Apple scrambles to keep Samsung from revealing confidential iPhone, iPad sales documents

Apple rushed to file a last minute request with the court to stop Samsung from making public a series of sensitive sales data documents related to the iPhone and iPad when it cross examines Philip Schiller, Appleâ€™s Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing, later today.

The judge presiding over the patent case between Apple and Samsung has worked to keep the closely watched trial, and all related evidence, as transparently open as possible, but has allowed both parties to argue in support of sealing specific, confidential evidence on a case-by-case basis.

In addition to sales and marketing data, Apple's various motions to keep evidence private and confidential have also included iOS source code, which the company holds to be particularly sensitive.

Apple has most recently filed two motions related to eight confidential trial exhibits of sales data, which the company's attorneys described as "a particularized, document-by-document showing of good cause and compelling reasons for sealing of Appleâ€™s most competitively sensitive information."

The motions included "declarations from several of its executives attesting to the value of this information, the efforts Apple has undertaken to maintain its secrecy, and the harm that Apple would suffer if it were publicly disclosed."

Apple stated that it had originally filed a motion last week to seal four documents Samsung had said it would use during Schiller's cross examination scheduled for today, but added four more after being notified last night after 9 PM by Samsung that it planned to use another four.

The documents in question include iPhone, iPad and iPod touch sales summaries, an iPad tracking study, and a series of quarterly iPhone buyer surveys conducted over the past two years.

Apple also objected to Samsung's last minute surprise notification of the additional documents it planned to present today, but asked the court that "only excerpted portions of those documents be entered into evidence" if it decided to allow the late filings.

The iPhone maker has proposed using excerpted versions of various sales report and other documents it holds to be confidential, putting only a few specific, relevant pages of the hundreds of pages of the documents in question into evidence in a manner than would become part of the public record.

Apple argued that this "would lessen the burdens on the jury and the Court and would balance the public interest in access to court records and Appleâ€™s interest in maintaining secrecy of its valuable trade secrets," but noted that it was "unable to reach agreement" with Samsung on the matter.

In response to Apple's motion, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh ordered that two exhibits on iPhone, iPad and iPod touch sales summaries would be sealed in part with the redactions Apple requested earlier in the week, and that only the relevant pages of two studies Samsung plans to question Schiller about will be entered into evidence.

The additional four documents Samsung announced it would use today "shall not be used in the examination of Mr. Schiller as they were not timely disclosed," the judge wrote in her response to the motion.

Follow AppleInsider on Google News

89 Comments

charlituna

said about 11 years ago

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.

slurpy

said about 11 years ago

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.

theshepherd

said about 11 years ago

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).

logandigges

said about 11 years ago

Yeah, this is ridiculous.

inkling

said about 11 years ago

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