A coalition of media and free speech advocates have tried to convince a US court that sealed documents in Apple and Samsung's patent smackdown should be made public. The group, which includes news outlets like the New York Times and Bloomberg along with nonprofits like the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the …
What is 'evidence'?
Given that the point of evidence is 'that which is evident' or plain to see, I really don't see how any material can be submitted 'under seal' (or which cannot be seen by the defendant etc - see recent UK gov plans for secret trials and convictions etc). If either party wants to present something is evidnce then it has to be published for all to see or it ain't evidence. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, although it does seem to elude certain politicians and judges.
Re: What is 'evidence'?
"If either party wants to present something is evidnce(sic) then it has to be published for all to see"
It needs to be published for all those involved in the trial to see. Plaintiff and defendant (and their representation), Judge, Jury. (Other court recognised entities may also have access). It does NOT automatically mean it should be public domain. Some of it may be, but not necessarily all.
Courts are a representation of the people, not ALL the people. (And long may representation continue, I agree trials should never be conducted in "secret")
"Free Speech" doesn't give you the right to access others' private info.
If you had a dispute with your bank - which went to court - would you consider that all & sundry had the right to pore over your bank statements in the name of "Free Speech"?
Re: @ Pen-y-gors @ Ted Treen
If you can't see that there is a world of difference between truly private information pertaining to individual "natural persons" (to use the legal term) and quasi-private information pertaining to "corporate entities" then the capitalists have successfully worked their magic on you ... and that isn't a good thing.
@ Intractable Potsherd (Re: @ Pen-y-gors @ Ted Treen)
Who decides what is private and what is "quasi-private"?
ANY company's financial details are purely the prerogative of:-
1) The shareholders
2) The tax authorities
3) Their bank.
No-one else has any right of access to it at all!
The clueless capital
Apple and even Samsung rely on us being clueless.
And with less cluelessness to train us with it badly affect the fanboy psyche
Patent licensing under seal.
Heh. That's great, that could kick off a whole load of other claims.
Some "partners" might just get annoyed that they're getting properly bent over a barrel once they see what other licensees get.
More interestingly, others might get to see that their "most favoured client" status isn't being adhered to in a bunch of hidden deals! (How can you enforce "most favoured" status if the other contracts are und NDAs?)
Might give these patent troll giants second thoughts about fighting these cases out in court...
Re: Patent licensing under seal.
However if the patent licensing agreement is that Apple and Samsung agree to cross licence while locking any competitors out of the market and so raising prices for American consumers then it is in the public interest.
Price fixing cartels can't normally claim that it's a "trade secret"
Wonder if these free speechers would be as free and open with their own data?? Thought not.
"Wonder if these free speechers would be as free and open with their own data"
Any involved in a "patent smackdown" you know of.
Clearly they are keeping it secret if they are.
@ Typical AC troll
Since they are not involved in any market-bending lawsuits of their own, then I would say that the answer is "No, why should we be?" Quite simply, the Apple/Samsung case is hugely important with all sorts of implications for the future. The courts should be very slow to allow corporate entities to put any evidence under seal - they are not real people, and should have limited rights to protect information.
A quick reminder that the recipe for Coca-Cola is published
It's in a book on the history of the company and led to a rash of 'American Cola' drinks from everyone from Sainsbury's to Virgin.
Coca-Cola reckon that it doesn't matter if anyone else makes an identical drink - they have better marketing than anyone else, in the same way that there are people who will pay a premium for an Apple logo on kit.
Not Free Speech (1st Amendment), but Freedom of Information Act...
In the USA context, this has NOTHING to do with free speech.
FOIA is an act that concerns actions taken by the USA Government. It can include certain court proceedings. It really has NOTHING to do private contracts, unless they were filed in response to a court decision.
> Free speechers want into Apple and Samsung sealed court filings
Come on, that is just painful. Did you go to school?
Apple and Samsung are arguing that forcing companies to give up all their financial data will stop them from getting the courts' protection for their patents.
Sounds like a very good reason to force them to give up the data to me. Maybe we'd start seeing companies only bringing patent litigation when there's actually a good reason to do so.
A & S " are arguing that forcing companies to give up all their financial data will stop them from getting the courts' protection for their patents"
So knowing how much you pay and/or receive for a patent use can somehow invalidate that patent? Complete bollocks!