So you're saying the F700 is admissable evidence?

Or are you saying that it's inadmissable for Samsung but admissable for Apple?

Neither, the F700 is a phone. The references to the F700, however, are admissible in the case of Apple (because they were submitted before the deadline) but inadmissible in the case of Samsung (because they were not submitted before the deadline). If, after this, you can still not understand what I'm talking about without resorting to even more straw man fallacies (what you did here), I have no option but to consider you a troll.

Would you please stop this sh*t? In every single f*cking discussion regarding Apple vs Samsung, here comes Deorus droning ad nauseam in favor of his beloved Apple! No matter what argument was made by the one you're replying to, you keep spouting the same canned responses over and over.

Hint: this behavior does not make you look informed, it just pollutes the discussion and shows what a rabid fanboi you truly are.

I'm sure you can refute me, then...

The rest of your rebuttals are moot since you failed to read any of TFAs

Then I'm sure you can demonstrate how I failed and I will provide you with counter evidence to refute both you and TFA. ;)

Contempt requires an order. There was no order NOT to release the information, which was publicly available anyway.

Since when?

Source.

Why do you always link to things that contradict you?

I only did that once on Slashdot.

So yeah, pointing which of long published images were not admitted into trial in a press release not meant to be read by jurors is "trying to influence jury", as Apple made sure everyone knows. I'm sorry, I think you've messed up your post somehow, whose bullshit propaganda was that again?

You missed the point, what started it all were these events in the courtroom:

So, as you can see (and you probably saw, just decided to ignore because it wasn't convenient to you), the initial issue was not related to the media leak but rather to how Quinn tried to force inadmissible evidence in the courtroom/b.

The design of the F700 is precisely what Samsung is not being allowed to enter into evidence, slong with the facts regarding when that design was created. Meanwhile, Apple is being allowed to enter that very design into evidence *against* Samsing. What don't you understand about that? The moment Apple was allowed to use a photo of the design, Samsung should have been allowed to fill in the missing pieces.

Samsung missed the deadline, Apple didn't. What don't you understand about that?

It's perfectly justified to exclude it for both parties. Once it's allowed for one, but not the other, it's a display of judicial bias, grounds for appeal.

Why? Only one of the parties missed a deadline!

Your argument doesn't make sense. If the Jury isn't supposed talk about the trial outside the courtroom, or even look up any news about the trial or the participants, then what does it matter what was said to the media? The Jury won't see that information until AFTER the trial. Therefore the Samsung's comments to the press have no bearing on the case.

The jury isn't sequestered, they were only ordered to avoid it, but Samsung's contempt of court will make that information hard to avoid. They are essentially forcing the information on the jurors. Quinn mentioned it in the courtroom himself and was promptly reprimanded and threatened with sanctions, so his intent is perfectly clear, and the Judge can still sanction him.

So, Apple has the right to claim "Samsung slavishly copied us" before trial to determine this even begins, but Samsung isn't allowed to defend themselves?

Correct, Apple's claim is based on admissible evidence; Samsung's is not.

BTW, shouldn't _jury_ be expressly prohibited from getting any information related to the case outside of the courtroom? Which means neither Samsung's press-release, nor Apple's statements, nor, for example, this your comment should be known and mean anything for them. So, how's non-existant for jurors information makes this trial UNFAIR and PARTIAL?

Samsung's contempt of court is making sure that the jurors can't reasonably avoid being informed about the subject, and Quinn actually brought up the subject in the courtroom (that's actually how all this started).

Judge order all court documents unsealed.

No, she didn't.

So the media could have gone down to the court room and asked for a copy of the documents.

No, they can't. An open trial only means that they can assist the trial, nothing else.

Also Apple brought up the F700 first, which if you as you say are a lawyer allows defense to work through new evidence.

No, it doesn't. The "opening the door" doctrine only allows inadmissible evidence to be presented in response to an opposing party's presentation of inadmissible evidence. Apple did not present inadmissible evidence, so Samsung can't do that either. Samsung's evidence was considered inadmissible because they failed to meet the deadline -- their fault, they fucked up.

Quinn isn't an idiot , he probably did it to push the judge to an emotional response and she fell for it.

How did she fall for it?

Out of the courtoom, her rulings have as much force as mine.

I suppose you've never heard of contempt of court, but don't worry, you're not alone, the average Slashdot poster is quite ignorant.

The fun thing is those who oppose vehemently to "rounded rectangle" can't give coherent answer what it is about, then, and proceed with "it's about copying the combination of design features" handwave maneuver without ever saying any concrete detail about what else this suit is about.

That's because there really is no concrete detail about it. Trade dress is extremely subjective and based on what the average person may confuse.

So yeah, those who take "rounded rectangles" as literal are dumb, but those who don't see the figurative sense of "rounded corners" (it's also about "a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners", y'all) are dumb as well.

The latter group recognizes the legal validity of design patents and trade dress, the former does not. Dumb or not, the latter group at least has some logical ground.

The jury is not supposed to view evidence or information about the trial unless presented within the bounds defined by the judge. You are implying that the actions Samsung took could cause the jury to change their decision but for them to do so they would have to have already violated the judges own rules thereby imperiling the case.

Samsung has violated those rules, they brought up the subject in the courtroom.

1) the jury has already been picked and instructed to not read any news reports on this material, so releasing it now can't affect the jury. If you can't rely on the jury to follow instructions, then the process is broken anyhow.

Indeed, broken by Samsung's contempt of court...

2) the material itself was already public before Samsung released it. they just pointed out which publicly-available material the judge wouldn't let in

After the jurors were selected based on not being informed about the case, so if they learn about that "evidence" now, it's news to them.

3) the judge herself said that this trial should be as open as possible, hence the material being available to the public in the first place

An open trial only means that the public can assist it, not the public can have access to all the information related to it.

4) the judge did not instruct that this material could not be released so it's not like the lawyers were disobeying orders

Though as a lawyer you are still a legal officer and should make sure that everything goes according to the established legal proceedings. Running to the media and making it hard for the jurors to avoid learning about your inadmissible evidence while questioning the Judge's partiality is not the way to go about it.

IANAL, but it seems that Samsung outmaneuvered the judge on this one.

To me it seems more like they're doing Apple a really good service.

I still can't get my head around the fact that this judge blocked Samsung from using evidence that completed negated the point of Apple's case. Its absurd.

I can't get my head around Samsung forgetting to submit such important evidence until after the deadline... Were they counting on making it impossible for Apple to provide counter-evidence? Deadlines exist for a reason!