backtop


Print 168 comment(s) - last by senecarr.. on Aug 27 at 1:21 PM

Federal judge says important evidence should not be considered because Samsung was "too late" filing it

If Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose/San Francisco) had her way, the public would never have known that Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) coveted iPhone design was developed based on a verbal description of a "future phone" by veteran gadget-maker Sony Corp. (TYO:6758).  More surprisingly, she also wished to suppress Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (KSC:005930) from sharing details on its own designs which preceded the iPhone.

I. Samsung Hits Dead End in Trying to Prove Prior Art

Samsung's lawyers were under great pressure as Apple pushed for a speedy trial.  But late in the pre-trial proceedings they discovered seeming pay dirt.  

Samsung engineers had worked on dozens of designs in 2006 that looked like its later design handsets, which Apple is suing Samsung for, claiming it "ripped off" the design of the iPhone.  One of the designs looked almost identical to the later iPhone -- but it was design patented in 2006 -- just before Apple announced the iPhone and filed for U.S. Design Patent D593,087.

Sifting through gigabytes of data from Apple, including scores of backed up emails they also discovered that Apple's original design had been inspired by an interview with Sony, with the iPhone being quite literally a sketch of what Apple engineers thought the Sony device might look like based on a verbal description.  Early CAD mockups of the iPhone even made unauthorized use of Sony's text logo, further driving home the point that the iPhone was Sony-derived.

Samsung evidence
Samsung was banned from showing evidence in court that could absolve it from copying claims.  The company may now be punished for sharing that evidence with the press. [Image Source: The Verge]

Judge Koh, however, ruled that the evidence was submitted too late in the discovery process.  Samsung tried to appeal on a technicality -- Apple had actually shown one of the designs (the F700 media player) in one of its evidence slides, apparently mistakenly believing the 2006-era device was announced in 2007 (after the iPhone announcement).  Judge Koh rejected this argument.

She admonished Samsung, noting in patronizing fashion, "Samsung has filed like 10 motions for reconsideration."

Samsung lawyer John Quinn tried to sway her saying his side was "begging the court" to allow the important evidence.  What was the point of wasting a jury's time considering design infringement and possibly reaching a flawed outcome if there's compelling evidence that Samsung did not steal the iPhone design, he argued -- he commented, "What's the point in having a trial?"

Judge Koh refused to listen, ordering the attorney to "sit down".  She warned, "Don't make me sanction you.  Please."

II. Judge Blasts Samsung for Sharing Denied Evidence

The federal judge ordered Samsung's copies of the evidence be destroyed, never to be seen by jurors or the public.  But Samsung refused to comply leaking the evidence to All Things DWired, and several other sites with accompanying text stating, "The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design."

Its product chief Kevin Packingham also gave an interview with Wired blasting Apple's claims to have "patented" rights to a rectangular smartphone design with rounded edges.

According to The Verge, Judge Koh became "livid" upon finding out about the media releases from Samsung.  She demanded, "I want Mr. Quinn's declaration as to what his role was.  I want to know who authorized it."

Samsung's attorneys may now face sanctions from the court.

iPad girl
Apple claims to have "invented" the rectangle, in essence. [DeviantArt/KalasPuff]

Judge Koh several weeks ago banned the Samsung Nexus smartphone and Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet.

The bad news for Samsung is that the denied evidence and sanctions could hurt it as the case goes to trial.  The good news is that Samsung's multiple pleas to admit the evidence could give it fodder for an appeal, should it lose.

III. Update: Apple Disputes Claims it "Copied" Sony, Shows Off Purple Prototype

In newly released court filings, Apple counters Samsung's claim that it "ripped off" Sony in some shape or form, with its "Sony" iPhone (later "Jony") mockup.  Apple shows an August 2005 design that came months before Jony dubbed "Purple".  The mockup looks like an iPhone with a single "Menu" button on the face of the device.

iPhone purple mockups
Purple & Co. [Image Source: The Verge]

This is plausible, given Apple's 2004-era iPad design featured no face buttons.  It appeared that Apple sometime in 2006 decided a single face button was a reasonable compromise -- an approach it later applied to its iPad.  As with the iPad, it appears Apple actually produced a physical mockup of the "Purple" concept.

All Things D has also gotten its hands on more sketches and mockups of early iPhones.  The earliest, it says, date back to 2004 -- the same time when Apple mocked up the iPad.

iPhone sketches
Early iPhone musings, circa 2004 [Image Source: All Things Digital]

Apple says that Shin Nishibori's Sony mockups were "an 'enjoyable' side project", but that the basic iPhone design idea had already floating around at Apple's secretive product development group for some time.

Sources: The Verge [1], [2]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Reexamination
By DNAgent on 8/1/2012 11:34:33 AM , Rating: 3
...is there some reason Samsung can't submit this prior art to the patent office in an ex parte request for reexamination of Apple's patent? If the patent claim is invalidated, there won't be much point to continuing the trial...evidence be damned...




RE: Reexamination
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 11:38:02 AM , Rating: 5
Someone needs to examine the judge and her ties to Apple. She is trying to suppress evidence that Samsung didn't copy. Something very fishy about that.


RE: Reexamination
By retrospooty on 8/1/2012 11:41:59 AM , Rating: 5
Ya, I really don't like this case being tried in Apple's home town. WTF is that all about? Judge posner has a good head for this stuff. Koh, the one judge in the US that seems to be giving in to Apple just happens to be in the Silicon Valley. Oh, and she personally picked the jurers? Ugh.... Its bad enough our patent system is broken, now we have to show off our broken legal system too?


RE: Reexamination
By Uncle on 8/1/2012 12:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
Kids this is all about the barrier that some economists said the USA should avoid. This is all about a USA icon(apple),any threat by a competitor from off shore will be adjudicated in a court of law set up to protect USA interests. As people before have stated innovation is being held back to protect USA companies until said companies can copy or steal the innovation. Example HD TV in America was 10 years behind Asia for the same reasons as whats going on right now. It has to be Patented USA tech or nothing. As this progresses people will see apple for what it really is and eventually apple will bite itself in the ass and hopefully reap what it sows.


RE: Reexamination
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Reexamination
By Amiga500 on 8/1/2012 1:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
oooooooooooofffffffffffffttttttttt

You probably need an M1 tank rather than flame suit... and you probably deserve everything that comes your way.


RE: Reexamination
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Reexamination
By darkhawk1980 on 8/1/2012 2:21:53 PM , Rating: 1
Agree 100%.

Women (generally) also make terrible engineers. Have only ever met one that has a clue how to engineer something properly. They need to use their head instead of getting one between their legs to progress their careers.

I'm all for equality, but sometimes it just isn't possible.


RE: Reexamination
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Reexamination
By tamalero on 8/1/2012 5:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
well, they design.. AND DESTROY very well.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/1/2012 5:16:10 PM , Rating: 3
You sir are a freak if you have more than 14 fingers on one hand.

US Patent 2,292,387, Hedy Lemarr, spread spectrum frequency hopping now used in Bluetooth, COFDM used in Wi-Fi network connections, and CDMA used in some cordless and wireless telephones.

Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, developed the first computer compiler, as well as some of the first programming languages ARITH-MATIC, MATH-MATIC and FLOW-MATIC. She later worked on developing COBOL, and her belief that programs should be written in a language that was close to English has shaped every single modern programming language today.

Tabitha Babbitt invented the circular saw.

Josephine Cochrane invented the first mechanical dishwasher, and her company, the Garis-Cochran Manufacturing Company, would later became part of KitchenAid and then Whirlpool.

Ruth Teitelbaum, Betty Holberton, Kay McNulty, Maryln Wescoff, Betty Jean Jennings, and Fran Bilas were the first programmers for the ENIAC and had computed ballistics trajectories prior to that, both crucial to our efforts in WW2.

Betty Holberton moved on to develop the UNIVAC after the ENIAC. She gets credit for the PC-beige color. She also helped develop C-10 for the BINAC, as well FORTRAN.

Amanda Jones invented vacuum canning food and obtained 5 patents towards that process.

Ada Lovelace helped Babbage in creating (though never saw it finished) the original Analytic Engine.

Marie Sklodowska-Curie got a noble prize in both physics and chemistry for her work on radiation.

Lise Meitner was part of the team that discovered and described nuclear fission and was recognized by Albert Einsten as the German Marie Curie.

Irène Joliot-Curie, daughter of Marie Curie, discovered artificial radioactivity and led to the discovery of nuclear fission.

Florence Nightingale invented the polar area diagram (aka Nightingale rose diagram) as well as the creation of trained nurses as well as medical sanitation.

Henrietta Swan Leavitt invented the "yardstick" by which interstellar distances can be measured, by discovering the period-luminostiy relationship of Cepheid variable stars.

Rosalind Elsie Franklin was a biophysist who helped discover the nature of DNA, and only missed being awarded the Nobel Prize by her untimely death of cancer.

You are also a jerk and an asshole.


RE: Reexamination
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/2012 5:44:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Josephine Cochrane invented the first mechanical dishwasher, and her company, the Garis-Cochran Manufacturing Company, would later became part of KitchenAid and then Whirlpool.


Pfft she only did that to make her job in the kitchen easier!

*rimshot*

OOOOHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/1/2012 5:47:42 PM , Rating: 1
She was rich. She loved house parties. She invented the dishwasher so she could have more house parties.

Yes, a first world problem even back then.


RE: Reexamination
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/2012 5:53:37 PM , Rating: 1
http://antimisandry.com/great-men-their-historical...

Since there's not enough room on DT to counter your list with one of my own. And these are just inventions.

I don't see why you would take offense to someone stating the simple fact that men have advanced the human race to the point that it is today. Yes women have contributed in some small part, but let's get real here.

Plus I'm just having fun with this :)


RE: Reexamination
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/2012 6:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Also not on this list is Dynamite, which was first developed in 1867 by Alfred Nobel himself.

My personal opinion? Dynamite is my favorite invention maybe of all time, certainly one of the most important. Think about it, really think. Without Dynamite we would have been unable to mine the materials we needed in those early days. Unable to blast through mountains and make roads. So much advancement was made, due in part to this chemical compound.


RE: Reexamination
By Silver2k7 on 8/1/2012 8:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
well the chinese had gunpowder way before there was dynamite.. probably a millennia before ;)

but sure dynamite was a good swedish invention =)


RE: Reexamination
By marsovac on 8/2/2012 8:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
I did not know that Tesla invented wireless communication.

That guy really made the foundation for what the world would become...


RE: Reexamination
By topkill on 8/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Reexamination
By topkill on 8/7/2012 1:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
LOL Who voted me down for simply saying some facts?

Oh, did my naughty word offend you??? ROFLMAO


RE: Reexamination
By testerguy on 8/2/2012 3:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
If I didn't already have enough proof of your idiocy, you add sexist to your ever lengthening list of failures.

What kind of uncultured, backwards yank takes such a third world perspective on such an issue?

Clearly men have created, invented, generally 'done' more in the history of the world. But the reason for that is ignorance like yours, ignorance which for most people is consigned to the past.

In any society in which women aren't treated equally of course the important roles would have been given to men, but as that idiocy is removed (gradually, it seems) from the general population, we see more and more how women are every bit as capable as men, in some cases possessing qualities which make them superior.

As I said, it's just one more thing you display ignorance on, you're quite a mess of a human being.


RE: Reexamination
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/2/2012 6:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As I said, it's just one more thing you display ignorance on, you're quite a mess of a human being.
You display yours everyday....


RE: Reexamination
By retrospooty on 8/3/2012 10:27:52 AM , Rating: 2
You need to step off and learn to ID when people are just having a laugh FFS. You're totally clueless on a wide variety of issues, this one is no exception. You seem to automatically go into attack mode and insult everyone on platitudes without really reading AND comprehending what you are replying to. For someone that keeps posting how incredibly smart they are , you are kind of a dumbass.


RE: Reexamination
By testerguy on 8/3/2012 11:20:24 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You need to step off and learn to ID when people are just having a laugh FFS. You're totally clueless on a wide variety of issues, this one is no exception. You seem to automatically go into attack mode and insult everyone on platitudes without really reading AND comprehending what you are replying to. For someone that keeps posting how incredibly smart they are , you are kind of a dumbass.


Just doing a final spot check to see if anything in this paragraph responds to any of the points I made.

Nope.


RE: Reexamination
By retrospooty on 8/3/2012 12:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
My point about reading comprehension proven once again.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/2/2012 4:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
When did I hate on men? I said you're a freak for having 14 fingers on your hand.


RE: Reexamination
By retrospooty on 8/1/2012 1:32:37 PM , Rating: 1
(gasp...) :O

Your prolly right though LOL


RE: Reexamination
By topkill on 8/1/2012 1:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, You are such an asshole and I can't believe you said that and....ok, it was funny...and probably true ROFLMAO

Wanna loan me your flame suit?


RE: Reexamination
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Reexamination
By retrospooty on 8/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Reexamination
By Zaralath on 8/1/2012 4:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
Adding more fuel to the fire...Women entering the work force is what led to the decline of the middle class. :)

That's right, I went there.


RE: Reexamination
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/2012 5:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
Very true. The feminist movement in America is very much responsible for the societal deterioration and marriage devaluation we now have today.


RE: Reexamination
By retrospooty on 8/1/2012 6:36:28 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe, but they do look really good without clothes. They may only be good for one thing, but that one thing is a really good thing =)


RE: Reexamination
By Digimonkey on 8/2/2012 8:50:17 AM , Rating: 1
Well honestly if a woman can't have the same freedom as a man in this country without it going to ruins, as you're pretty much stating, then let it all fail.


RE: Reexamination
By nick2000 on 8/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Reexamination
By Targon on 8/3/2012 12:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that there are no competency differences between men and women, but there ARE differences in how men and women think, and this can take design in different directions. Not enough people can handle the idea of different approaches having the potential to be equally good though, and that is why there are so many people who feel that men are better than women in these and other areas.


RE: Reexamination
By Farfignewton on 8/2/2012 11:13:53 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
These are not qualities the gender has in abundance.

*puts on flame proof suit of truth*


Not going to do you any good. Even if you survive the "A.F.P.S.R.", they've lined up "Radical Vertical Impact Simulation."


RE: Reexamination
By Ramtech on 8/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Reexamination
By topkill on 8/2/2012 3:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, I just think you're taking this too seriously. It's more like a bunch of guys sitting in their man cave, watching football games and finally able to say things cause our wives aren't there to smack us for it.

LOL


RE: Reexamination
By Ramtech on 8/2/2012 3:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well maybe i was a bit harsh however theres a lot of strong rhetoric coming from him and i wonder if hes just strongman on the Internet

quote:
able to say things cause our wives aren't there to smack us for it.

ROFL

Anyway i am willing to pay 5$ for DVD with neo-con vs second wave feminist xD


RE: Reexamination
By Kepler on 8/3/2012 10:42:40 AM , Rating: 2
That made no sense.

1) It is illegal to murder someone, thus against abortion.

2) No one wants any kind of regulation/government interference with women except liberals. They want government to force women into the workforce, and punish anyone for not hiring one because they are unqualified.

I'm all for women working, as long as they do the same work, and just as well as anyone else (man or woman). The problem is that when one unqualified woman gets denied a job, she thinks it is because she is a woman. Or if a man gets hired over a woman, even though they may have the same qualifications, but the man interviewed better, or some other circumstance, the woman assumes it was because she was a woman.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/2/2012 4:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
The real irony is that it was a male judge, Judge Grewal, that rejected Samsung's claim due to it being late.

So it was in fact a reasonable, unbiased, coldly dispassionate man who said, "You're too late," and closed the door on Samsung's lawyers on May 19th when they missed their submit date of May 10th.


RE: Reexamination
By senecarr on 8/27/2012 1:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
Funny. When lawyers go in for jury selection, defense attorneys often try to get young males as their jury. Why? Statistically, young men are actually the most emotionally biased and sway-able demographic. The group that relies on reason and logic for persuasion the most? Older women.
As the Snoop Dogg, Martha Stewart image says, "Stereotypes are fun, but guess which one is a felon?"


RE: Reexamination
By Tony Swash on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Reexamination
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 12:53:49 PM , Rating: 4
Grow up? Are you fucking kidding me? You see a lot of things in that fucked up mind of yours.

You want to talk about challenged? I think you are seriously mentally challenged and it shows.


RE: Reexamination
By Tony Swash on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Reexamination
By Digimonkey on 8/1/2012 4:51:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The thing is I can understand people who argue that it's OK for companies like Samsung to copy Apple products and designs, at least that is an intellectually honest position, wrong, but honest.


quote:
I think deep in their hearts they know that on a level playing field Apple's products can win, and win surprisingly easy, which is why the Apple fans are so much less worked up by all the legal drama.


Apple's patent is bs and everyone deep in their hearts know this. I honestly thought Apple could play on a leveled playing, but going by past actions the company has taken apparently it cannot.

You can argue all you want that it is within their rights to protect their patents, and it's the patent laws that are the problem, but it just doesn't change the fact that Apple equals a dickhead of a tech company and hurts innovation more than they innovate.


RE: Reexamination
By testerguy on 8/2/2012 3:28:11 PM , Rating: 1
Read this, you may learn something:

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-S...

It outlines the very specific details of the patent which Apple is attempt to enforce. Note the comparison to the F700 and how despite being a rounded rectangular it is not covered by the patent, or an example of prior art.


RE: Reexamination
By Digimonkey on 8/2/2012 4:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
...yeah I don't care. I'm aware Samsung copied Apple. I made no point otherwise. Apple's main primary claim is someone will be confused that the phone is not made by them which we all know blatantly is ridiculous. My claim is that Apple is run by dickheads, and it still stands.


RE: Reexamination
By testerguy on 8/3/2012 11:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
Your claim, specifically, was:

quote:
Apple's patent is bs


The link I provided gave you 3 key pieces of information:

1 - That the design patent is very specific, not general, not for a 'rectangle' and thus not 'bs'.
2 - That any claims of 'prior art' are not the case, as demonstrated by the F700 being easily distinguished.
3 - That the Samsung Galaxy infringes upon said patent.

People do not have to be confused that any phone is an Apple for design patents to be infringed. That being said, there are numerous cases where Galaxy devices were sent back due to the purchaser having believed they were Apple products.

As for your opinion on whether or not the people who run Apple are 'dickheads' - opinions don't interest me.


RE: Reexamination
By Digimonkey on 8/3/2012 2:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well then you never should of replied because my point is completely based in opinion. My opinion still stands that those trademark/patents shown in the link you provided never should've been granted. I don't think either of us what to argue about patent/trademark law however, so we'll just end it here.


RE: Reexamination
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/3/2012 7:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
One word... TROLL....


RE: Reexamination
By nolisi on 8/1/2012 1:05:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I suppose it does come from the world of grown ups so it might challenge a few people.


One might suggest that in the world of grown ups (especially when you have a college degree in which you probably dealt with some geometry), you don't say "rectangles are mine and you can't use them" when you realize you're losing market share and subsequently sales, when the real problem is you've failed to keep up with more important aspects of product design like including LTE connectivity. You put on your big boy pants and redesign instead of calling mommy to take the other kids toys away.

I understand how that this more basic version of adulthood might escape you versus arbitrarily set evidence deadlines.


RE: Reexamination
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Reexamination
By Hakuryu on 8/1/2012 1:21:01 PM , Rating: 5
Samsung should ask for a probe into Judge Koh's actions.

A judge ordering evidence destroyed? Evidence that may have been late in discovery, but evidence that nobody could argue isn't relevant.

Koh is obviously taking the side of the Apple, as she seems to always do, even if the common sense facts of the case seem to be against them. Fishy and probably shady also.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Reexamination
By nolisi on 8/1/2012 2:28:56 PM , Rating: 5
This argument is senseless both from a product development perspective and based Apples legal strategy of filing for individual design elements:

1) Design elements can be combined or separated over product lines for sensible implementation (ie- if battery life is seen as far more important in one product, monochrome might make sense). It's not like someone didn't have the idea to put colored icons on the F700 (as shown by Samsungs long product history prior to Apples development of any phones)- it just may not have been practical for that device which had the aforementioned design element.

2)Apple filed design patents separately. Their rectangle device design patent didn't specify icons displayed. This way they could issue more lawsuits instead of having to stick to the specificity of each individual patent. Given this, it is only logical that Samsung can show prior art that disqualifies this patent for an individual design element. Additionally, if their rectangle patent gets shot down, it doesn't disqualify lawsuits based on other patents.

Let's be consistent with the way we apply logic- if Apple files independent design patents, then Samsung really should only have to prove prior art on that particular patent.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Reexamination
By simpleankit on 8/1/2012 3:40:39 PM , Rating: 3
Apple has a comparatively weaker case in terms of trade dress because 16 colorful icons are not on home screen which is a major pary of trade dress as well as first registration you quoted. Apart from these barrier of trade dress infringement is quite high where even minor differences count and definitely if you go to find about these you will notice a lot many like capacitative buttons,etc . At max Apple can hope to win on trade dress dilution but even if they win damage portion will be much smaller here.
Apple entire case rests on iphone design patents 667 and 889 because even if they win on technical patents there is almost zero chance of injunction and damages will be in millions only.
And these two patents are nothing but rectangle with rounded corners. That is the reason Samsung us so hell bent on F700 whose design patent it filed one month before iphone launxh and which actually predates Apple design patents on iphone.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Reexamination
By simpleankit on 8/1/2012 4:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
But it does refute D667 and D087 patents? Does it not? Atleast to some extent, in your eyes.


RE: Reexamination
By simpleankit on 8/1/2012 4:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
I meant 087 patent and not 889 patent ( which is for tablet)


RE: Reexamination
By augiem on 8/1/2012 4:14:41 PM , Rating: 3
Wow I could not believe that when I read it. What right does a US judge have to order a Korean company to destroy its own property and records of their development and order them to never reaveal this information to anyone? That's LUDICROUS! That right there sounds like grounds to get her disqualified from this case and hopefully even removed from office. In an appeal or future trial, that evidence may be useful, or it may be needed for some other internal reasons. And what basis did she have for ordering the destruction? Because the evidence was SUBMITTED LATE?! That makes her order to destroy it even more ridiculous.

I had no idea it was possible to get such an outrageously biased trial in America. Someone should seriously look into the source of the judge's campagin funding after this.


RE: Reexamination
By augiem on 8/1/2012 4:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung's lawyer did the right this blowing the whistle on this creep.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/2/2012 4:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
1) Judge Koh is Korean.
2) She's upholding a ruling handed down by another judge
3) Judge Grewal ruled that Samsung had submitted too late for trial
4) The agreed upon date was May 10th, 2012, so Samsung had over 12 months to find/submit this data
5) They submitted on May 19th, 2012
6) Your indignation is misplaced


RE: Reexamination
By StoveMeister on 8/2/2012 9:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
Not much point reading the rest of the post when you can't even get point 1) correct.
Judge Koh is in fact american, born in Washington D.C., and educated at Harvard.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/2/2012 10:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
Korean describes her race, you realize?

Just like I'm Chinese?

The only real Americans are the ones that got displaced when the European immigrants pushed them aside.

Regardless of your snark, the rest of my points are correct. She was merely upholding a ruling made by Judge Grewal, and was not herself guilty of any biases for denying a late submission of evidence.


RE: Reexamination
By Adam M on 8/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Reexamination
By StormyKnight on 8/2/2012 7:53:44 AM , Rating: 4
This Judge Koh needs to be investigated. She just seems so hostile towards Samsung right off the get-go. Why is she supressing evidence?


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/2/2012 4:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
She isn't. Judge Grewal ruled that Samsung was too late (May 19th) because they missed the May 10th deadline.

She's just upholding his ruling.


RE: Reexamination
By topkill on 8/2/2012 3:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
The judge seems to be making a lot of very damaging calls... all in favor of Apple. Would that have any effect on appeals possibly?

It seems like there should be some process to censure a judge who is clearly biased or even just making unsound decisions rather than just reversing a jury verdict.

What if that verdict was based on evidence that was suppressed arbitrarily? Apple was pushing for a speedy trial to not allow Samsung time to gather evidence exactly like this. Koh gave them that short time frame(seemingly favoring Apple) to discover evidence knowing they had literally millions and millions of emails and other documents to wade through.

Knowing that, what reason did she have to not give them sufficient time to search through everything? If her logic was flawed and effects the outcome...how is that addressed?

I really don't understand the legal process so I'm asking, not asserting anything.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/2/2012 4:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't suppressed arbitrarily. Samsung's lawyers had over a year to submit the information.

Judge Grewal ruled that they were late (they submitted on May 19th for the May 10th cutoff)

In this case, "speedy trial" means 15 months between filing and trial, which isn't exactly unreasonable. I don't think the timeframe was actually all that short, given the 13 months between filing and end of discovery.

Again, she wasn't the one who denied them time, it was Judge Grewal. She just upheld his decision.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Reexamination
By nolisi on 8/1/2012 2:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
Patents and trademarks are file separately. Apple even filed patents separately so they could issue a wider spread of lawsuits.

It is perfectly legitimate for Samsung to address prior art evidence to the completely separate infringement claims even if they're encompassed in the same lawsuit.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Reexamination
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/2012 2:48:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's also perfectly legitimate for Judge Koh to rule the evidence as irrelevant.


Only in your mind.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Reexamination
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/2012 3:09:09 PM , Rating: 5
LOL you just don't get it. Look, Apple does NOT own the color black, or the triangle. Ok?

Stop pretending to be a lawyer, stop with the BS talking points and Apple propaganda, and just go away. Everyone is telling you that you're wrong, because you are.

Those are not valid patents. End of discussion. We don't care what legal definitions or double-speak you cook up, that's the way we see it. Common sense should factor into this somewhere, and you have NONE.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Reexamination
By marsovac on 8/2/2012 8:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
What you did is read something somewhere and post that here as facts, while disregarding to even check if the other source got it right.

You are actually more brainwashed than Apple customers.

And that is hard to achieve!


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/2/2012 5:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
The list of claims is published:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/30/3199424/apple-vs...

Most of the terms are freely defined online, as well as case law and precedent and even the statutes applicable on the USPTO or .gov websites. I'm not making anything up, nor lying, nor trying to mislead.

What I'm doing is called research, fact gathering, and thinking.

I think what you're doing is showing your bias.


RE: Reexamination
By topkill on 8/2/2012 3:52:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
All you have on your side is common sense


My GOD, what a horrible thing to do: using common sense!

michael, all you're doing is citing all kinds of crap out of context. There are millions of cases with rulings that contradict each other. The legal process still comes down to opinions and judgments and those change depending on the case, the judge, the two sides involved, etc.

We're all talking about Apple being clearly predatory, they have a history of stealing ideas and designs themselves, they are now unable to compete and so falling back on dirty legal crap to try and get their way instead of competing.

Eventually, common sense does prevail, even in our legal system. This same legal system that used to allow for slavery...is NOT infallible and had to change. Our current patent system is also broken and the laws that protect its current incarnation are broken and deny common sense. They will change eventually.

A stupid and/or crooked judge like Koh won't change the eventual direction which tends towards common sense and fairness...over time.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/2/2012 4:58:21 PM , Rating: 1
My GOD, what a horrible thing to do: using common sense!

Common sense says copying someone else is the easiest way to succeed. Law, and courtesy, and fairness, says you shouldn't.

Common sense says "might makes right". Law and civilization says, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

I'm not citing anything out of context.

US trademark law has, baked into it's very fabric, the concept of "likelihood of confusion". 6 of Apple's 9 claims revolve around trademark law (design patents and trade dress).

Likelihood of confusion literally assumes the end user is ignorant. If someone without extensive knoweldge of the product is likely to confuse it with another, then the trade dress/mark/design is potentially infringing.

Another aspect of trademark law is that you are obliged to sue or risk losing your trademarks. So the heart of this case is whether, by ignoring Samsung, Apple might actually lose it's trademarks, of which the primary one is in fact a picture of the iPhone.

In case you weren't aware, trademark law is exclusively about packaging, artwork, ornamentation, design, and non-functional aspects.

So when Apple uses a picture of the iPhone on it's box to sell the iPhone, the box, the picture, and the package inside the box are all trademarked/dressed/registered (Apple in fact has registrations for all three with regards to the iPhone and iPad).

One of the reasons that Samsung is targetted is the Galaxy S, which Samsung has allegedly packaged deceptively by using a similar box with a picture of the similar Galaxy S with a set of 4x4 icons and a silver springboard (all three of which are registered as a trademark) pictured on the cover. In other words, a picture of what looks like an iPhone despite the Galaxy S not defaulting to the App Drawer (which is what is pictured on the box).

Samsung could have used a different screenshot, could have used different icons (they modified Android's stock icons, specifically the call, picture, and a few others), arranged them differently, used a widget, etc, to make the package not resemble the iPhone's registered trademark. They didn't.

So if Apple doesn't sue, eventually, they lose their trademark.

If they sue and lose, at least it will be recorded in the court of law that so long as certain aspects of the case are followed, whatever that is determined to be, Apple can retain it's trademark and others can avoid being sued for it in the future.


RE: Reexamination
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/2/2012 6:57:09 PM , Rating: 3
He's just an Apple apologist, you aren't going to sway him no matter what. I bet half the posts on this thread are just from HIM alone trying to defend them. It's absolutely pathetic.


RE: Reexamination
By topkill on 8/7/2012 2:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

His twisted logic is pathetic. "might makes right" is not common sense, that is bullying at best, genocide at worst.

If that's the kind of logic he uses to defend his views, then I'm not going to bother to debate him. Talk about taking things out of context and misusing situations and the language...this guy should be writing political attack ads.


RE: Reexamination
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 3:16:51 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Do you have any capacity to reason at all?
Says the Apple iTool...


RE: Reexamination
By Salisme on 8/1/2012 7:46:44 PM , Rating: 1
You might want to check out this device: http://www.pdair.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/...

Its a GPS device from 2004 that has every feature you are defending, a hand held mobile device, colorful icons, silver edges, black box, even has a "springboard" what the rest of the technical folks having been calling a task bar since WIN 95.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/2/2012 5:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
Not, it doesn't. The trademark registration specifically describes all 16 icons (which doesn't even come close to matching, such as a white SMS bubble or a white phone on a green background), the surface is not unornamented as it has the word "TomTom" on it, it has an additional LED and card slot, as well as an extra button on it, and it doesn't have edge to edge glass.

Try harder. Maybe you should read the trademark and relevant design patents.


RE: Reexamination
By Salisme on 8/3/2012 6:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
Your words, your argument:

quote:
Packaging trade dress claims a rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box;


Yep says TomTom in silver lettering.

quote:
Hardware and software trade dress claims a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded; the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;


Yep. All there.

quote:
a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface; a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and a bottom row of square icons (the "Springboard") set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.


Icons are there, food, gas, rest stop.... all colored, all square.

Identical to the picture I posted of a mobile product that was marketed years prior to the apple's. You can see how vague and worthless apple's claims are.

Get your head out of the sand.


RE: Reexamination
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/3/2012 8:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can see how vague and worthless apple's claims are.
Actually, he can't which is why he posts a million different claims trying to defend them.


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/3/2012 5:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
Try again. The summary I gave is a summary. Here's the exact text of the trade dress registration:
The mark consists of the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with rounded silver edges, a black face, and an array of 16 square icons with rounded edges. The top 12 icons appear on a black background, and the bottom 4 appear on a silver background. The first icon depicts the letters "SMS" in green inside a white speech bubble on a green background; the second icon is white with a thin red stripe at the top; the third icon depicts a sunflower with yellow petals, a brown center, and a green stem in front of a blue sky; the fourth icon depicts a camera lens with a black barrel and blue glass on a silver background; the fifth icon depicts a tan television console with brown knobs and a gray-green screen; the sixth icon depicts a white graph line on a blue background; the seventh icon depicts a map with yellow and orange roads, a pin with a red head, and a red-and- blue road sign with the numeral "280" in white; the eighth icon depicts an orange sun on a blue background, with the temperature in white; the ninth icon depicts a white clock with black and red hands and numerals on a black background; the tenth icon depicts three brown-gray circles and one orange circle on a black background with a white border, with the mathematical symbols for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and the equal sign displayed in white on the circles; the eleventh icon depicts a portion of a yellow notepad with blue and red ruling, with brown binding at the top; the twelfth icon depicts three silver gears over a thatched black-and-silver background; the thirteenth icon depicts a white telephone receiver against a green background; the fourteenth icon depicts a white envelope over a blue sky with white clouds; the fifteenth icon depicts a white compass with a white- and-red needle over a blue map; the sixteenth icon depicts the distinctive configuration of applicant's media player device in white over an orange background.

Samsung actually has 5 icons that would infringe if Apple is correct. How many does the Tom Tom?

http://www.google.com/patents?id=LWzVAAAAEBAJ&pg=P...

There's the image associated with the design patent; in it is a screenshot of the 4x4 grid+springboard (meaning 20 icons), as far as I can tell the TomTom doesn't have 20 icons in a 4x4 grid on a black background nor the silver springboard.


RE: Reexamination
By tamalero on 8/1/2012 5:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
I still dont get how Apple can get "past evidence" and past stuff as defense.. his designs.. but samsung cant?


RE: Reexamination
By michael2k on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
this is stupid.
By MDme on 8/1/2012 11:45:34 AM , Rating: 5
This is like a situation where a murderer is caught on film killing the victim but the tape inadmissible because it was submitted late. I'm livid.

What about Samsung submitting the evidence to another court filing for the invalidation of the patent or better yet suing apple for design infringement haha!




RE: this is stupid.
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 11:49:07 AM , Rating: 4
I hope, and have a feeling, that Samsung tries to get her removed and assigned to another judge. That's the next logical step. She is clearly biased.


RE: this is stupid.
By Tony Swash on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: this is stupid.
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 12:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, no one gives 2 shits what you are. You may be happy but you are a complete tool.


RE: this is stupid.
By Tony Swash on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: this is stupid.
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 7:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
Does your boyfriend know you are a douchebag?


RE: this is stupid.
By michael2k on 8/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: this is stupid.
By simpleankit on 8/1/2012 3:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
Where are colorful icons on D677 and D889 patents? These are two of the four patents Apple sued during Preliminary injunction and are its strongest patents in currwnt trial.


RE: this is stupid.
By michael2k on 8/1/2012 4:18:34 PM , Rating: 1
Those are weak design patents and not something I defend, at all.

The color icons are part of US patent D305, as well as trade dress registration 3,470,983 along with additional unregistered trade dress claims. So, in essence, I disagree with you; their strongest patent is D305, not D889 or D677. You only believe D889 and D677 are strongest because those are the two referenced in the preliminary injunction.


RE: this is stupid.
By simpleankit on 8/1/2012 4:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
Gud , atleast we both have same opinion on those two patents.


Ehm ok..
By Silver2k7 on 8/1/2012 7:58:37 PM , Rating: 3
"Judge Koh, however, ruled that the evidence was submitted too late in the discovery process."

Seems like a very stupid thing to say IMHO.... better late than never right. unless there is some wierd apple favoritism going on.




RE: Ehm ok..
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 8:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
unless there is some wierd apple favoritism going on.
I believe there is.


RE: Ehm ok..
By Silver2k7 on 8/1/2012 8:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
"The federal judge ordered Samsung's copies of the evidence be destroyed, never to be seen by jurors or the public."

Seriously, can a judge even do this, or is there some bribery going on here ??


RE: Ehm ok..
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 8:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
My hope and feeling is, Samsung will probe into that and try to get another lawyer, only time will tell though.


RE: Ehm ok..
By michael2k on 8/2/2012 5:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno, but then the conspiracy would require two judges since Judge Koh merely upheld the ruling of Judge Grewal that Samsung submitted their evidence too late.


Wtf?
By bug77 on 8/1/2012 11:32:08 AM , Rating: 1
If the court wants nothing to do with said docs, why wouldn't Samsung be free to do whatever it wants wit them? Especially since excluding those docs skews the result of the trial right from the get-go. Why would the public be kept in the dark?




RE: Wtf?
By michael2k on 8/1/2012 2:23:03 PM , Rating: 1
If the jury sees any of this (especially linked by a friend via FaceBook or Twitter or whatever), it can end in a mistrial because Samsung "broke the rules of engagement".

Evidence needs to be brought up prior to jury selection to be reviewed by the Judge and fellow lawyers. In essence, Samsung had the opportunity to construct their deck for over a year since 4/11 and failed to bring this card into the equation until after everyone had assembled their decks, and the judge ruled it inadmissible likely because it was also irrelevant (I've explained myself several times now in this page).

If it is in fact irrelevant than it won't change the outcome of the trial. However if they influence the jurors outside the court, the jurors have been tainted and are no longer ostensibly ruling on the evidence provided in court.


RE: Wtf?
By bug77 on 8/1/2012 3:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
In short, if this had the power to swing the process the other and would have stayed away from the eyes of the public, that would have been ok?


RE: Wtf?
By michael2k on 8/1/2012 4:20:23 PM , Rating: 1
Not quite. If the evidence had the power to swing the jury, it would have been deemed relevant. By being relevant it would automatically have been visible to the eyes of the public.


RE: Wtf?
By bug77 on 8/1/2012 6:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
That does not compute.
If it had the power to swing the jury at it was deemed inadmissible, the public must know about it.
If it didn't have that power and it was deemed inadmissible, it doesn't matter if the public sees it.


RE: Wtf?
By testerguy on 8/2/2012 1:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
There is a reason there are rules about which evidence needs to be considered.

If a jury (who are not experts in the field) misinterpret evidence or see it like many on this page have (ie as prior art) when in fact technically it is not, they can reach the incorrect conclusion.

Thus, there is a 'vetting process' of evidence where only RELEVANT evidence is allowed. Even late evidence is often allowed if it's relevant to the case, especially if it has great significance. This is to ensure that the jurors see the evidence which is relevant and nothing else which may mislead them. The judge obviously ruled that the evidence in question was not relevant, and Michael has done a great job of outlining why it was not.

Thus, your third sentence is incorrect - it DOES matter if jurors in a trial see evidence which can be misinterpreted but technically isn't admissible due to irrelevance.


so much for a Fair Legal System...
By Cannyone on 8/1/2012 12:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I know there are rules and procedures. And, Yes, I know that we don't really have all the facts. Still this is just so bogus it borders on the surreal.

But perhaps someone here can help the rest of us understand. Just explain to the rest of us why this evidence was excluded. ...Anybody!?! Please!




RE: so much for a Fair Legal System...
By michael2k on 8/1/2012 2:01:52 PM , Rating: 1
I'll try.

It's not bogus.

What happens prior to the jury trial is that both parties bring up evidence and witnesses and there is something akin to a pretrial where judges, lawyers, etc, construct the equivalent to a Magic card deck. What happened here is that Samsung's lawyers incompetently failed to bring an important creature into the deck and are thus missing a summon.

Jury selection occurs and both sides bring their decks into play, with the jurors akin to life points. The game ends when a set number of turns occur, and the witnesses are summoned, evidence presented, testimony examined, etc, and then the number of jurors on each side are counted. The winner is the one with the most jurors.

Specifically regarding the F700, Samsung's only legal recourse at this point is if Apple specifically mentions it erroneously as evidence on their side (plays it as a card) at which point Samsung can play an instant to reflect it or an enchant to control it. At that point they are free to bring up that the F700 cannot be used as proof of copying as it was released before the iPhone.

There is only one problem, because it isn't valid. While it may have been released before the iPhone, it's overall design is so different that it cannot actually be used to defend Samsung against trade dress, trade mark, and design patent attacks:
Design patent (in which in the F700 is invalid because the F700 doesn't have colored icons)
Trademark (which the F700 is invalid since it doesn't have colored icons)
Trade dress (which the F700 is invalid since it's packaging differs dramatically from the iPhone/iPad)

If the F700 preceded the iPhone and had the distinctive iOS packaging, artwork, icons, and design then Samsung would have a solid example of how they are not infringing Apple's work.


RE: so much for a Fair Legal System...
By Rukkian on 8/1/2012 2:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
If your argument holds true, then the trial should be stopped today. The N700 is more like the iphone than the phones that crapple is trying to ban.


By michael2k on 8/1/2012 2:35:14 PM , Rating: 1
The Nokia 700 was released in 2011 and cannot be used as prior art given it was released even later than the Galaxy S.

Maybe you meant the N800 tablet, released in 2007 prior to the iPhone, that didn't make phone calls, didn't have a black glass face, didn't have the face centered home button (it had a d-pad and a three-way rocker), didn't use any of Apple's trademarked icons, didn't use any of Apple's trademarked packaging, didn't use any of the patented technology like bounceback, pinch to zoom, inertial scrolling, didn't have the springboard, and otherwise does nothing to disprove Apple's case that Samsung infringed on Apple's trademarks, trade dress, design patents, or utility patents.

Note I'm not commenting on the validity of their patents; the claims of their utility patents are actually very weak, but that is also why Apple's first three claims are specifically trademark, trade dress, and design patents, of which Apple has a very strong and rich history of use/defense.


Wonder who HonkJ is...
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 1:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
New account, posting on this article for the first time. How ironic.




RE: Wonder who HonkJ is...
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 3:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
I am now thinking Michael2k....


RE: Wonder who HonkJ is...
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 3:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
Or Tester...only 2 that it could possibly be.


Blows my mind....
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 2:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
That there are so many lawyers on this site who know everything about the law...




RE: Blows my mind....
By michael2k on 8/1/2012 2:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
The legal system is well documented:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29#C...

Had Samsung's evidence been deemed significant or critical by Judge Koh, even late in the game, she would have allowed it in by extending the discovery process.

Not only is the legal system documented, there are lots of published examples of similar cases with similar situations where neither party agreed to settle and went to trial, with lots of explanation as to why judges and juries ruled the way they did.


RE: Blows my mind....
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 3:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
Point is, you act like a know it all, as if everything you say is fact, and everything else anyone else says, is wrong. Get the fuck over yourself.


By jRaskell on 8/1/2012 11:36:18 AM , Rating: 5
In the end, a trial is never about who is right and who is wrong. It's simply about who has the better lawyers and/or has the judge on their side, and that of course boils down to who has the bigger wallets.

I think it's an utter shame that a judge would order any sort of evidence destroyed, whether it was deemed admissible or not. That just smacks of ulterior motives and hidden agendas.

Sadly, I have little hope that a jury of our peers will come to the right conclusion, because it's unlikely that they'll ever see the whole truth, but only the bits and pieces of truth that the lawyers are able to finagle into the trial.




Ummm ... Homer says 'must buy a F700'
By Tony Swash on 8/1/2012 3:17:53 PM , Rating: 1
The F700 irrelevancy seems to be really exciting a lot of people. The evidence is being suppressed!!!

This photo seems to excite some people - ooh look Apple copied this!

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844661/ZZ...

It actually looks like this

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844662/ZZ...

Apparently some gullible people, I think of them as the Homer Simpsons of the tech world, think this turd actually inspired the iPhone, or can be compared to the iPhone in any way. Other than the fact that it actually had a slide out QWERTY hardware keyboard there is also the awkward fact that it was announced in Feburary 2007 at Mobile World Congress, after the iPhone was announced in January at MacWorld

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel, if Samsung is dredging up this shite as evidence they must be desperate, hence the panic from the more tragic android goons.

As I said, whatever the outcome of this trial it's going to be fun :)




By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 3:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The SGH-F700 is a mobile phone manufactured by Samsung. A Korean design patent for this black, rectangular, round-cornered phone was filed by Samsung in December 2006 prior to the release of the image of the iPhone [1] but after the release of the HTC TyTn which it resembles with it's rectangular design and slide out keyboard.
Not that you will accept it, because in your brainwashed mind, nothing could have possibly come before the iphone.


Apple and the judge
By Scootie on 8/2/2012 9:36:58 AM , Rating: 3
Common people. It's written all over the walls that Apple has this judge in it's sack of money. What the hell is going on over there with your justice system?




All I can say is...
By cscpianoman on 8/1/2012 11:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
Shrewd




re : apple 'patent' nr 1964022
By Peter898 on 8/1/2012 5:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
apple 'patent' nr 1964022 - 'Slide to unlock'
I say 'invalid' due to prior art, obviousness and ..

(yes, I know, apple has a design-patent on a vertical line, or multiple lines, with, or without, a dot over it ..
So, Sue me iTossers
https://s3.amazonaws.com/phandroid/wp-content/uplo...

I cannot believe this is actually happening !

Apple and their BS is costing us money,
not to mention that it hinders progress .
No, you did NOT invent the rectangle and
NO you CAN NOT 'patent' it ..
Neither did you 'invent' the concept of sliding something to unlock .
'Slide to unlock' has been with us for millennia .
The only thing new is that you can do it on a touch-screen.
Invented AND manufactured by ... Samsung !!




Judge is paid off or a racists
By Belard on 8/1/2012 9:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
These is something seriously wrong with this judge.

At any time, Samsung (or any company) can produce proof of prior art. Samsung and others have the basic phone shape for over 10 years.... long before the iPhone ever came out.




I motion for a new judge.
By kamiller422 on 8/1/2012 11:41:09 AM , Rating: 1
This judge sounds like an unprofessional a-hole. Certainly helping set the stage in Apple's favor. I can understand Samsung's frustration. This trial is about getting to the truth and arriving at a just decision. This judge doesn't seem to want that.




Impeach Judge Koh
By Beavermatic on 8/1/2012 2:52:11 PM , Rating: 1
Impeach her. She's oviously a paid schill and on the take from Apple. She's proven it time and time again. It couldn't be more blatantly obvious if she tried.




Lucy Koh - The iGroupie 'Judge'
By Peter898 on 8/1/2012 5:20:03 PM , Rating: 1
Lucy Koh has the hots for anything 'i' .
This is the same silly Judge who thinks it's possible to infringe a rectangle, right ?

Lucy Koh, you are a serious threat to Rule of Law .
Your silly rulings makes me and countless other people lose all respect for both 'The Law' and the Courts ..
And it's 'Officers', naturally .




Still slanted
By ptmmac on 8/1/12, Rating: 0
?
By hexxthalion on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: ?
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 11:46:52 AM , Rating: 2
And here comes the more recent Apple stooge.


RE: ?
By hexxthalion on 8/2/2012 4:16:01 AM , Rating: 1
and here comes retard who can't read - i'll write it for you again, i'm not a mactard, i'm a developer who owns various devices and i'm not as blind and clueless as you are, so deal with it


RE: ?
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/2/2012 8:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
righttttttttttt! LOL


RE: ?
By retrospooty on 8/1/2012 11:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
"Jason, still spreading the same bullshit? how about this, if you decided to use the verge as a source, here you go one related to 'sony' design:"

Are you missing the whole point of this article? Samsung has prior art from 2006 that shows their design and the Judge from the Silicon Valley wont allow it to be shown in court.

" One of the designs looked almost identical to the later iPhone -- but it was produced in 2006 -- a full year before Apple announced the iPhone and filed for..."


RE: ?
By michael2k on 8/1/2012 2:18:31 PM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately Samsung's "evidence" is pretty weak, since it doesn't protect them from Apple's claims of trade dress (packaging and package artwork), trademark (icons, of which the F700 has monochromatic and distinct icons unlike the Galaxy S which resemble Apple's), and design patent (again because of the lack of colorful icons).

The only thing the F700 shows as prior art was that Samsung was already working on the centered home button on a black glass phone; it lacked the distinctive bright metal ring, trademarked colorful icons, 4x1 springboard, and trademarked package design.


RE: ?
By retrospooty on 8/1/2012 2:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
regardless of patents, trademark or any legal matters whatsoever, this is still total BS. Apple copies tech from other companies and is "shameless" about it. For them to sue for the same behavior is just wrong. All companies copy each other and always have. Apple and Samsung are no different than anyone.


RE: ?
By michael2k on 8/1/2012 2:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
I've had civil discussion with you before.

Can you point to any examples where Apple willingly/intentionally violated someone else's trademark or trade dress in such a manner that they, as you believe, no longer deserve to protect their own trademark or trade dress?

Trademark and trade dress, which are the first two claims of the suit, has no bearing per your complaint of "copies tech". You have to go down to claim 7-16 before you get to talking about design or utility patents, which means from a legal perspective it is the trademark and trade dress claims that are most important aspects of the suit.

Yes, I am already in agreement with you that their utility patents are bogus, we've had this discussion before and it's a weakness of the system. Why are we bringing it up again when the suit will live or die on the trademark/dress claims?

The F700, per this article, clearly invalidates none of Apple's trademark/dress claims, which means as evidence it is insubstantial and irrelevant.


RE: ?
By retrospooty on 8/1/2012 3:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
"regardless of patents, trademark or any legal matters whatsoever"

I didnt say Apple broke any law. They are operating within the law, but its still BS and I think you know it is.


RE: ?
By michael2k on 8/1/2012 4:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Trademark/dress law requires Apple file suit or lose it's mark/dress. That part isn't BS.


RE: ?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/2012 2:43:00 PM , Rating: 2
Man you are the biggest shill for Apple we have. Not even Tony goes on and on this much after he's clearly been beaten.


RE: ?
By honkj on 8/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: ?
By hexxthalion on 8/2/2012 4:10:18 AM , Rating: 1
exactly and dating back to 2004


By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 11:55:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The SGH-F700 is a mobile phone manufactured by Samsung. A Korean design patent for this black, rectangular, round-cornered phone was filed by Samsung in December 2006 prior to the release of the image of the iPhone[1] but after the release of the HTC TyTn which it resembles with it's rectangular design and slide out keyboard.


By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 12:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
Oh boy, another Apple stooge.


By JasonMick (blog) on 8/1/2012 12:39:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
seriously, you think Apple Design, prototyped, and Manufactured the iPhone in 9 days in January of 2007 ????
No, no one here thinks that or has suggested that. You are the only one to suggest that, although I suggest your question is a poor attempt at sarcasm.
quote:
the reason Samsung filed in December, was because they were a supplier to Apple and they saw Apple's iphone for an entire year during 2006, while Apple gave them the specs so Samsung could manufacture the parts Apple wanted....

the patent will not be valid, because Apple can show the prototypes that Samsung saw, prototypes from 2005.... hello???? also Apple had been working on the idea of the iPad and iphone since about 2002-2004, which is also filed with the court....
I have not heard this claim (that Apple showed its prototypes to Samsung. Do you have a source?
quote:
for 5 years before, Samsung created kludge flip phones with small screens and lots of buttons, then suddenly after Apple gives them design plans for the iphone, Samsung is producing F700's cobled together and finally shown in feb 2007....
And those 5 years the technology at the time mandated kludge phones. If the technology was there and Apple had a working design, how come it didn't release the iPhone in 2004. Answer me that, Genius.
quote:
the reason the judge threw out this "so called evidence" is because Samsung had two years to fake this evidence, yet didn't fake it and didn't actually present it until the last second? why? because they are now desperate, with no trail of actual design... no emails to show people talking about it's design...
Faked??? The information/pictures come directly from Apple.

Even Apple's filings acknowledge the Jony/Sony mockup, although they disagree with Samsung w.r.t. its significance. I agree Samsung overlooked the Purple prototype -- but all that shows is what Samsung is trying to establish in the first place -- that multiple companies were considering this design at the same time, and that the idea of a rectangular touch-screen driven smartphone was not "invented" by Apple.
quote:
in fact Samsung destroyed emails that proved them talking about Apple's design.... a move the Jury will find out as a Judge will tell them that Samsung purposely destroyed evidence that showed what really happened....
Samsung's automated system deletes old emails in certain departments. This is standard practice at many companies I worked for as an intern/engineer, as it protects product development secrecy.

This is not really that unusual or malicious, though Samsung should have done a better job making sure the system was shut off once the lawsuit was filed in 2011.
quote:
hello???? any of those Samsung apologist awake with that? do people really hide from the truth that much?
In your view, what is Samsung's great "crime" that warrants the top smartphone seller being forcibly removed from the marketplace?


By Invane on 8/1/2012 1:51:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
-------- I have not heard this claim (that Apple showed its prototypes to Samsung. Do you have a source? -------

really, you don't know that Samsung was/is a supplier of some of the MAIN COMPONENTS for the iphone? a source would be, use google and do a simple search.... and show us what you find there... now when you make MAIN COMPONENTS for a device, did you think that Apple just waved it's arms around to show Samsung how and what to build? are you really going to argue that?


I'm going to take a guess and say you know very little about the industry. The level of secrecy surrounding some of these designs is insane. If you need something from a supplier, you give them specs that meet your needs. There is no reason you would hand them design information that is for all intents and purposes irrelevant to the component you are asking them to produce for you. That's opening yourself up to a multitude of IP issues.

Your baseless assumption was called here and you respond by saying it's true because you're sure it's true? You seem to make a real attempt to debate the topic point by point. Then you utilize assumptions you have no proof of, terrible grammar, and a general lack of knowledge of the industry. I don't take your post seriously and neither would any other serious reader of this site. If you want to put forward a position, you need to support that position with more than a multitude of periods, run on sentences, and childish tone.

And yes, I am an engineer and I do work for a company that happens to produce components for Apple.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/1/2012 12:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
The design patent was issued in 2006, prior to the public release of the iPhone:

quote:
Tipping its hat to a fellow Korean manufacturer, Samsung notes that in 2006, nearly a year before the iPhone appeared, LG Electronics (066570) announced the round-cornered LG Chocolate, with “virtually all of the [design] features Apple claims” to have patented. In December 2006, before Apple released images of the iPhone, Samsung itself filed a design patent in Korea for a similar rectangular phone called the F700. Smartphone and tablet-computer design was “naturally evolving” in the direction Apple claims it has exclusive rights to use, according to Samsung.


http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/16106...


By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 12:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
My god, please, stop it. You are looking like an idiot.


By JasonMick (blog) on 8/1/2012 12:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what in the world did you think the Android article was debunking if not the Business week story....

again, Samsung did not "show" the F700 in "early 2006", it didn't SHOW IT AT ALL in 2006, it showed it in Feb of 2007...... aFTER the iphone, see the android article that actually has the video proof that it was not introduced in 2006....

geez man, what type of person repeats the lie even after knowing it is a lie?

Samsung also didn't design the F700 in Early 2006, it got it's "F700" idea from the iphone prototypes that Apple showed them, so that Samsung could make parts for the original iPhone....

unless you believe, (which can be proved untrue by the real evidence chain) that apple design, prototyped, and built/manufactured the iphone in 9 days in Jan of 2007, then anyone in their right mind knows what happend, and if you do believe Apple did it in 9 days, then you have some serious issues with a very light head....


Derp.... the OFFICIAL announcement was in Feb. 2007.

The BusinessWeek article (which appears thoroughly researched, vetted, and sourced) asserts that a South Korean design patent was filed Dec. 2006, a month before Apple released pictures of the iPhone.

Prototypes were likely available months before that patent.

The fact that you can't believe that is just a measurement of your stubborness.

Apple's designs of the iPhone and iPad have been shown to go back to 2004. Yet it didn't announced the iPhone until Jan. 2007 and didn't release/patent it until that summer.

The only evidence Android Community presented was that the first time THEY saw it was at Cebit 2007 (Mar. 2007). That just shows they weren't privy to the early design details, it does nothing to "debunk" Bloomberg BusinessWeek's story or Samsung's timeline.

Why is it so hard for you to fathom that Samsung might have had the F700 prototyped/patent pending a few months before its official announcement??


By Cheesew1z69 on 8/1/2012 12:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's Tester all over again......


By simpleankit on 8/1/2012 4:01:40 PM , Rating: 1
???

How 2006 filing is laughable because Apple had prototypes in 2005. Prototypes are never considered prior art but design patent filings are. Apple's iphone design patents were filed after F700 one. So conversely Apple can have their patent invalidated because of that and not otherwise.


By JasonMick (blog) on 8/1/2012 12:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/16106...

quote:
In December 2006, before Apple released images of the iPhone, Samsung itself filed a design patent in Korea for a similar rectangular phone called the F700.
A reporter who trust Bloomberg and Samsung more than a tenuously sourced report critiquing another tenuously sourced report (Android Community's discussion of the Fandroid F700 image).

The F700 was applied for a design patent in SK in Dec. 2006. It was showed in early form earlier that year.

End of story, unless you have more compelling evidence.


By Lonyo on 8/1/2012 1:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
If Apple had the design for the iPhone before Samsung had their design, why did Apple patent said design after Samsung?

If Apple had a design, and kept it secret, and history broadly tells us they can keep their designs secret, there's no evidence to show Samsung did indeed have access to the Apple design, therefore the Apple design, whether it actually came before the Samsung design or not, doesn't matter. Samsung would not have reasonably been aware of it until after they filed their own patent.

quote:
Prior art (also known as state of the art, which also has other meanings, or background art), in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality.

Key words being MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
The iPhone design was not made available to the public before it was... made available to the public, therefore it's tenuous it could be prior art.
A patent filing is public, and therefore Samsung's design was made available to the public prior to the iPhone design being made available to the public. It is hence prior art.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki