Samsung Throws Tantrum In Court Battle Against Apple, Leaks Dismissed Evidence

When a judge decides to dismiss evidence you feel would make your case in a patent lawsuit, you can sit back and deal with it, or you can fire back and choose another public-facing channel to disseminate your information. Samsung did the latter, opting to send its rejected slides to the press and drawing the ire of the judge overseeing the case.

At the start of yesterday's opening arguments, Samsung's lawyer, John Quinn, argued that a slide containing phones designed prior to the iPhone unveiling -- including the F700 phone -- should be counted as evidence. The judge then threatened to sanction the lawyer, and that seemed like the end of it. But Samsung sent the slides to AllThingsD with the following message:

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.

AllThingsD went on to post the slides. Judge Koh eventually found out and was not pleased, halting proceedings to find out Quinn's role in the slippery tactic. In the end, no action was taken. But when you're in a fierce battle with a formidable foe, it's probably best not brat out and piss off the voice of reason in the room. [AllThingsD via The Verge]



    From my understanding, Judge Koh is hardly a 'voice of reason'

      Seems like he might have a hard on for Apple.

      Cant anon plant a virus at Apple HQ?

      I dream of that day........

        Considering she has no penis, I strongly doubt it.

      Judge Koh, in sure is warm and cozy in Apples back pocket

        I'm cetain steps are taken that the Judge is impartial, especailly in legal proceedings of this size.

          Judge Koh's own words: "…judges must maintain the 'disguise of objectivity' or face challenges".

          It's impossible to ensure. You can make sure they don't show any overt signs of favouratism but as long as they take the oath, then you have to take them at their word.

          The problem with Samsung is that they simply don't have the consumer mindshare of Apple, one of the most recognisable brands on the planet. They're fighting against a home-grown American company in an American court in which the presiding judge is clearly favouring Apple.

          Same thing happened in the Oracle vs Google trial. Doesn't matter how well you pick your jurors, 12/12 would have heard of 'Google' vs how many for Oracle and no laymen understands what software patents are. Oracle was doomed to lose that just as Samsung is doomed to lose this.

    I'd "throw a tantrum" to if a key piece of evidence relevant to the idea of prior art, showing that I was using rectangles with grids of icons before Apple "invented" them was disallowed.

    I agree with grant above decisions she has made previously along with this one hardly paint judge Koh as the "voice of reason".

      I smell a mistrial.

    Sounds like what anyone else would do. mind you we dont know why it couldn't be submitted as evidence.

    that said unless the slides where made in 2012 i cannot think of any reasons for them NOT to be admissable.... except the judge is on a apple kick back?

      We do know why it was denied - they were submitted too late.

      The evidence itself, and the reason it was denied, was known about a week ago. It's just that now that Ol' Sammy has 'explicitly' put it out there that this is news at all.

      None of the released material is new either - all previous public knowledge.

    It's interesting that only in the US does it appear that Apple is completely safe and protected in its pursuit to eject Samsung. If they win, then everyone else had better watch out.

    When apple can patent the simplest and broadest things...and then u cant defend urself...seems f'd

    Companies are being ridiculous these days, Apple patenting anything and everything, Cadbury trying to patent the color purple, how can any small company get off the ground these days? Big companies see something innovative and either buy it out or claim they actually invented it first.

      Actually, they trademarked a specific shade, which is quite different from a patent.

        This is a comments section - we don't let reason or logic get in the way!

          Needs more cussing and exultations of one IT brand over another!

        This is true. Like how Mattel has trademarked Barbie Pink.

        This isnt about a company owning a colour. No one owns a colour.

        However if I was to release a series of plastic toy dolls, and the packageing I decided to use was covered in exactly the same shade of pink that is used by Mattel for Barbie, of course they have a right to be upset. I would be using Barbie's popularity to push off my product.

          The problem with this is that it doesn't have to be "exactly" the same shade of purple/pink to be considered infringing. Any doll box using a shade of pink, or any chocolate box using a shade of purple is a potential target now for a trademark infringement. It all depends on how the trademark is defined, and how much leeway the law allows before something becomes infringing.

          From previous trademark infringement cases, I'd say the qualifiers are usually very broad.

    Well they let Apple patent autosave for documents so it's a pretty good system they have for patents.

    Judge Koh sounds like she's been bought out by Apple.

    The outcome of this trial is all but decided at this point. Lucy Koh's definitely been in the Apple camp since day one, was the one who pulled the Galaxy Tab out in court, etc.

    I laugh at all these comments complaining about Apple. Hate much? They are doing nothing wrong. Everything they are doing is within their rights. Unlike Samsung, who think that making a device that remarkably resembles what someone else has made, is ok. If they weren't trying to make an iPhone replica, they failed miserably Look at the new windows phones. They are the opposite of an iPhone. Proof you can make a modern device that isn't a copy. Samsung copy, they can't hide it. These little acts of bastardry are proof they know their goose is cooked. They're trying to rile the judge and are pushing for a mistrial. If their case is so strong, they wouldn't need to pull these juvenile stunts.

      I'm not going to claim I'm an Apple fan, but I like and own their products. That being said, I think you're being way too dismissive of the issue being stated in this article. Samsung are trying to present evidence that purports to show that the design of phone (black, simple and rectangular) was something they had also thought of prior to the iPhone being released. To just dismiss this evidence and state that "Samsung copy" is clearly glossing over the issue and taking a biased stance.

    its clearly an unfair trial.. samsung is the victim of an apple fangirl

    It's possible to build an argument for almost any nonsense if one can somehow erase or ignore contradictory evidence. Whatever Judge Koh's motivation, the trial she is running has become a farce and stands little chance of reaching an appropriate conclusion.

Join the discussion!