If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Judge excludes some evidence from patent trial; Samsung releases it to the media. Yeah, these guys would never steal from other companies   (news.cnet.com) divider line 34
    More: Asinine, Samsung, Koh, sequoia, Josh Lowensohn  
•       •       •

3875 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Aug 2012 at 11:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-01 11:12:51 AM
Subby sounds butthurt.
 
2012-08-01 11:14:13 AM

APE992: Subby sounds butthurt.


My favorite company is better than yours! I have a calvin pissing on samsung sticker on my hybrid.
 
2012-08-01 11:17:29 AM
I don't get how them releasing the information to the media is an indication of their willingness to infringe.
 
Ant
2012-08-01 11:18:41 AM
Why did the judge disallow the Sony phone info?
 
2012-08-01 11:18:59 AM
From the judge's wikipedia page: " From 2002 until 2008, Koh worked as a litigation partner at the Silicon Valley office of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters."

I'm sure she'll be perfectly fair in a trial over essentially a patent over a rectangle shape. Nope, no chance she might have a conflict at all. No chance that she might exclude evidence that shows prior art or that the patent is obvious and thus invalid.
 
2012-08-01 11:21:02 AM

Ant: Why did the judge disallow the Sony phone info?


It was actually the Samsung phone info - the F700 - which Samsung didn't bring up until after discovery was long over.
 
2012-08-01 11:23:41 AM

MadAmos: From the judge's wikipedia page: " From 2002 until 2008, Koh worked as a litigation partner at the Silicon Valley office of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters."

I'm sure she'll be perfectly fair in a trial over essentially a patent over a rectangle shape. Nope, no chance she might have a conflict at all. No chance that she might exclude evidence that shows prior art or that the patent is obvious and thus invalid.


1) It's not a "trial over essentially a patent over a rectangle shape". Isn't is a bit ironic that you're criticizing a judge on patent law when you apparently have no understanding of patent law?

2) In fact, Samsung is countersuing Apple for infringement. They'd be pretty pissed off to hear that their communications algorithms are really just rectangle shapes.

3) Since Samsung and Apple are both tech companies with strong patent portfolios, where exactly is she supposed to have a bias?
 
2012-08-01 11:29:34 AM

MadAmos: From the judge's wikipedia page: " From 2002 until 2008, Koh worked as a litigation partner at the Silicon Valley office of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters."

I'm sure she'll be perfectly fair in a trial over essentially a patent over a rectangle shape. Nope, no chance she might have a conflict at all. No chance that she might exclude evidence that shows prior art or that the patent is obvious and thus invalid.



So a judge overseeing a patent dispute between tech companies has a background in patent disputes between tech companies? You're mistaking bias for competence. You need a lot more than that to prove that there's a conflict of interest. Feel free to look at the ABA website (which publishes both the model code applicable to attorneys and the code applicable to judges) which should give you some idea of what to look for.
 
2012-08-01 11:37:59 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I don't get how them releasing the information to the media is an indication of their willingness to infringe.


Particularly when the released information makes it clear that there were Samsung designs clearly predating the iPhone that looked a lot like the iPhone.
 
2012-08-01 11:47:00 AM

Theaetetus: MadAmos: From the judge's wikipedia page: " From 2002 until 2008, Koh worked as a litigation partner at the Silicon Valley office of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters."

I'm sure she'll be perfectly fair in a trial over essentially a patent over a rectangle shape. Nope, no chance she might have a conflict at all. No chance that she might exclude evidence that shows prior art or that the patent is obvious and thus invalid.

1) It's not a "trial over essentially a patent over a rectangle shape". Isn't is a bit ironic that you're criticizing a judge on patent law when you apparently have no understanding of patent law?

2) In fact, Samsung is countersuing Apple for infringement. They'd be pretty pissed off to hear that their communications algorithms are really just rectangle shapes.

3) Since Samsung and Apple are both tech companies with strong patent portfolios, where exactly is she supposed to have a bias?


Yeah, no shiat. Everyone copied this.

pdadb.net
 
2012-08-01 11:55:21 AM
Why was the evidence excluded? Hearsay?
 
2012-08-01 11:59:19 AM

blahpers: Why was the evidence excluded? Hearsay?


Because fark Samsung that's why. Or at least that's what it sounds like. I didn't go to law school, but designs predating the product you're being sued for copying would be relevant to a case in my book.
 
2012-08-01 12:00:02 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: MadAmos: From the judge's wikipedia page: " From 2002 until 2008, Koh worked as a litigation partner at the Silicon Valley office of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters."

I'm sure she'll be perfectly fair in a trial over essentially a patent over a rectangle shape. Nope, no chance she might have a conflict at all. No chance that she might exclude evidence that shows prior art or that the patent is obvious and thus invalid.

1) It's not a "trial over essentially a patent over a rectangle shape". Isn't is a bit ironic that you're criticizing a judge on patent law when you apparently have no understanding of patent law?

2) In fact, Samsung is countersuing Apple for infringement. They'd be pretty pissed off to hear that their communications algorithms are really just rectangle shapes.

3) Since Samsung and Apple are both tech companies with strong patent portfolios, where exactly is she supposed to have a bias?

Yeah, no shiat. Everyone copied this.

[pdadb.net image 314x314]


No I think they all copied this. Whar U.S Robotics lawsuit, Whar!

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-01 12:11:29 PM
I'm gonna laugh my ass off.

ITS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND THE JUDGE THROWS A HISSY ABOUT IT BEING SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC?!?!

apple already lost this case in europe... lost it SO BADLY that they're having to run advertisements FOR Samsung
 
2012-08-01 12:11:48 PM

ongbok: No I think they all copied this. Whar U.S Robotics lawsuit, Whar!


It's been downloading on a 14.4kbps modem for the last 8 months. Damn call keeps dropping.
 
2012-08-01 12:20:34 PM

Ant: Why did the judge disallow the Sony phone info?


It wasn't the Sony info, but actually the Samsung phone info on the F700... and it's because Samsung withheld their evidence of its prototyping and creation until after the deadline for releasing evidence had lapsed.
There was also a bit from a deposition that was taken of a guy who doesn't work for Apple anymore and isn't appearing in court. I'm not up on deposition rules as whether that's kosher, tho'.
 
2012-08-01 12:21:43 PM

ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: MadAmos: From the judge's wikipedia page: " From 2002 until 2008, Koh worked as a litigation partner at the Silicon Valley office of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters."

I'm sure she'll be perfectly fair in a trial over essentially a patent over a rectangle shape. Nope, no chance she might have a conflict at all. No chance that she might exclude evidence that shows prior art or that the patent is obvious and thus invalid.

1) It's not a "trial over essentially a patent over a rectangle shape". Isn't is a bit ironic that you're criticizing a judge on patent law when you apparently have no understanding of patent law?

2) In fact, Samsung is countersuing Apple for infringement. They'd be pretty pissed off to hear that their communications algorithms are really just rectangle shapes.

3) Since Samsung and Apple are both tech companies with strong patent portfolios, where exactly is she supposed to have a bias?

Yeah, no shiat. Everyone copied this.

[pdadb.net image 314x314]

No I think they all copied this. Whar U.S Robotics lawsuit, Whar!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x285]


gearmedia.ign.com

/upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-01 12:23:51 PM

prjindigo: I'm gonna laugh my ass off.

ITS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND THE JUDGE THROWS A HISSY ABOUT IT BEING SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC?!?!


Actually, I think the judge was more pissed about the press release that called her out.

apple already lost this case in europe Britain... lost it SO BADLY that they're having they may have to run advertisements FOR Samsung if their appeal isn't successful

FTFY. The appeals court stayed it. And it's just Britain. Apple actually already won this case in Germany, and it seems to be going pretty well for them in Australia, too.
 
2012-08-01 12:24:10 PM

ongbok: No I think they all copied this. Whar U.S Robotics lawsuit, Whar!



It's ironic that I did this 'shop for a Fark thread many years ago.

i478.photobucket.com

I even got the name right... I should sue.
 
2012-08-01 12:38:11 PM

BKITU: ongbok: No I think they all copied this. Whar U.S Robotics lawsuit, Whar!

It's been downloading on a 14.4kbps modem for the last 8 months. Damn call keeps dropping.


I even had one of these when it was first released. I worked for U.S Robotics back then, and was given one for not missing a day of work for a year.
 
2012-08-01 12:44:14 PM

ongbok: BKITU: ongbok: No I think they all copied this. Whar U.S Robotics lawsuit, Whar!

It's been downloading on a 14.4kbps modem for the last 8 months. Damn call keeps dropping.

I even had one of these when it was first released. I worked for U.S Robotics back then, and was given one for not missing a day of work for a year.


That's pretty harsh of them, but I bet you learned your lesson and took some vacation time.
 
2012-08-01 12:49:54 PM

Theaetetus: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: MadAmos: From the judge's wikipedia page: " From 2002 until 2008, Koh worked as a litigation partner at the Silicon Valley office of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters."

I'm sure she'll be perfectly fair in a trial over essentially a patent over a rectangle shape. Nope, no chance she might have a conflict at all. No chance that she might exclude evidence that shows prior art or that the patent is obvious and thus invalid.

1) It's not a "trial over essentially a patent over a rectangle shape". Isn't is a bit ironic that you're criticizing a judge on patent law when you apparently have no understanding of patent law?

2) In fact, Samsung is countersuing Apple for infringement. They'd be pretty pissed off to hear that their communications algorithms are really just rectangle shapes.

3) Since Samsung and Apple are both tech companies with strong patent portfolios, where exactly is she supposed to have a bias?

Yeah, no shiat. Everyone copied this.

[pdadb.net image 314x314]

No I think they all copied this. Whar U.S Robotics lawsuit, Whar!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x285]

[gearmedia.ign.com image 300x326]

/[upload.wikimedia.org image 180x135]


I meant they copied the "rounded rectangle."
 
2012-08-01 01:19:21 PM

blahpers: Why was the evidence excluded? Hearsay?


It wasn't presented during discovery.

Courts have a designated time to introduce new evidence. You enter your evidence in, the other side gets to examine it, etc. If you don't get your evidence in during discovery, you don't get to use it. There's no My Cousin Viney moment where you get to pop up some new evidence right at the last minute to surprise everyone and win your case.
 
2012-08-01 01:29:04 PM

meanmutton: blahpers: Why was the evidence excluded? Hearsay?

It wasn't presented during discovery.

Courts have a designated time to introduce new evidence. You enter your evidence in, the other side gets to examine it, etc. If you don't get your evidence in during discovery, you don't get to use it. There's no My Cousin Viney moment where you get to pop up some new evidence right at the last minute to surprise everyone and win your case.


Amazing how movies and television have essentially made people ignorant of legal proceedings, isn't it?

As much as I love some original Law & Order, it is not training for my dream career in criminal trials.
 
2012-08-01 01:45:18 PM

MightyPez: Amazing how movies and television have essentially made people ignorant of legal proceedings, isn't it?


Hollywood Law
 
2012-08-01 01:57:16 PM

meanmutton: blahpers: Why was the evidence excluded? Hearsay?

It wasn't presented during discovery.

Courts have a designated time to introduce new evidence. You enter your evidence in, the other side gets to examine it, etc. If you don't get your evidence in during discovery, you don't get to use it. There's no My Cousin Viney moment where you get to pop up some new evidence right at the last minute to surprise everyone and win your case.


So they missed some arbitrary LEARN EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING BY MIDNIGHT TONIGHT deadline and now that they have more evidence that PROOVES their case, "oh shiat sorry guys I know this is an elephant in the room but for the sake of an honest trial we are going to determine the future by pretending it doesn't exist."

How the fark is that just?

/Might as well leave long time convicted criminals in prison since post trial DNA evidence wasn't in discovery.
 
2012-08-01 02:10:09 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: meanmutton: blahpers: Why was the evidence excluded? Hearsay?

It wasn't presented during discovery.

Courts have a designated time to introduce new evidence. You enter your evidence in, the other side gets to examine it, etc. If you don't get your evidence in during discovery, you don't get to use it. There's no My Cousin Viney moment where you get to pop up some new evidence right at the last minute to surprise everyone and win your case.

So they missed some arbitrary LEARN EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING BY MIDNIGHT TONIGHT deadline and now that they have more evidence that PROOVES their case, "oh shiat sorry guys I know this is an elephant in the room but for the sake of an honest trial we are going to determine the future by pretending it doesn't exist."

How the fark is that just?

/Might as well leave long time convicted criminals in prison since post trial DNA evidence wasn't in discovery.


Wasn't that the State of Texas's policy regarding evidence discovered after a trial until just recently?
 
2012-08-01 02:23:34 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: How the fark is that just?


How about we just stay in the discovery phase forever and never actually let the case be heard? After all, some important new information might come out five years from now that could change the outcome.

If new documents come to light after discovery ends, you can petition to have the current case dismissed without prejudice so it can be refiled in an amended form, or you can use it as the basis for an appeal. There's a system, and it almost always works well enough?
 
2012-08-01 02:37:08 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: How the fark is that just?


Is it just for a party to hide a critical fact or piece of evidence until the day before trial so the other side doesn't have time to prepare a counter argument? If the evidence was so important to Samsung's defense, why did it take them so long to find out about, especially considering it was their own farking product.

/Might as well leave long time convicted criminals in prison since post trial DNA evidence wasn't in discovery.

Might want to think about that, obviously "post trial DNA evidence" would not have been part of the discovery process, which occurs in pretrial. An appeal about that would be if an appellate court should consider post conviction DNA evidence that was not in evidence at the trial level, which has little to do with discovery (unless the appeal is based on prosecutors suppressing exonerating evidence, but that's another issue entirely).
 
2012-08-01 02:37:33 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: So they missed some arbitrary LEARN EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING BY MIDNIGHT TONIGHT SIX MONTHS FROM NOW deadline


Pretty much.

and now that they have more evidence that PROOVES their case, "oh shiat sorry guys I know this is an elephant in the room but for the sake of an honest trial we are going to determine the future by pretending it doesn't exist."

How the fark is that just?


Because they knew about the deadline months and months in advance. Why didn't they bring it up on day one?
... which leads to your other statement:
/Might as well leave long time convicted criminals in prison since post trial DNA evidence wasn't in discovery.

The difference there is that the defendant didn't know about the evidence at the time of trial, so it's unfair to penalize them for not bringing it up. Here, Samsung knew about their own F700 prototype. Why didn't they bring it up on day one of discovery? Hell, why didn't they bring it up on day 90? They don't really have an explanation, other than "we were trying to spring it on Apple at the last minute so that they wouldn't be able to investigate it."
But that's not a good explanation.
 
2012-08-01 03:01:04 PM

poot_rootbeer: Dr. Goldshnoz: How the fark is that just?

How about we just stay in the discovery phase forever and never actually let the case be heard? After all, some important new information might come out five years from now that could change the outcome.

If new documents come to light after discovery ends, you can petition to have the current case dismissed without prejudice so it can be refiled in an amended form, or you can use it as the basis for an appeal. There's a system, and it almost always works well enough?


Fat Bobcat: Dr. Goldshnoz: How the fark is that just?

Is it just for a party to hide a critical fact or piece of evidence until the day before trial so the other side doesn't have time to prepare a counter argument? If the evidence was so important to Samsung's defense, why did it take them so long to find out about, especially considering it was their own farking product.

/Might as well leave long time convicted criminals in prison since post trial DNA evidence wasn't in discovery.

Might want to think about that, obviously "post trial DNA evidence" would not have been part of the discovery process, which occurs in pretrial. An appeal about that would be if an appellate court should consider post conviction DNA evidence that was not in evidence at the trial level, which has little to do with discovery (unless the appeal is based on prosecutors suppressing exonerating evidence, but that's another issue entirely).


Theaetetus: Dr. Goldshnoz: So they missed some arbitrary LEARN EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING BY MIDNIGHT TONIGHT SIX MONTHS FROM NOW deadline

Pretty much.

and now that they have more evidence that PROOVES their case, "oh shiat sorry guys I know this is an elephant in the room but for the sake of an honest trial we are going to determine the future by pretending it doesn't exist."

How the fark is that just?

Because they knew about the deadline months and months in advance. Why didn't they bring it up on day one?
... which leads to your other statement:
/Might as well leave long time convicted criminals in prison since post trial DNA evidence wasn't in discovery.

The difference there is that the defendant didn't know about the evidence at the time of trial, so it's unfair to penalize them for not bringing it up. Here, Samsung knew about their own F700 prototype. Why didn't they bring it up on day one of discovery? Hell, why didn't they bring it up on day 90? They don't really have an explanation, other than "we were trying to spring it on Apple at the last minute so that they wouldn't be able to investigate it."
But that's not a good explanation.



You didn't explain how an arbitrary evidence deadline is just when it is possible to still be exploring the case as the trial is proceeding, especially when such evidence can proove the case.
 
2012-08-01 03:14:09 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: You didn't explain how an arbitrary evidence deadline is just when it is possible to still be exploring the case as the trial is proceeding, especially when such evidence can proove the case.


Because at some point, the case has to be decided. It's the shiat-or-get-off-the-pot rule. If you're "still exploring the case as the trial is proceeding," then you should have gotten a delay of the trial, or you should have gotten better lawyers. Otherwise, how is it just for a defendant to stall and stall and bring up surprise evidence and stall some more to prevent the case from ever getting decided?

Look at it this way... Say you're driving one day, and some guy plows into your car. You break your back and a few limbs and have a long, painful, and expensive recovery. He refuses to pay for your medical bills, and you take him to court. You do discovery, take witness depositions, and start the trial. On day two of the trial, after you've presented your case, he suddenly brings in a new person whom he claims is a witness that says you were drinking from a bottle of whiskey and texting at the same time and drove into him. The jury gasps, and frowns at you. You've never heard of this person, and have no idea what they're talking about... and you have to cross-examine them and poke holes in their story right now, and you've only got about 15 minutes do it. Go.
How is that just?
 
2012-08-01 03:17:53 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: You didn't explain how an arbitrary evidence deadline is just when it is possible to still be exploring the case as the trial is proceeding, especially when such evidence can proove the case.


I give you some reasons off the top of my head:

(1) You would have to prove that the excluded evidence would make some sort of difference, which would create a trial within a trial, using more more time and resources of a federal judiciary that is already on a multi-year backlog for civil trials.

(2) It isn't just for a party to conduct a trial by ambush where the opposing party has no time to prepare for evidence they did not know about. Even Especially if the evidence is important, the opposing party should have time to address it and come up with a cognizable theory or set of facts to counter it. Denying that deprives a party a chance of a fair trial, due process, and all that jazz.

(3) It's not like Samsung didn't know about the deadline. If they can't find out information about their own product line or publicly available information of a direct competitor, that's their problem, not Apple's and not the courts. It's up to each party to build their own case, if they can't do that effectively, why penalize the other side?

(4) If you decide that the evidence should be admitted, Apple will almost certainly move for a mistrial because they haven't had any time to prepare a defense. If Apple loses, they would certainly appeal on this point.

(5) Appellate courts exist for this very reason; if the trial court screws up, the appellate court will vacate the decision and remand, so its not like Samsung doesn't have an avenue to complain.
 
2012-08-03 02:58:38 AM

Theaetetus: Dr. Goldshnoz: You didn't explain how an arbitrary evidence deadline is just when it is possible to still be exploring the case as the trial is proceeding, especially when such evidence can proove the case.

Because at some point, the case has to be decided. It's the shiat-or-get-off-the-pot rule. If you're "still exploring the case as the trial is proceeding," then you should have gotten a delay of the trial, or you should have gotten better lawyers. Otherwise, how is it just for a defendant to stall and stall and bring up surprise evidence and stall some more to prevent the case from ever getting decided?

Look at it this way... Say you're driving one day, and some guy plows into your car. You break your back and a few limbs and have a long, painful, and expensive recovery. He refuses to pay for your medical bills, and you take him to court. You do discovery, take witness depositions, and start the trial. On day two of the trial, after you've presented your case, he suddenly brings in a new person whom he claims is a witness that says you were drinking from a bottle of whiskey and texting at the same time and drove into him. The jury gasps, and frowns at you. You've never heard of this person, and have no idea what they're talking about... and you have to cross-examine them and poke holes in their story right now, and you've only got about 15 minutes do it. Go.
How is that just?


Sounds like the person in your example lied whereas Samsung didn't.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report