Sounds rather reasonable to me. Sales data etc can screw stock value and hurt a company that way if nothing else. And if anything in those documents relates to upcoming product why shouldn't Apple be allowed to keep it out of the record, especially if it doesn't apply.

And this late filing game needs to stop. Samsung had the papers in enough time to follow the rules. Here's hoping the items don't know turn up in the press.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

Sounds rather reasonable to me. Sales data etc can screw stock value and hurt a company that way if nothing else. And if anything in those documents relates to upcoming product why shouldn't Apple be allowed to keep it out of the record, especially if it doesn't apply.
And this late filing game needs to stop. Samsung had the papers in enough time to follow the rules. Here's hoping the items don't know turn up in the press.

Part of me believes Samsung is purposely late filing all this crap, so it can't later play the victim role and point to all the things that would have allegedly 'conclusively proven blah blah' that don't get accepted. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

Sounds rather reasonable to me. Sales data etc can screw stock value and hurt a company that way if nothing else. And if anything in those documents relates to upcoming product why shouldn't Apple be allowed to keep it out of the record, especially if it doesn't apply.
And this late filing game needs to stop. Samsung had the papers in enough time to follow the rules. Here's hoping the items don't know turn up in the press.

You're probably correct in assuming that Samsung will turn around and release them to the press. After the first ruling, any thing not allowed in the courtroom will just be sent to the press, who are always looking for things to fill their pages ( kind of like AI sometimes).

In my opinion (a very vague one, I haven't read the whole article and comments carefully), Samsung could be using this as a way to sort of confuse the whole case. Samsung is using the press almost as a "weapon" against Apple. 

I'm sort of starting to think Samsung doesn't have enough reasoning to prove that they didn't copy Apple, and instead is trying to hurt Apple more than win them.Or maybe trying to extract future information so that Samsung themselves can get more "hints" and "copy" more in the future?

Maybe Samsung is trying to see what Apple is upto in the future.

Again, these are just vague assumptions I made after quickly reading the article and comments. It's just how I feel in a way.

Yeah, this is ridiculous.

Actually, petty technicalities aside, Samsung has a good case. Something appearing remarkably like the iPad was part of the long-ago film 2001. Samsung did have iPhone-like designs before Apple's design was made public, and Apple did borrow the iPhone's design heavily from a Sony design. It's difficult to see how, in a fair trial, Apple can get what it wants most--a ban on any iPhone or iPad that looks like theirs--particularly if the devices prove as popular as those from Samsung. Apple's now infected with the same 'own the market' bug that hit Microsoft in the early 1990s and is behaving much the same.

Personally, I'd love to see Apple's sales data released. That data is the basis of Apple's claims for damages. If this is going to be an open trial, as the judge has claimed, then that sales-to-damages data needs to come out. The fact that Apple doesn't want that data out and fights fiercely to keep it from being public is less than irrelevant, it's a good reason to release the data. There needs to be a downside to all this crazy suing by all the tech giants and having data you don't want out come out is one good way to do that.

Those who'd like to follow the legalities of what's going on here from an expert legal perspective rather than the 'he said, she said' of most news coverage should bookmark an excellent website:

http://www.groklaw.net

If you'd been reading there yesterday, for instance, you'd not only know there wasn't a bat's chance in hell that the judge, angry though she might be, would sanction Samsung for the release but precisely why she couldn't. You can find that here:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012080117581118

Here's the most relevant part:

QUOTE

Mr. Quinn is one of the best lawyers in the country, if not the world, so what is going on? To understand, let's itemize his main points, because you will see a master at work:

1. It wasn't a press release; it was a statement in response to multiple questions from the media (see them in Exhibit A). "Samsung"s brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to media inquiries was lawful, ethical, and fully consistent with the relevant California Rules of Professional Responsibility (incorporated by N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 11-4) and legal authorities regarding attorneys" communications with the press. California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose "information in a public record." As shown above, all of the information disclosed was contained in public records. Further, Rule 5-120(C) specifically provides that "a member may make a statement that a reasonable member would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the member or the member's client."

2. There was no court order saying he couldn't do what he did, so he wasn't flouting any court order or violate any legal or ethical standards.

3. The materials were already publicly released, some by Apple and the rest because this very court forced the parties to unseal documents. (See Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open." Also the order, docket 1269: "Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.")

In harmony with those orders, Samsung released the materials, attached to Joby Martin's Declaration, Exhibits 5, 6, and 8 [PDFs].

4. Apple released some of the information itself, in Docket Numbers 1428-1, 1438-2 (Tucher Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion to Enforce), 1429-13 (Walker Declaration in support of Samsung"s Opposition to Motion to Enforce), and 1451 (Cashman Declaration in Support of Motion for Leave).

5. There were, as a result multiple articles about the materials already in the media, *before* the jury was even chosen, in the New York Times, the L.A. Times,Huffington Post and CNET.

6. The media has been reporting "in salacious detail" Apple's allegations of Samsung's "copying". If, then, talking to the media is a problem, he seems to be saying, why is Apple getting away with it? Samsung has a right to correct the public's false impression.

7. It can't influence the jury in any way now, because they are not allowed to read any coverage of this litigation. "Moreover, Apple's baseless and public assertions that Samsung"s transmission to the media of public information constituted contempt of court and that these actions were intended to pollute the jury were themselves glaring falsehoods, highlighting why Samsung has every right to defend itself in the public domain from unfair and malicious attacks."

8. Attorneys have a First Amendment right to speak. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already so ruled, in Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995), where the court held that "truth is an absolute defense" and a "statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning."

My guess is the Judge Koh is doing reseach. Because in truth, Quinn planned this carefully, and you see he did his research, and so he seems to have boxed her in, if not at this level then surely on appeal. Certainly in the court of public opinion, it makes perfect sense, and looking at it with my paralegal hat on, here's what I think it might mean: that Samsung is totally sick of the media swallowing all the Apple FUD, but that it blames Apple for spreading it, and Samsung is fighting back.

END QUOTE

Samsung has nothing to prove.

The burden of proof entirely lies with Apple. And Apple trying to facilitate its task, files motion after motion so as to try and have Samsung with no shield to defend itself.

Originally Posted by charlituna 
Sounds rather reasonable to me. Sales data etc can screw stock value and hurt a company that way if nothing else.

"No, you're biased. No, you'd make Samsung do it, so Apple should, too. No, Apple should be forced to release their numbers since they're the only ones that don't. No..."

I think that covers it. 

And what IF Samsung leaks Apple's sales numbers to the press? What happens to them? I mean, that's not something intangible like whiny patent complaints, you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inkling 

Actually, petty technicalities aside, Samsung has a good case. Something appearing remarkably like the iPad was part of the long-ago film 2001. Samsung did have iPhone-like designs before Apple's design was made public, and Apple did borrow the iPhone's design heavily from a Sony design.  ...

Apparently you haven't really been following the trial, and don't actually have an inkling, since all of what you mention above has been debunked, and disallowed as evidence. So, if that's what Samsung's case hinges on, stick a fork in them.