News & Analysis
Comment
kaydub
I'm more bothered that Rick Merritt used the wrong "there" in the Judge Koh ...
elctrnx_lyf
This is really getting dramatic every day. But still samsung is rising every day ...
Judge cracks whip during Apple v. Samsung
Rick Merritt
8/3/2012 1:36 PM EDT
SAN JOSE, Calif.--Pressures of the patent infringement battle boiled over Friday morning (Aug. 3) as Judge Lucy Koh admonished Apple and Samsung in front of the jury for deluging the court with objections and other motions. She also polled the jury to see if they had been tainted by Samsung’s release to the press of evidence that had been excluded from court.
Koh had ordered objections could be filed in written form to maximize time in court for testimony. However, multiple poorly written objections and other motions were being filed as late as 11 p.m. in the evening, swamping the court’s ability to respond.
At the trial's outset, the judge set a time limit of 25 hours for each side to present its case to the jury.
Written objections have “gotten out of hand, some of these have been briefed and re-briefed six times,” Koh told the jury Friday. “The good news is [future objections] will be on the clock, if they want to fight in front of you that is there choice,” she said.
“There has been no discipline” in filing motions to reconsider, she told the attorneys before the jury was seated for the day.
Before the jury came in, Koh also admonished Samsung’s attorney John Quinn for the public release of pictures of early models of the iPhone that had been excluded from evidence, apparently because they were submitted too late. The images appeared in slide shows from the Wall Street Journal and other publications.
The pictures were submitted in part to argue that Sony products influenced the design of the original iPhone. If true, the allegation could undermine Apple’s contention its design concepts were original inventions.
Koh called Samsung’s behavior a “willful and deliberate attempt to propagate that [excluded] evidence the day after the jury was impaneled. I will not tolerate any theatrics or sideshows distracting us from what we must do,” she warned both sides.
Then Koh polled jurors individually to determine if any had seen and been influenced by the stories on the materials Samsung released. Only one juror said he saw a story about the case, and that was only a headline not related to the Samsung issue.
“I am satisfied this jury will be impartial,” she said, resuming the trial.
Koh told the jury the court will compile press reports on the case that they will be able to read after the trial is over. “You will learn everything at the end, we just need you to shut off any other reading or hearing about the case,” she instructed jurors.
Related stories:
How Samsung stole Apple's lead
Samsung lays out countersuit against Apple
A look inside Apple’s kitchen table group
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
selinz
8/3/2012 4:26 PM EDT
Wow. Sounds like a major screw up by the Samsung legal council.
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
8/3/2012 5:32 PM EDT
Sounds like this trial would make a great episode for one of those law drama TV shows!
Sign in to Reply
yalanand
8/3/2012 11:14 PM EDT
@Frank, true. This episode is nothing less than drama. I would love to watch this live, is this trial aired on televison :) ?
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
8/5/2012 7:23 AM EDT
Why does the US use Juries for patent trials? Clearly juries on average do not have the necessary knowledge and skills (especially if they are set up in the middle of nowhere!)
Any thoughts?
Sign in to Reply
Scott Elder
8/5/2012 4:44 PM EDT
The simple answer is this is a Constitutional right/obligation in the US.
Your argument could be applied to most trials. I don't have any knowledge or skills in murder, but certainly I may be called upon to render a judgment in such a trial. Arguably, a patent trial is substantially less important than a murder trial - its about money.
It is a wide spread misconception among American citizens that they are entitled to a jury "of their peers". No such right is spelled out in the constitution. Your position implying judgments need to be made by those with knowledge and skills is in effect an argument for peer judgment.
Sign in to Reply
timemerchant
8/5/2012 8:05 PM EDT
We are talking of claims of $2,5 billion and a lot more at stake for the whole electronics industry regards stiffling innovation with patents that outlive the technology, so it is reasonable that the courts appoint people familiar with patent law to fight patent battles. To exclude prior art that invalidates Apples claims to originality is absurd, no matter how late presented. In fact, the design patents should now be invalidated with publicly available prior art.
Sign in to Reply
Scott Elder
8/6/2012 12:08 AM EDT
Can you please site one case in technological history where a patent has stifled innovation? I don't know of one. [Study FRAND for example.]
Patents are disguised as exclusive rights to practice an invention. In reality they are simply entry tickets into the legal system. And in the legal system, nothing is ever slam dunk or black-and-white.
In my opinion, Apple is simply exploiting the legal system to gain a cross license to Samsung TV patents. Samsung called their bluff.
Does anyone believe that Steve Jobs [RIP] wanted to publicly display all of Apple's internal methods and activities [read: secrets]? But that is what a public trial is all about - involving the public in private matters.
Sign in to Reply
elctrnx_lyf
8/6/2012 7:15 AM EDT
This is really getting dramatic every day. But still samsung is rising every day and is becoming and big and big.
Sign in to Reply
kaydub
8/9/2012 3:26 PM EDT
I'm more bothered that Rick Merritt used the wrong "there" in the Judge Koh quote.
Sign in to Reply