• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • Samsung Claims That Sharing Evidence Was the Right Thing to Do


    In a recent court filing, Samsung Lawyer John Quinn defended the move to release previously nixed evidence to media outlets, saying the move was both “ethical” and “lawful.” Quinn who’s a high-powered attorney and managing partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, was dressed down yesterday by Judge Lucy Koh for emails Samsung sent to reporters that contained exhibits blocked from consideration by the jury in the company’s trial against Apple. Judge Koh was the one presiding the case and after she was made aware of the “leak” by Apple attorneys late Tuesday, she ordered Samsung to enter a brief detailing of who authorized the email and why. As a response, Quinn denies any wrongdoing and claims the action was in response to reporters’ requests for information.

    The court pushed for an open trial, denying on numerous occasions requests to seal deemed-sensitive documents by both Apple and Samsung. Quinn noted the following in this declaration:

    Far from violating any order, Samsung's transmission to the public of public information disclosed in pretrial filings is entirely consistent with this Court's statements—made in denying both parties‟ requests to seal documents—that “[t]he United States district court is a public institution, and the workings of litigation must be open to public view. Pretrial submissions are a part of trial.
    The slides which Samsung sent out on Tuesday were of former Apple designer Shin Nishibori’s deposition regarding a Sony-styled iPhone as well as a statement which claimed the excluded exhibit “would have established beyond a doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design.” Quinn leverages a number of court statues as well as lawyers’ First Amendment rights to free speech in his defense. He even went on to say the move was not intended to sway the jury’s opinion. He mentioned the following in his declaration:

    Samsung's brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to press inquiries was not motivated by or designed to influence jurors. The members of the jury had already been selected at the time of the statement and the transmission of these public exhibits, and had been specifically instructed not to read any form of media relating to this case. The information provided therefore was not intended to, nor could it, “have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.
    Media outlets have been trying to dig up as much information as possible regarding the proceedings which began Monday due to the suit’s implications. As a result, the slides along with the pages of legal documents have all been released to the public.

    Apple in the meantime said it plans to file an emergency motion for sanctions and “other relief that may be appropriate” as a result of Samsung issuance of the excluded evidence. The letter was said to be issued by Apple attorney William Lee, a partner in the Litigation/Controversy and Intellectual Property Departments at law firm, WilmerHale. Samsung’s entire statement was reprinted in Apple’s letter and accompanied by examples of media reports containing the leaked evidence. The following was mentioned in the letter:

    The Judge's exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone. The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.
    We’ll have to wait and see what happens next when the Apple vs. Samsung trial reconvenes on Friday when Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing, Phil Schiller, retakes the stand to complete his testimony which was previously cut short.

    Source: CNET
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Samsung Claims That Sharing Evidence Was the Right Thing to Do started by Akshay Masand View original post
    Comments 22 Comments
    1. PAKIS-RULEZ's Avatar
      PAKIS-RULEZ -
      Quote Originally Posted by Painkiller006 View Post
      Android may not have been the first but they don't act like Apple and sue everyone over the most ridiculous things like, bounce back scroll effect, shape, slide to unlock, unified search....etc. It's obvious you're an isheep which is ok, there's nothing with that. But don't try to act like Apple is a saint. Also, what does owing Apple products have to do with anything?? Before you start, i had an iphone 3gs, now use a Galaxy Nexus. I have an ipad for my daughter and a Nexus 7 for myself. What label you have for me? Why couldn't the Judge from the Google vs Oracle case be in this trial instead of Kohl. Lastly, Apple hasn't been innovating anything for a while, they just keep upgrading the specs on the current iphone and giving mediocre upgrades with features that should of been added a long time ago.



      +1
      +1 and Like

      I don't care who came first or who is better. all I say is there should be competition which is better for consumers which results in cheaper products.
      so Apple is clearly trying to cut the competition! and f up the consumers.
    1. tongxinshe's Avatar
      tongxinshe -
      Quote Originally Posted by Painkiller006 View Post
      Android may not have been the first but they don't act like Apple and sue everyone over the most ridiculous things like, bounce back scroll effect, shape, slide to unlock, unified search....etc. It's obvious you're an isheep which is ok, there's nothing with that. But don't try to act like Apple is a saint. Also, what does owing Apple products have to do with anything?? Before you start, i had an iphone 3gs, now use a Galaxy Nexus. I have an ipad for my daughter and a Nexus 7 for myself. What label you have for me? Why couldn't the Judge from the Google vs Oracle case be in this trial instead of Kohl. Lastly, Apple hasn't been innovating anything for a while, they just keep upgrading the specs on the current iphone and giving mediocre upgrades with features that should of been added a long time ago.
      Google does not have the standpoint to sue Apple because it copied much more from Apple than the other way around. Otherwise, I would suppose Google would do the same thing Apple does right now.

      Apple is never a saint, and no one is saying that, you were just misunderstanding. People is just respecting Apple for it started a lovely new trend -- the type of touch-panel-gesture-based smartphones like iPhone and Android phones.
      If Apple is a saint, it won't refuse Schmidt's suggestion of opening up iOS before iPhone was introduced, then Schmidt won't be pushed out of Apple's board and wrapping up Android development and releasing it for free for everyone. Apple obviously wanted to be the sole player of this kind of smartphones for years. It would have succeeded if Schmidt didn't take advantage of the inside knowledges he got when he was in the Apple board, that's why Steve Jobs hated Google and Android so much.
      I don't like Apple's idea of trying to monopoly, but I totally side with Apple in its suing Samsung, since Samsung totally lost the least respect for a trend leader by copying all of the unnecessary details in the original two or three years, that illustrates an evil intention of taking a free ride or confusing the customers.