backtop


Print 26 comment(s) - last by Cheesew1z69.. on Apr 11 at 8:56 PM

Heavily redacted blog posts they are, at that

Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) high priced legal team liked a post by blog TmoNews enough that they're using it as "evidence" in court.  The post describes how Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KRX:005930) (KRX:005935) dropped Universal Search from the Galaxy S3, only to later add it back with a software update.
 
The author of the post -- David Beren -- expresses enthusiasm for Universal Search's return, which Apple is citing as key evidence that Android users saw the feature as a selling point.
 
Apple is seeking $2.191B USD for accused infringements on five of its patents, including U.S. Patent No. 6,847,959 (filed: Jan. 2000, granted: Jan. 2005) -- the patent it says Android's Universal Search infringes upon.
Apple Redactions

But apparently Apple can't handle what the public -- or at least some supporters of Google Inc.'s (GOOG) Android operating system -- think of it.  As noted by FOSS Patent, Apple has heavily redacted the comments, removing such gems as:

Who cares, we've had content searches on OS since way before the iPhone did it. Hate this lawsuit garbage.

...and...

The people that were deprived of such privileges due to crapple's non-sense

...and...

ismell another stupid lawsuit by crapple

Apple's lawyers claim they just don't want jurors to be "confused."  So to avoid confusion they will black out at least half of what a person wrote so that their comment can be taken entirely out of context.  The lawyers write:

[The exhibit] should be redacted to remove irrelevant, inaccurate, and prejudicial reader 'Comments' that were appended to the online article, including irrelevant and inaccurate references to this litigation and the 1846 case. 

Any conceivable probative value of reader Comments speculating about and disparaging this case (and there is none) would be substantially outweighed by the high risk of confusing, misleading, and tainting the jury.


The Samsung Galaxy S3

Samsung naturally isn't happy with the redactions, but it has to tread lightly as it performed redactions of its own to remove certain unfavorable commentary about its 2012 lawsuit loss to Apple.

Samsung Galaxy S4
Apple is afraid that buyers prefer larger Androids to its smaller devices.
[Image Source: Getty Images]

Apple used a survey of users to estimate the value of the five patents in the case.  It considers its slide-to-unlock patent the least valuable, and the universal search patent the second least valuable.
 
At this point the case is viewed largely as an effort by Apple to squeeze some sort of large per-device licensing fees from Samsung.  Recently published documents in the case reveal Apple is upset about its slowing growth and is considering adopting a "me-too" approach to Samsung, move to larger screen sizes and devices priced at under $300 USD unlocked -- the key segments its says are growing globally.

Sources: TmoNews, FOSS Patents



Comments     Threshold


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

Consistency
By Wazza1234 on 4/11/2014 6:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
Well, like the article says - if you want to criticise companies for redacting parts of evidence - both Apple and Samsung are guilty.

It's not surprising that their lawyers try to hide the bad bits and show the bits which prove their point - both sides do it.




"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














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