Samsung's leaked evidence makes judge 'livid'

Samsung's leaked evidence makes judge 'livid'

Summary: Leaking slides and a statement to media outlets concerning the high-profile Apple v. Samsung case has resulted in a rather hacked-off judge.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple, Samsung
106

The wheels are set in motion. The jury has been chosen -- with a few minor mishaps and entertaining disclosures -- and the opening statements issued. Now, the high-profile Apple v. Samsung case has taken another interesting turn, as the latter managed to infuriate the judge through an information leak to reporters.

The U.S. judge overseeing the case, Lucy Koh, became 'enraged' after Samsung leaked evidence to the media after she had barred the material from court.

In order to try and persuade the jury that Apple's designs were not stolen for its own smartphone products, the South Korean company continually attempted to submit data on its F700 smartphone design -- which predates Apple's iPhone -- as evidence. However, Judge Lucy Koh excluded this paperwork due to late submission, as well as refusing to acknowledge internal emails that allege Apple was trying to design a phone based on Sony's products.

The Register reports that lawyer John Quinn, part of Samsung's legal team, made another attempt to get the F700 evidence submitted this week. An image of the design appeared on slides provided by Apple, which is a key factor for the jury -- how Samsung phones altered from 2006 to 2010. He apparently said to the court:

"In 36 years, I've never begged the court. I'm begging the court now. What's the point in having a trial?"

The heartfelt plea seemed to fall on deaf ears. Koh's response? "Don't make me sanction you. Please."

In retaliation of Judge Koh's decree and refusal to include the evidence, Samsung released the slides it wanted to submit to court, along with a statement -- to the press instead. The statement read:

"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."

In the words of reporters present at court, the judge was "livid" at the release, saying: "I want to know who drafted the press release, who authorised it, who released it and I want a declaration from Mr Quinn [on] what his role was."

The case is expected to continue for at least four weeks. Samsung may have raised the hackles on the judge's back, but there is some good news for the smartphone maker. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court (CAFC) has granted a delay on the imposition of a sales ban on the Galaxy Nexus, which gives the company a temporary stay until at least 20 August, pending an appeal.

Topics: Apple, Samsung

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

106 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Pretty short term

    The lawyers that Samsung hired to represent them in this case are sufficiently well off that they will easily pay off whatever fines Koh imposes. The bigger problem is that to gain advantage in a single case, they have committed one of the cardinal sins of lawyerdom, which is to go around a judge to introduce evidence that had been disallowed, and to do it by trying the case in the press. I hope each and every onetermshem intends to retire from litigation after this case, because their names will be 'mud' with every judge from sea to shining sea. If they had done this in a criminal trial they would probably go to jail. One or more of them still might; this is literally what is meant by the phrase "contempt of court."
    Robert Hahn
    • Unfortunately...

      That is not going to happen.

      But it is besides the point really. It was disallowed because it was attempted to be entered into the case well after the deadline for providing evidence had passed. The important point is that if you examine the stuff in here it is pretty weak sauce.

      Firstly the "Sony" handset "Apple stole from" was actually an Apple envision of what a Sony handset might look like and nothing from the minds of Sony at all.

      Secondly the F700, despite what Sammy would love people to believe, was nothing like an iPhone in any way, shape or form.

      It looks like Samsung are trying to smother the handsets and tablets that did "slavishly copied Apple's designs" with as much irrelevance as possible. It is not that Samsung couldn't do their own designs, but the fact there were several designs they released which a KIRF company would feel ashamed to have produced. Even Google warned Samsung about this.

      Certainly going to be an interesting day in court today though.
      jgpmolloy
      • Your secoond point

        Your second point regarding what "Sammy would love people to believe" does not match what the article says that Samsung is saying; "... Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy". It appears that *Samsung* is arguing that the F700 was nothing like an iPhone in any way, shape or form, despite what *Apple* would love people to believe.
        cmryan@...
      • how does contempt of judge equal contempt of court? if the evidence can't

        be entered into court documents then Sam is free to do what they want with it.
        but they should have made an anti-Apple commercial instead of making an overt attack out of it.
        Apple is a bully that needs to be put in its place.
        all the iphone/ipad is they stole from the open handset alliance and are trying to control for their own gain.
        do the world a favor and buy a tablet/phone from alwaysinnovating.com instead of these "people."

        :)
        .
        wessonjoe
        • Samsung apparently backdated F700 prototypes and forged patent claim?

          Many tried to use F700 as counter-defense against Apple's claims for years.

          However, F700 was only presented five weeks after iPhone, so this argument did not work.

          But recently, after all those years, Samsung "found" designs prototypes for that phone from "2006" which predates iPhone introduction.

          Also, they "found" patent claim for F700, supposedly submitted in December of 2006.

          Strangely, Korean patent/claim database does not have that patent claim.

          So judge Koh was probably seeing through this Samsung's tactics and rejected those arguments on formal reason -- that Samsung "found" them long after period for that ended.
          DDERSSS
          • Where can I sign up for your course DRESSS?

            You know, the one where you teach how to FUD like a pro.

            The use of the word "apparently" and the question mark at the end of your subject betray your entire post as FUD. Let's see:

            "Apparently Steve Jobs murdered a woman because she was pregnant with yet another of his illegitimate children?"

            Apple is winning this case just fine with their fantastic legal team. You should tell your supervisor at the Apple marketing department to back off, you are only making Apple look bad.
            toddbottom3
          • Have you not heard of something called "Reasonable Doubt"?

            All Samsung need to do is to show that they came up the similar design about the same time.

            Looks like you're not capable of understand how the Law works.
            Samic
          • preponderance of evidence

            If i'm not mistaking reasonable doubt is for criminal cases. I think this is preponderance of evidence. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true
            bhackle
          • This isn't a criminal trial.

            There's a difference. The burden of proof is different.

            Looks like you're not capable of understand [sic] how the Law works.
            msalzberg
          • Samsung has conclusive evidence for the design

            Samsung didnt just make up the dates.

            They have documented proof that the designs were made before the introduction of the iPhone.

            Every document that they created are stamped with stamps with their appropriate dates on them plus the authorizing signature on them.

            My company does it all the time
            ConceptVBS
          • Not saying they did,

            But you do realize that can very easily be faked right?
            non-biased
        • retroactive theft?

          ((( "...all the iphone/ipad is they stole from the open handset alliance..." )))

          The iPhone was introduced on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007. The Open Handset Alliance was established on November 5, 2007, ten months after the announcement of the iPhone.
          buddhistMonkey
        • retroactive theft?

          ((( "...all the iphone/ipad is they stole from the open handset alliance..." )))

          The iPhone was introduced on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007. The Open Handset Alliance was established on November 5, 2007, ten months after the announcement of the iPhone.
          buddhistMonkey
        • retroactive theft?

          ((( "...all the iphone/ipad is they stole from the open handset alliance..." )))

          The iPhone was introduced on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007. The Open Handset Alliance was established on November 5, 2007, ten months after the announcement of the iPhone.
          buddhistMonkey
      • Wrong

        unless you look at it through apple tinted glasses. How can you say the F700's physical form does not look like iphone? Seriously, all respect gone after that comment. But then this comment tells us all we need to know: It looks like Samsung are trying to smother the handsets and tablets that did "slavishly copied Apple's designs" Steve, is that you?
        Little Old Man
        • Check out this article.

          http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/
          msalzberg
          • Wow, the Verge just annihilated a lot of Apple's argument

            Thanks for that link Mr. Msalzberg. I really liked this part:
            "It also has a homescreen that's quite different than iOS -- what you're seeing above is the function menu"

            and

            "And the list goes on, especially if you look at the F700's actual homescreen"

            So why does the Verge's argument annihilate Apple's argument? Because every single comparison that Apple has ever shown compares Apple's home screen to Android's app list screen. If they took a look at Android's actual homescreen (as they insisted was required with the F700) you would immediately see that there are no similarities at all.

            Oh Mr. MSalzberg, thanks so much for that link. I'll book mark it and use it against all those Apple fanbois who claim Android is a copy. They are wrong. After all, the Verge said so.

            And if you could post more links that absolutely destroy Apple's case (at least in the court of public opinion) I'd much appreciate it. This one was extremely helpful.
            toddbottom3
          • @NonZealot

            So you agree the F700 is nothing like the iPhone?
            msalzberg
          • It depends on which of the Verge's mutually exclusive arguments you use

            If the argument is that 2 phones with radically different home screens are radically different phones then yes, the F700 is nothing like the iPhone. However, then you have to admit that the Samsung Android phones are nothing like the iPhone.

            However, if you want to use the second half of the Verge's argument that 2 phones with radically different home screens are the same phone then no, the F700 is the same as the iPhone and since Samsung came up with the F700 before the iPhone was released, the Samsung Android phone is inspired from the F700 and not the iPhone.

            Either way, the Samsung Android phone was not inspired from the iPhone. Either it is different than the iPhone or it was inspired from the F700. Your choice Mr. Msalzberg.

            Oh, and post more links. This is fantastic.
            toddbottom3
          • Just took another quick look

            Under "let's try to highlight the differences" the Verge shows 3 pictures where they annihilate their own defense of Apple. They try to make the point that F700 really isn't anything like the iPhone because while the F700's function menu looks similar, the F700's home screen looks totally different. Therefore, F700 can't be compared to iPhone, they are totally different phones. This is THEIR logic. They then, in the EXACT SAME ARTICLE compare the home screen of the iPhone to the, wait for it, Android app list screen and suddenly, this proves they are the same phone.

            So people are wrong when they compare F700 function menu to iOS home screen. F700 can't be the same because it has radically different home screen.

            However people are RIGHT when they compare the iOS home screen to the Android app list screen. Samsung Android phones must be the same because they have radically different home screens. Wait. What?

            Your article was silly enough when I thought it was at least internally consistent in their annihilation of Apple's argument. However, you've just lost all credibility linking to an article that does EXACTLY what it chastises.

            Thanks again Mr. Msalzberg. Please, post more links. This is fun.
            toddbottom3