Will Samsung's patent court doc leak backfire spectacularly?

Re: I will be the first to admit that....

Why the state?

Re: I will be the first to admit that....

As an Apple stockholder, you should pay attention to the evidence that Samsung has presented. Apple would rather eliminate the competition rather than invent. If you are worried about theft, look at the connection between Lisa and Xerox PARC.

Re: I will be the first to admit that....

"While Samsung isn't doing it now, their first Galaxy S was obviously iPhone inspired. I don't see how anyone could say otherwise looking at a picture of them side by side."

I owned both phones (replaced the iPhone 3gs with a Galaxy S) and they weren't remotely alike apart from the general rectangular shape (I had windows phones way before that which looked just the same on that rectangular count).

Not only looked different, felt different in the hand, the screens were markedly different, and of course from a software perspective Android v iOS are even more dramatically different.

Its like claiming a patent on a laptop because it has a folding screen and a keyboard - patently (badoom tish - I'm here til Friday!) ridiculous.

@ Geoff Campbell

This is something that Private Eye has been covering for years - specifically, in complex financial fraud cases that require very long court cases.

With these types of trials, it’s been argued that the details of such cases are so complicated that when they are explained in a broad way, in order a lay person can understand, a lot of the wrong-doing is lost. In other words, you need to look at the fine details to be able to properly examine if the law was broken.

Here’s a director of the Serious Fraud Office speaking about his in 1997:

"The prosecutor strives to present a complex commercial fraud to a jury of lay people in a way that enables them to understand the intricacies of the commercial transactions and understand the documents, often the most convoluted and intricate sets of accounts," she said. "But this means having to prune a case to its bare essentials, losing, in the process, substantial elements of the total criminality alleged."http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sfo-wants-to-end-trial-by-jury-in-complex-financial-cases-1239577.html

This has been long debated in legal circles – for example:

“In 1986 Lord Roskill's Fraud Trials Committee did not find trial by a random jury a satisfactory way of achieving justice in cases of long and complex fraud. Lord Runciman's Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which reported in 1993, was more cautious. It pointed out that no-one really knew how juries reached their verdicts because it was against the law to ask them. It recommended a change in the law to enable research to be carried out. Lord Justice Auld was quite clear, however, in his Review of the Criminal Courts in 2001. He said, in line with Roskill's favoured option, that in serious and complex frauds the nominated trial judge should have the power to direct a trial by himself and two lay members drawn from a panel established by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose, or, if the defendant so requests, by himself alone.“

http://www.barristermagazine.com/archivedsite/articles/issue25/staple.html

Re: Part of a larger problem.

In the U. S. the argument was made successfully that a specific appeals court should be established that had expertise in patent matters - the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal court in the Eastern District of Texas, by virtue of considerable experience in adjudicating patent law cases, presumably has developed expertise as well. See where that got us, then discuss further whether we need specially knowledgeable juries here.

I claim the outcome was better in Oracle v. Google, in the Northern District of California, and Apple v. Samsung, dismissed recently by Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit).

Re: And in an international court

If the idea of inadmissable evidence is to stand it needs to be verified that the case is compromised by the "other" client not knowing in time to prepare for the court appearance.

That some evidence was barred from court on the grounds it was too late to be accepted, it aught to be shown that both parties were in ignorance of the evidence at the time of going to court or its sell by date.

That the evidence was a well known product most likely studied by the opposition is fairly obvious to all, even those not concerned. Therefore having the evidence thrown out on a point of law was injustice.

So yes, you are right.

I'd bet even Kim.com would lose in a US court of [s]illegal[/s] lawless.

Re: Part of a larger problem.

It's not a criminal case, it's a civil bash...

Re: Unethical?

You might have had a point if the court hadn't previously ruled that this information had to be available to the public.