Samsung gets itself in hot water by publicly releasing barred evidence in Apple trial

[JS82712]

http://9to5mac.com/2012/07/31/samsu...cly-releasing-barred-evidence-in-apple-trial/

very interesting; things aren't looking good for those korean clone-artists.

 

[Technarchy]

Samsung destroyed evidence in Apple patent case, says judge

All kinds of shenanigans in this case it seems...

Samsung destroyed evidence in Apple patent case, says judge

A California judge has sanctioned Samsung over deleted emails

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/world-of-tech/samsung-destroyed-evidence-in-apple-patent-case-says-judge-1090262

Samsung is being reprimanded yet again in its ongoing patent spat with Apple.
California Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal sanctioned the South Korean tech company for destroying evidence, or, more accurately, failing to not destroy evidence.
Samsung's email system deletes messages automatically after two weeks, and the company took no measures to preserve relevant emails even after the patent case had been filed, said Grewal.
The judge granted Apple's request for an "adverse jury instruction," informing the jury of Samsung's transgression.

 

[JS82712]

All kinds of shenanigans in this case it seems...



http://www.techradar.com/us/news/world-of-tech/samsung-destroyed-evidence-in-apple-patent-case-says-judge-1090262

"you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide"

inb4 Samsung S-sheep tells us that apple's iPhone isn't original.

 

[Zaft]

Its not about if samsung had touch screen phones in the works before iphone.. its that the galaxy S looked very similar to the iphone 3GS, and touchwhiz was almost a direct copy of how IOS looks.

 

[Mac.World]

All kinds of shenanigans in this case it seems...



http://www.techradar.com/us/news/world-of-tech/samsung-destroyed-evidence-in-apple-patent-case-says-judge-1090262

I love how you always seem to leave out that one piece of wording that actually puts things in context.

The bi-weekly auto-deletion of emails started in 2001, and was limited to just those workers using the 'mysingle' email program (by the way, deleting old emails is standard practice for most large companies in the world.) you also failed to mention that Samsung employees using Outlook provided all requested documentation. You also failed to mention that only U.S. law requires a company to stop deleting old emails upon notification of litigation.

Put this into context and it's not so black and white, as much as you wish things were. I will enjoy watching you whine and cry when Apple gets sued by Google for blantantly and slavishly copying Android's OS, once the uspto grants Google its notification center patent. Too bad RIM didn't patent BBM service, since Apple blantantly and slavishly copied it with iMessage. Of course we have seen Apple follow with more copying from Android with split-keyboard, wireless syncing, OTA updates, mobile tabbed browsing, turn by turn navigation on a smartphone, 3d mapping, etc.. Apple = clone-artists of the highest caliber.

There are always two sides to every story. You should give both, instead of trying to hide one side.

P.S. Your link, while looking legitimate, is via the Verge website. A well-known Apple apologist and fanboy website.

 

[Vegastouch]

I love how you always seem to leave out that one piece of wording that actually puts things in context.

The bi-weekly auto-deletion of emails started in 2001, and was limited to just those workers using the 'mysingle' email program (by the way, deleting old emails is standard practice for most large companies in the world.) you also failed to mention that Samsung employees using Outlook provided all requested documentation. You also failed to mention that only U.S. law requires a company to stop deleting old emails upon notification of litigation.

Put this into context and it's not so black and white, as much as you wish things were. I will enjoy watching you whine and cry when Apple gets sued by Google for blantantly and slavishly copying Android's OS, once the uspto grants Google its notification center patent. Too bad RIM didn't patent BBM service, since Apple blantantly and slavishly copied it with iMessage. Of course we have seen Apple follow with more copying from Android with split-keyboard, wireless syncing, OTA updates, mobile tabbed browsing, turn by turn navigation on a smartphone, 3d mapping, etc.. Apple = clone-artists of the highest caliber.

There are always two sides to every story. You should give both, instead of trying to hide one side.

P.S. Your link, while looking legitimate, is via the Verge website. A well-known Apple apologist and fanboy website.

Well you know, Technarky has an Apple agenda. I find all these lawsuits to be ridiculous and we are the ones who will suffer. But your right, Apple has done some major copying of their own but the fanboys in here wont admit it or just dont see it because they have no clue.

iMessage was invented by Apple dammit!!

 

[Mac.World]

Its not about if samsung had touch screen phones in the works before iphone.. its that the galaxy S looked very similar to the iphone 3GS, and touchwhiz was almost a direct copy of how IOS looks.

If Touchwiz is a direct copy of iOS and how it looks, then lets look at what iOS is a copy of, shall we? We are talking about a grid of icons on a color display of a mobile device.

2002 Nokia 7650

2003 PalmOne Treo 600

Blackberry 7210

and then we come to 2006 and phones that came out before the iPhone was ever announced but have a similar look. I guess these guys must have got a hold of Apple top secret documents.

O2 XDA Flame (a black rectangle with curved corners and a color display)

LG KG800

 

[Applejuiced]

If Touchwiz is a direct copy of iOS and how it looks, then lets look at what iOS is a copy of, shall we? We are talking about a grid of icons on a color display of a mobile device.

Those dont look nothing like, feel or behave the same as an iphone.
Those are the dinosaur years where Nokia and Blackberry were on top.
Its very easy to see Samsung copied the iphone down to its last detail.

 

[Agent-P]

Honestly these lawsuits are getting ridiculous. IMO, the first one about the first Galaxy S phone made sense (that phone and version of TouchWiz was almost exactly the iPhone 3G). But there is no need to attack every Samsung device since then. In the end it'll be us, the consumers, that lose if this ever ends. Maybe Apple should put all that legal fee money into making iOS more functional or, I don't know, maybe do some good and help those who are less fortunate. There's no need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in this stupid lawsuit.

/rant

 

[Technarchy]

I love how you always seem to leave out that one piece of wording that actually puts things in context.

I didn't "leave" out anything, as anyone is capable of reading the content, or researching the issue and making up their own mind.

If you wish to counterpoint and editorialize, there is a comment section on the Verge to post on.

 

[onthecouchagain]

The court is rejecting evidence that links Samsung's designs to their own early prototypes before the iPhone, which would prove they didn't copy the iPhone.

Shame on Samsung for "producing the evidence too late" whatever that means.

But court matters aside, this should all be a wash.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3...ending-media-rejected-evidence-in-apple-trial

"Samsung has been desperate to tell the jury about its F700 phone — which was in development months before the January 2007 introduction of the iPhone — and internal Apple emails that show the company pursuing a "Sony-style" design for the phone. All of this information has been public for days, but Samsung's motions to include it at trial have been denied because the company produced it too late in the discovery process."

 

[Mac.World]

I didn't "leave" out anything, as anyone is capable of reading the content, or researching the issue and making up their own mind.

If you wish to counterpoint and editorialize, there is a comment section on the Verge to post on.

I don't bother visiting 'National Enquirer"-esque websites. Usually filled with garbage editorials that are there for fanboys to wet themselves over, and of course to give them clicks and advert money.

 

[onthecouchagain]

I love how you always seem to leave out that one piece of wording that actually puts things in context.

The bi-weekly auto-deletion of emails started in 2001, and was limited to just those workers using the 'mysingle' email program (by the way, deleting old emails is standard practice for most large companies in the world.) you also failed to mention that Samsung employees using Outlook provided all requested documentation. You also failed to mention that only U.S. law requires a company to stop deleting old emails upon notification of litigation.

Put this into context and it's not so black and white, as much as you wish things were. I will enjoy watching you whine and cry when Apple gets sued by Google for blantantly and slavishly copying Android's OS, once the uspto grants Google its notification center patent. Too bad RIM didn't patent BBM service, since Apple blantantly and slavishly copied it with iMessage. Of course we have seen Apple follow with more copying from Android with split-keyboard, wireless syncing, OTA updates, mobile tabbed browsing, turn by turn navigation on a smartphone, 3d mapping, etc.. Apple = clone-artists of the highest caliber.

There are always two sides to every story. You should give both, instead of trying to hide one side.

P.S. Your link, while looking legitimate, is via the Verge website. A well-known Apple apologist and fanboy website.

+10 for you.

It's sort of ridiculous that the court is banning evidence that proves Samsung's innocence.

 

[JS82712]

+10 for you.

It's sort of ridiculous that the court is banning evidence that proves Samsung's innocence.

Learn to read before you make yourself look like a fool; Samsung submitted it late, there is a certain procedure for everything, Samsung failed to follow, who's fault is it?

Samsung's innocence? Only S-sheep will believe that

 

[kdarling]

Its very easy to see Samsung copied the iphone down to its last detail.

Both sides engage in hyperbole.

I think that Samsung at one time clearly chose to use a lot of the style elements that the iPhone popularized. For example, they added a rounded background to icons while other Android phones did not. (Mind you, Apple did not invent such a style).

At the same time, Samsung obviously did not copy the iphone "down to the last detail." The icons were different and so was most of the operation, since it was Android with multiple physical control buttons.

Furthermore, the iPhone had nothing like the Touchwiz UI overlay:

• You could set up from 1 to 7 homescreens, and add/ subtract/ rearrange them and their order with a finger. Apple: cannot rearrange entire screens at a time.
• The Home button brought up a list of recently used apps. Apple: copied this later when they finally added third party multitasking.
• Samsung's homescreens support widgets. Apple: no.
• Samsung included a file manager, task manager. Apple: no.
• Quick settings were available from the pulldown notification shade. Apple: no.

It'll be interesting to see what the jury decides.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Ouch, looks like Samsung's lawyers are screwing them over.

 

[onthecouchagain]

Learn to read before you make yourself look like a fool; Samsung submitted it late, there is a certain procedure for everything, Samsung failed to follow, who's fault is it?

Samsung's innocence? Only S-sheep will believe that

Try reading all posts before replying. I already said: "Shame on Samsung for "producing the evidence too late" whatever that means." in an earlier post. Shouldn't have to reiterate it for people who want to selectively read posts.

And it doesn't change the fact that Samsung didn't copy the iPhone.

 

[Zaft]

Try reading all posts before replying. I already said: "Shame on Samsung for "producing the evidence too late" whatever that means." in an earlier post. Shouldn't have to reiterate it for people who want to selectively read posts.

And it doesn't change the fact that Samsung didn't copy the iPhone.

Why can't you just accept that samsung copied the iPhone in its initial galaxy s phones? The new phones like GS3 are different, but that wasn't the case before. It throws all your credibility away web you deny something that's so damn obvious.

 

[KnightWRX]

Why can't you just accept that samsung copied the iPhone in its initial galaxy s phones? The new phones like GS3 are different, but that wasn't the case before. It throws all your credibility away web you deny something that's so damn obvious.

Depends which Galaxy S you're talking about. The initial release had 4 different styles, the international GT9000 release (the U.S./Canada Vibrant) which is the model in contention, but also these :

Captivate :

Fascinate:

And this one that no one can really argue is a copy of the iPhone, the Epic :

So it's daft to say that Samsung never had an original design prior to the SII/SIII and Nexus devices... The original Galaxy S had plenty of that too.

 

[smoledman]

Both sides engage in hyperbole.

I think that Samsung at one time clearly chose to use a lot of the style elements that the iPhone popularized. For example, they added a rounded background to icons while other Android phones did not. (Mind you, Apple did not invent such a style).

At the same time, Samsung obviously did not copy the iphone "down to the last detail." The icons were different and so was most of the operation, since it was Android with multiple physical control buttons.

Furthermore, the iPhone had nothing like the Touchwiz UI overlay:

• You could set up from 1 to 7 homescreens, and add/ subtract/ rearrange them and their order with a finger. Apple: cannot rearrange entire screens at a time.
• The Home button brought up a list of recently used apps. Apple: copied this later when they finally added third party multitasking.
• Samsung's homescreens support widgets. Apple: no.
• Samsung included a file manager, task manager. Apple: no.
• Quick settings were available from the pulldown notification shade. Apple: no.

It'll be interesting to see what the jury decides.

This pretty much destroys Apple's case, except for the fact that Lucy Koh is presiding.

 

[damant]

for what ever the reason is for Samsung inability to submit those "evidences" : does not equate to "Samsung didn't copy Apple" !
all this mean is the evidence was not acceptable.
it's called due processed !

and that's the "fact".

 

[JS82712]

for what ever the reason is for Samsung inability to submit those "evidences" : does not equate to "Samsung didn't copy Apple" !
all this mean is the evidence was not acceptable.
it's called due processed !

and that's the "fact".

finally, someone with logic and common sense.

 

[onthecouchagain]

for what ever the reason is for Samsung inability to submit those "evidences" : does not equate to "Samsung didn't copy Apple" !
all this mean is the evidence was not acceptable.
it's called due processed !

and that's the "fact".

You're obfuscating the point. You're talking about court process, which is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence in question is the very thing that can prove they didn't copying the iPhone. Whether that gets used in court or not is irrelevant to the actual truth. If you do want to speak strictly about the trial itself, then of course, Samsung has no one to blame but themselves for not submitting the evidence properly. If this failure leads to an unfavorable decision, that'll be their problem.

But outside of the court, the evidence is public for us to view. And for us "public jurors", if it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the case must be acquitted, so to speak. In other words, nobody can ever say with 100% fortitude that Samsung copied the iPhone given Samsung's own prototypes.

 

[Rogifan]

Where is Apple claiming that all Samsung smartphones or all Samsung Galaxy S phones are copies of iPhone 3G? I though it was specific to a model - i.e. the Galaxy Ace Plus.

 

[smoledman]

Samsung has to think very hard about divorcing itself from Apple.