re: Apple Says Samsung Tried To Corrupt Jury
Firstly, we do not know the judge's reason for suppression of the slide "evidence" so for other peanut gallery commenters to assert their views regarding its validity is typically narrow thought. Secondly, what the lawyer did is, in fact - especially following specific instruction not to do so - highly questionable conduct. If it were a criminal case, he would clearly face sanctions. As it is part of the separate patent law court system, the response may be quite different and legal punishment may be very limited. But generally his behavior constitutes 'contempt of court.' If, in fact, Samsung's lawyer missed the deadline to submit the evidence as was suggested by one of the previous commenters, then Samsung's lawyer, Quinn, was negligent in his performance by being late and should clearly not be allowed to submit evidence outside of the courtroom presentation and process. That would be simple professional negligence on his part. To circumvent the rules and process, especially after being instructed by the judge not to, is double negligence. As is indicated by the nature of many of your emotional opinions, I am sure none of you have the read the briefs or know the actual basis for the denial of evidence admissibility. However, it may be as simple as the fact that Sony's Walkman designs are 30 years old, and the judge felt that vague reference to 30 year old technology of a different social purpose device, is not germane to AppleG«÷s patent infringement claim by Samsung. SamsungG«÷s attorney, Quinn, is apparently trying to win outside of the court, because he may feel that he has a more susceptible and malleable audience. He could simply be grandstanding. QuinnG«÷s contention seems to be based on the limited information in the article, that G«£the design idea was already resident in several design groups, including Sony'sG«•. It is possible and probable, that Judge Koh simply does not want to retry the applicability and authenticity of AppleG«÷s initial patent award for the iPhone, which is what would ultimately be occurring for her to otherwise accept that evidence. But as patent law is very technical, and the comments here are predominantly emotional and largely untechnical, we can only wait to find out.