Samsung annoys judge and goes public with excluded trial evidence
To some over in the US, the patent fight between Apple and Samsung seems to be a bit one sided where the judge is concerned, as it appears that old Sammy has gone public with trial evidence that was originally blocked from being submitted in the trial by the judge, evidence that Samsung says would establish without a doubt that they didn’t copy the iPhone.
In the Apple versus Samsung trial, according to Samsung, Judge Koh has excluded evidence on independent creation that meant Apple could inaccurately argue that the Samsung F700 was a copy of the iPhone, reports Slash Gear. However Samsung says they were not allowed to show the jury the pre-iPhone design of the F700 or previous handsets that were developed before the iPhone in 2006.
Thus old Sammy decided to release that excluded evidence to the public space, and in a statement says that fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all of the evidence.
Both Apple and Judge Lucy Koh were quick to react to this release, with Koh saying she wanted to know who drafted the press release and who from the legal team authorised it, along is demanding an immediate meeting with John Quinn, Samsung’s lawyer.
Earlier apparently Quinn begged the court to allow further discussion on whether the excluded evidence should be accepted, but Koh threatened Samsung with sanctions if they continued with their appeal.
Now if you are going to hold a trial over such matters, then surely all possible evidence should be accepted, even if that evidence means Apple could be shown as being in the wrong. But it would appear that Koh is more on the side of Apple in this case than Samsung’s, which seems somewhat wrong to me, as a judge should be seen to be impartial and consider all possible evidence, but then I never have really understood the inner workings of US courts.
What do our readers think about all this, should the judge allow all possible evidence to be submitted in court, rather than only allowing evidence that could possibly support Apple’s claims?
Comments
3 thoughts on “Samsung annoys judge and goes public with excluded trial evidence”
Apple is loosing both existing and potentially new customers due to their cry baby antics grow up Apple!
Apple you sick to many people are tierd of your baby tactics,you know your wrong and also the judicial system is not being fair maybe they should be on trial for there dishonesty,US courts are to be fair to all,some time it takes years to come to the right decsion,it seems like a quick one here WHY WHY WHY,Apple said it has alot of money maybe there sharingÂ
This whole claim by Apple is wrong, wrong, wrong. There were smartphones using other systems, including the Windows mobile systems, way before Apple decided to steal their basic design and add some jazzy stuff. Apple is the one that has copied, always. Even the original Mac system was inspired by Windows 1 and 2 (anyone remember?). Windows did not then have the hardware to support it (which also largely explains why MS got tired of lackadaisical OEMs and decided correctly to come up with its great Surface design).
Apple’s going after Samsung is a bunch of short visioned baby tactics to just postpone the presence of any competition long enough to make a quick buck. They did it in Germany and Europe for a while with Galaxy Tablets, going after the most insignificant and unfair judges they could find, which just managed to keep the great Galaxy designs off the shelves for long enough for them to make money. I think they are misusing their fan following.
I trust the US court system in the long run, but in the short term, Apple is after temporary injunctions to allow them to divert the sharp edge of competition. Shame on you Apple!
To be transparent about it, I don’t even use Android. I have found my happiness in Windows phones and Windows 8 & Office 2013 (even if they are pre-release). But I think enough injustice is enough. It is also I believe inspired by racism. A Korean company competing so successfully against a lily-while American company– even if most of the parts of both are manufactured in another non-white country, and even if most of the workers and thinkers in Apple are non-white….