatality Flawless Victory' by sanctioning Samsung
With iKoh, Apple has the whole game in their hands.