Macworld Forums: Apple asks court to punish Samsung for releasing documents in iPhone suit - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Apple asks court to punish Samsung for releasing documents in iPhone suit here

The F700 had a slide-out keypad like most every other phone design (besides Apple) because they were trying to hedge their bets. Nobody (besides Apple) belived that a phone without a keypad could be successful. Stealing somebody else's design and then adding on gadgets is still stealing.

Macworld, on 02 August 2012 - 04:31 AM, said:

The "full story" as told by only one side in any given debate, is frequently referred to as "propaganda." It's pretty obvious from their "propaganda" where Samsung stands in all of this... but what is Koh's position? What was her reason for making this "evidence" inadmissible in the first place? I'm willing to bet that she didn't do it just because Samsung made snide remarks in her courtroom...

This post has been edited by zarmanto: 02 August 2012 - 05:48 AM

From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia....amsung_SGH-F700 ): "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. Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007.[2]"

Samsung has a Korean patent on the F700 from December 2006. I do not know the details.

The Apple patents in question are:
1. 7,812,828 (the “'828 patent”) Ellipse Fitting For Multi-Touch Surfaces - Filed: February 22, 2007

2. 7,669,134 (the “'134 patent”) Method and Apparatus For Displaying
Information During An Instant Messaging Session - Filed: May 2, 2003

3. 6,493,002 (the “'002 patent”) Method and Apparatus for Displaying and
Accessing Control and Status Information in a Computer System - Filed: March 20, 1997

4. 7,469,381 (the “'381 patent”) List Scrolling and Document Translation,
Scaling and Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display - Filed: December 14, 2007

5. 7,844,915 (the “'915 patent”) Application Programming Interfaces for
Scrolling Operations - Filed: January 7, 2007

6. 7,853,891 (the “'891 patent”) Method and Apparatus for Displaying a
Window for a User Interface - Filed: February 1, 2008

7. 7,863,533 (the “'533 patent”) Cantilevered Push Button Having Multiple
Contacts and Fulcrums - Filed: September 26, 2008

Design Patents:

1. D627,790 (the “'D790 patent”) Graphical User Interface For a Display
Screen or Portion Thereof - Filed: August 20, 2007

2. D602,016 (the “'D016 patent”) Electronic Device - Filed: June 6, 2008

3. D618,677 (the “'D677 patent”) Electronic Device - Filed: November 18, 2008

This is getting fun...

zarmanto, on 02 August 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

I think it was that Samsung submitted the evidence too late in the discovery process. Samsung's attorney's evidently were late filing the evidence, then they had something like 10 motions repeatedly asking Judge Koh to admit the evidence after she had ruled it was too late which really pissed her off.

bettercitizens, on 02 August 2012 - 06:12 AM, said:

I'd buy that -- if it didn't happen to sound like ideal fodder for a successful appeal. On the other hand, let's take another look at that Wikipedia article of yours:

bettercitizens, on 02 August 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

(Emphasis added.) Perchance, has Koh made any comments about the fact that this is not a US design patent? Because I could easily see it being inadmissible within the context of a US court case on those grounds, especially if Samsung never bothered to file a corresponding US patent application -- or worse, if they did file a US patent application, and had it rejected for some reason.

This post has been edited by zarmanto: 02 August 2012 - 06:26 AM

What Samsung has omitted from its press release is that Apple had an iPhone-look-alike way back in 2005.

Also, the iPhone didn't just magic itself into existence, and given that Apple was designing this phone in 2005, they would have had to speak to a number of potential manufacturers regarding miniaturisation of certain components, tooling, etc. It is possible that Apple had already chosen Samsung given its capacity to produce stuff and would have had to at least share some of the design element with Samsung way before December 2006.

Also, knowing Apple's penchant for secrecy, they may have allowed Samsung to see a number of designs, even one with a sliding keyboard. This a bit like that Google bloke being on Apple's board and being briefed on the iPhone then Google suddenly changing its designs for the Googlephone.

Apple's making a stupid move demanding punishment. It makes them look even more like a bully and adds to their already tainted reputation for suppression and censorship. Apple may have a need to keep secrecy about its upcoming products. But it shouldn't try to expand that internal culture to the entire world. Samsung has every right to publicize facts in its favor. Both Apple and this judge are wrong about that.

As their 1984 ad suggests, Apple used to claim it was against corporate censorship. Now they're acting like Orwell's other anti-totalitarian novel, Animal Farm. They joined the club of those wanting to repress competition.

Apple can copy success, but others can't copy Apple's success. That's what Apple is trying to claim. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others," is how George Orwell put that.

Inkling, on 02 August 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

If Apple and the judge believe Samsung is releasing this evidence to the public in hopes that it will make its way to jury members, despite them being told not to read any outside information about the trial, then Apple and this judge are very right.