Apple proves it didn’t copy Sony, judge won’t let Samsung use “Apple-copied-Sony” evidence [Apple vs Samsung]

So you thought Apple copied Sony, eh? Yeah, well, so did I. The truth is, Apple didn’t. Or at least Apple didn’t according to court documents it has filed in the on going Apple vs Samsung battle.

Not surprisingly, Apple filed a motion to suppress Samsung’s Apple-copied-Sony evidence. As reported by AllThingsD, Apple claims the evidence had already been excluded by another judge; Samsung didn’t disclose the evidence until after the discovery period of the trial; the article Samsung claims to have influenced the iPhone design didn’t contain any pictures; the Sony Walkman device discussed in the just-mentioned article looks nothing like the iPhone; and the deposition of former Apple designer Shin Nishibori is not admissible in court because the court never approved it and Apple didn’t get a chance to question him. As such, Samsung shouldn’t be allowed to use the evidence in court against Apple.

To further help its attempt to dismiss Samsung’s evidence, Apple included a few images in its official motion filing. The images are of Apple designs that pre-date the Shin Nishibori “Sony-style” design of 2006 that Samsung wants to put in front of a jury. Specifically, Apple displays its ‘Purple’ prototype of 2005 as proof that it didn’t copy Sony:

As you can see above, the ‘Purple’ prototype looks remarkably like the original iPhone 2G, and since it was developed a year before Shin Nishibori’s “Sony-style” design, Apple is using it as evidence to kill Samsung’s claim.

Apparently Judge Lucy Koh, the presiding judge over the case, is convinced by Apple’s argument and evidence. She has ruled Samsung will not be allowed to use the Apple-copied-Sony evidence in court. Samsung will have to come up with another ace in the hole if it wants to beat back Apple’s increasingly strong claims against it.

[via The Verge]

Share this post

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

7 comments

  1. Coyote

    I would assume the judge has an iPhone.

    In fact I wonder if that’s even taken into consideration when these cases come up. Bias doesn’t have to be local/foreign it could be she knows the brand better and will side with what she knows. It’s been proven again and again the judicial system in this country is about 40 years behind the rest of culture when it comes to tech issues.

    Patent issues should not be dealt with in the open court system, 3rd party blind arbitration is the only sure way to get a fair deal.

  2. Mike

    @mukhi: Rather than jumping to a defamatory conclusion, might you even consider the possibility that the judge was acting fairly? I don’t know the basis for the judge’s decision (and whether that basis is correct), but I can almost 100% assure you, being familiar with the judges in the area, that it wasn’t based on territorial bias.

    Judges in this part of the country are very well-accustomed to foreign (non-U.S.) companies and adjudicate issues with them daily; as far as I am aware, bias, one way or the other, has never been an issue (although anything is possible, with individuals). If you have evidence otherwise, let’s see it–otherwise, your assertion is as biased as you challenge the judge as being (without evidence).

  3. mukhi

    @Tom: apple even copied the chiclet keyboard from sony; i don’t understand why apple cries so much some time (or all the time?) saying somebody has stolen their ideas. jobs himself used to talk about being shameless about stealing other people’s great ideas.