Thursday, August 2, 2012

Samsung Lawyer Defends Decision To Release Material To The Press

Samsung yesterday angered the judge Lucy Koh as they released material about rejected evidence to the press. Samsung was rejected the evidence, which it thinks is critical for this case, as the judge said was submitted too late to show to the jury. Samsung had requested the judge couple of times to include the evidence , but to no avail. Yesterday when the evidence in question, Samsung phone F700, was displayed in an Apple slide Samsung argued that Apple has opened the door to discussion of the F700 and asked the judge to reconsider. But the judge rejected and warned that "Don't make me sanction you."
The story did not end there. Samsung lawyers then released the evidence in question, which was already in the public, to select press. It said “the excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design.” My guess is the judge is doing reseach. Because in truth, he planned this carefully, and you see he did his research, and so he seems to have boxed her in, if not at this level then surely on appeal ~ PJ Apple lawyer informed the judge about the release claiming that Samsung was trying to influence the jury. The moment the judge learnt about it she got livid and demanded John Quinn’s (Samsung lawyer) involvement in the release and also again threatened to sanction him. Quinn filed a declaration stating that it was him who approved and authorized the release of the brief statement. Quinn said in his declaration: On July 31, 2012, I approved and authorized the release of a brief statement—it was not a general press release—and proposed trial demonstrative exhibits. This followed multiple requests from members of the media seeking further explanation—including requesting the demonstrative exhibits at issue—as to the basis for Samsung?s claims, made in open court and in its public trial brief, that it had the right to present evidence that the iPhone was inspired by “Sony style” and that Samsung had independently created the design for the F700 phone—that was alleged in Apple?s opening statement to be an iPhone copy—in 2006, well before the announcement of the iPhone. There is some confusion, of course created by the pro-Apple press around the release of the statement. Quinn address that concern in the statement which you can read here. PJ of Groklaw has done an incredible job to itemize it. I am picking some interesting ones, you can read the rest here: It wasn't a press release; it was a statement in response to multiple questions from the media (see them in Exhibit A). There was no court order saying he couldn't do what he did, so he wasn't flouting any court order or violate any legal or ethical standards. The materials were already publicly released, some by Apple and the rest because this very court forced the parties to unseal documents. In harmony with those orders, Samsung released the materials, attached to Joby Martin's Declaration, Exhibits 5, 6, and 8 [PDFs]. Apple released some of the information itself. There were, as a result multiple articles about the materials already in the media, *before* the jury was even chosen, in the New York Times, the L.A. Times, Huffington Post and CNET. The media has been reporting "in salacious detail" Apple's allegations of Samsung's "copying". If, then, talking to the media is a problem, he seems to be saying, why is Apple getting away with it? Samsung has a right to correct the public's false impression. It can't influence the jury in any way now, because they are not allowed to read any coverage of this litigation. "Moreover, Apple's baseless and public assertions that Samsung?s transmission to the media of public information constituted contempt of court and that these actions were intended to pollute the jury were themselves glaring falsehoods, highlighting why Samsung has every right to defend itself in the public domain from unfair and malicious attacks." Attorneys have a First Amendment right to speak. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already so ruled, in Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995), where the court held that "truth is an absolute defense" and a "statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning." PJ writes, "My guess is the judge is doing reseach. Because in truth, he planned this carefully, and you see he did his research, and so he seems to have boxed her in, if not at this level then surely on appeal. Certainly in the court of public opinion, it makes perfect sense, and looking at it with my paralegal hat on, here's what I think it might mean: that Samsung is totally sick of the media swallowing all the Apple FUD, but that it blames Apple for spreading it, and Samsung is fighting back." "In a small way, everything that is wrong with the way Apple has been handling this case is encapsulated in this micro-drama. And I think this is what it means: Samsung is sick of Apple FUD in the media, and it intends to fight back in the court of public opinion," writes PJ. 。 wholesale accessories,iphone accessories,ipod accessories,ipad accessories

No comments:

Post a Comment