Perry Mason-like Drama Emerges From Samsung v. Apple Fight; Judge Koh "visibly upset"

[Valvoline]

Please! Evidence gets submitted as much during a trial as before a trial. There's a different between evidence and discovery. Discovery needs time to be examined by the defense counsel one is presented by the prosecutor. Any evidence refuting accusations should be admissible in court after the accusations are made.

 

[sb1831]

There IS a reason they chose to go to court in California. As usual they have their freak bastardization of the law that let's stuff like this happen. They are limited to 35 interrogatories. This case will be appealed no matter what the outcome because of California.

 

[pinoy_92]

its either apple has Kobe's lawyer or the judge has an iphone 5. one way or the other its not fair.

 

[kodiak799]

By excluding this the judge has already guaranteed grounds for appeal. So then what is the point of THIS trial?

I'd tend to think a slick lawyer can get around this, though. Get a few Apple employees on the stand and ask the right questions, and you basically backdoor the impact, if not the evidence itself...unless said employees will risk perjuring themselves.

"No, no, your honor, I was not attempting to influence potential jurors [witnesses, on the other hand...]"

 

[Harddrive]

I wonder what kind of phone the Judge has.

 

[brianjcohen]

I don't know anything about this judge but... neither do any of you. She's a judge. The tone of this article is implying, and nearly every commenter on this thread so far is outright suggesting, that this judge has been bought off by Apple. Are you people serious? The article goes to great pains to side with Mr. Quinn's claim that he's been personally defamed, and yet here you all are, defaming Judge Koh.

Look, I get it -- I dislike how Apple gets mainstream credit for inventing things they merely made popular. And of course I dislike patent trolling. But I'm not going to project my preference of Android-based phones over iOS ones into a presumption of guilt or innocence in this or any other court case, and I'm certainly not going to accuse the judge of being corrupt, given that there is zero evidence to suggest that she is.

 

[mountainbikermark]

Yes, this is likely the case, but the whole thing still seems wonky. Having worked as a para-legal briefly for my Mom who is an attorney (soon to retire), I have noticed that sometimes the courts make decisions that defy reason and common sense in order to stick closely to the "rules of the court." Sometimes those "rules" (and I am not referring to the law), end up getting in the way of real justice. This might be one of those times, but there's almost no way to know for sure without actually being there. Obviously my experiences with the law do not make me an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but are simply meant to illustrate that I have been around it enough to scratch my head sometimes.

I have found that many of the "rules of law" make sense when you look at them individually, but sometimes they can be completely illogical when taken in context of the bigger picture. In this instance, I understand that it is only fair to allow the other side to be able to prepare their defense versus the evidence presented, yet how can one justify leaving this evidence out when it is so important and actually would allow real Justice to be served. I must admit to wondering why they didn't present this evidence sooner...

Regardless, it makes for some interesting drama.

When were the 3 previous attempts to put it into evidence? Before or after the trial began? This story is about attempt #4

Support Our Troops!!!
<><
A Rezound phone was used for this Tapatalk post

 

[dgstorm]

I don't know anything about this judge but... neither do any of you. She's a judge. The tone of this article is implying, and nearly every commenter on this thread so far is outright suggesting, that this judge has been bought off by Apple. Are you people serious? The article goes to great pains to side with Mr. Quinn's claim that he's been personally defamed, and yet here you all are, defaming Judge Koh.

Look, I get it -- I dislike how Apple gets mainstream credit for inventing things they merely made popular. And of course I dislike patent trolling. But I'm not going to project my preference of Android-based phones over iOS ones into a presumption of guilt or innocence in this or any other court case, and I'm certainly not going to accuse the judge of being corrupt, given that there is zero evidence to suggest that she is.

The tone of the article does not at all imply that there is any corruption going on here. It only implies that it is difficult to understand why certain decisions in a court room are made. And, really, this isn't about whether Apple or Samsung/Android is guilty. What is so appalling about this is that it is even going to trial at all. The problem is the USPTO and the fact that Apple (or anyone else) is able to abuse the system with these generalized patents.

This isn't just my perspective, this is also the opinion of several judges in other situations regarding Apple lawsuits. One example is, Judge Posner threw out the Apple vs. Motorola case, and then called for patent reform. Another is the judge in the UK that ruled against Apple by saying that consumers would not get the iPad and the Galaxy Tab confused because the G-Tab was not "cool enough." He then proceeded to force Apple to put on their website that Samsung did not copy Apple (although that is also waiting on appeal).

I want to reiterate that nowhere in my article did I even hint that the Judge was corrupt. I am confident that she is following the rules of law and the rules of the court in the best way that she knows how. The only thing I will imply is that she may be holding on too tight to those rules, rather than just stepping back and looking at things objectively and logically, but I can't know that for sure without being in her shoes. To be honest, I almost wonder if it might be good if Apple actually won this first round of the lawsuit, because if it gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, then maybe we might actually see some real changes in the USPTO.