Mikey Campbell
Update: This story has been revised to reflect that Samsung filed a PROPOSED order. Previously the order was presented as a signed judgment.
Samsung is seeking a motion to strike Apple's request which asked the court to give a favorable ruling on the Cupertino company's claim that Samsung infringes on certain iPhone patents.
In the response, Samsung claims Apple was seeking an "unprecedented sanction of outright dismissal of Samsung‘s defenses to its design patent claims, in the guise of an alleged "recommendation" about Samsung‘s release of information that was already publicly available." It goes on, claiming Apple cited no basis for the sanctions and calls the request "frivolous at every level."
From Samsung's response:
Apple‘s request is an affront to the integrity of the jury. Apple proceeds on the groundless assumption that the jury, already instructed by the Court not to read media accounts, will violate the Court‘s instructions and do precisely that. As explained in the Quinn declaration, Apple‘s premise is factually unfounded and contrary to settled law. Nowhere does Apple even address, let alone refute, these points.
Samsung's lead lawyer, John Quinn, on Tuesday released an email to the press containing demonstrative exhibits which included text of a deposition from former Apple designer Shin Nishibori regarding a "Sony-styled" iPhone. Apple countered that same day, promising a request for sanctions from the Court for what it called "egregious" misconduct.
Samsung removed the exhibits from online file sharing site Box.com
Sometime during the two parties' arguments, Samsung took down the exhibits it had previously uploaded to Box.com, though the images have already been widely circulated and posted on mainstream media websites.
Andrew Orr
Amber Neely
William Gallagher
Marko Zivkovic
Christine McKee
110 Comments
So she still hasn't ruled on the original Samsung infraction? Seems odd.
[quote name="Gazoobee" url="/t/151713/judge-denies-apples-sanctions-request-following-samsung-rebuttal#post_2160823"]So she still hasn't ruled on the original Samsung infraction? Seems odd. [/quote] Especially since this isn't the first time. Foss says that Samsung has already been sanctioned FOUR times in this trial alone for evidence abuse. Koh has to do something. http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/apple-wants-ruling-in-favor-if-its.html She has indicated that she won't accept Apple's recommended sanctions and, frankly, I didn't expect her to. Apple's proposal was pretty extreme (possibly intentional). It will be interesting to see what she does. But, in the end, Samsung has seriously botched this trial.
But, in the end, Samsung has seriously botched this trial.
Just as Samusng said, this would assume the jury has ALREADY violated the Court's instructions making the jury botched anyways. Don't be an iSheep and selectively read what you want to heat.
hear
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/apple-wants-ruling-in-favor-if-its.html
She has indicated that she won't accept Apple's recommended sanctions and, frankly, I didn't expect her to. Apple's proposal was pretty extreme (possibly intentional). It will be interesting to see what she does. But, in the end, Samsung has seriously botched this trial.
I agree except for the "botched trial" bit. I agree they might have but I don't think it's certain yet.
They seem to me to be employing a lot of tactics to get the average idiot to think that it's all some vast conspiracy against them and that Apple are in league with the Tri-Lateral Commission or some such nonsense. The trouble is that juries are made up of the same sort of ordinary people who tend to believe in that kind of crap so it could easily work. A judge tends to decide a verdict based on a detailed analysis of the facts. A jury tends to decide based on which of the defendants is most likeable and which tells the most exciting story.
Remember OJ Simpson! :-)