Court suppressed Apple evidence, Samsung releases it to media anyway
In another round of the ongoing Samsung v. Apple case, Samsung released excluded trial evidence to the press Tuesday 鈥� a decision that the 鈥溾�� presiding US District Judge Lucy Koh asked the company to address.
But Samsung lawyer John Quinn said Wednesday morning that Samsung was within its rights to release the evidence, comprised of an e-mail, off-the-record testimony, and mock-ups of Samsung phones, including the F700, which Apple alleges is the iPhone copycat.
鈥淚鈥檓 worried about the extrudo [sic] shape we鈥檙e using for P2 etc. looking at what [Apple designer Shin Nishibori is]聽doing with the sony-style chappy, he鈥檚 able to achieve a much smaller-looking product with a much nicer shape to have next to your ear and in your pocket,鈥� one email between two Apple employees reads.
Mr. Nishibori is an industrial designer at Apple, who refused to testify in court but said he was asked to make a phone prototype based on the question, 鈥渋f Sony was to make an iPhone, what would it be like?鈥�
Samsung also included a media statement in the e-mails chastising Judge Koh鈥檚 decision to exclude the evidence.
鈥淭he Judge鈥檚 exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone,鈥� the statement . 鈥淭he excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.鈥�
Although the Judge demanded to know what legal term authorized the press release and e-mails, Mr. Quinn argued Wednesday in a declaration that Samsung did no wrong in releasing evidence relating to the case.
鈥淔ar from violating any order, Samsung鈥檚 transmission to the public of public information disclosed in pretrial filings is entirely consistent with this Court鈥檚 statements that the 鈥榳orkings of litigation must be open to public view,鈥� 鈥� the declaration claims. 鈥淪amsung鈥檚 brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to press inquiries was not motivated by or designed to influence jurors.鈥�
Mr. Quinn also he doesn鈥檛 think the jurors will see the evidence because they have been 鈥渟pecifically instructed not to read any form of media relating to this case.鈥�
For more on how technology intersects daily life, follow us on聽.
搁贰尝础罢贰顿:听10 great Siri tricks that iPhone owners probably don't know
