3 ms·

Sure, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Evaluating/comparing/benchmarking your competitors is something that everyone, including Apple, does daily. Now,

Sure, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Evaluating/comparing/benchmarking your competitors is something that everyone, including Apple, does daily. Now, my understanding is that both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to present any evidence from the "trade dress" part of the lawsuit that might mislead the jury's ruling on other part of the lawsuit (eg, design patent infringement). Apple waited until the last minute to submit the 140+page document. Samsung in response submitted theirs, but was rejected. Samsung's lawyer Quinn went a bit batsh*t crazy at this point (https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-judge-by-sending-media-rejected-evidence-in-apple-trial https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju...). This kind of shenanigan went on over and over again throughout the trial -- for example, see again Mueller's comment on adversal jury instruction that was granted to Apple, but not Samsung because Samsung's motion (or "me too" complaint as Mueller described) was filed after the supposed deadline that never existed, or just two days after Apple had filed theirs. (this was reversed after a brief public uproar). You know it wasn't pure coincidence that the FTC brought the Qualcomm case to Lucy Koh's desk in Apple's backyard.

dkonofalski 8y ago
>Evaluating/comparing/benchmarking your competitors is something that everyone, including Apple, does daily. Except that that isn't at all what's in that document. It was way more than just a benchmarking/evaluation and, when combined with evidence that Samsung knew of Apple's proposed full-front display as early as 2005, it makes it a little less likely that they just independently came to the exact same conclusions about so many things at the same time. Again, individually, I think there's a case to be made where the components are just natural evolutions of where certain technology can go but, as a whole, I think it's too coincidental to say that this was all innocent benchmarking and that the judge just had it out for Samsung. I think she ruled against Samsung's submission because she recognized that Samsung was being disingenuous.
- tooltalk 8y ago
  Sure, go read the document. The title of this doc says "Samsung Relative Evaluation Report on S1, iPhone." I'm guessing that you never worked in technology or product engineering team? Again, this internal doc was presented in the trade dress part of the lawsuit -- which Apple eventually lost. Both parties initially agreed not to present anything too confusing to jury because there were so many confusing overlaps between the design and trade dress parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed its mind at the last minute -- and the judges duly embraced Apple's evidence, but rejected Samsung's counter-evidence on procedural ground (untimeliness). A lot of Apple fanbois like yourself are just still confused about the trade dress and design parts of the lawsuit -- I could only imagine the confusion the internal doc had on the jury, but obviously in Apple's favor since Samsung's never saw the light.

dkonofalski 8y ago

>Evaluating/comparing/benchmarking your competitors is something that everyone, including Apple, does daily. Except that that isn't at all what's in that document. It was way more than just a benchmarking/evaluation and, when combined with evidence that Samsung knew of Apple's proposed full-front display as early as 2005, it makes it a little less likely that they just independently came to the exact same conclusions about so many things at the same time. Again, individually, I think there's a case to be made where the components are just natural evolutions of where certain technology can go but, as a whole, I think it's too coincidental to say that this was all innocent benchmarking and that the judge just had it out for Samsung. I think she ruled against Samsung's submission because she recognized that Samsung was being disingenuous.

tooltalk 8y ago
Sure, go read the document. The title of this doc says "Samsung Relative Evaluation Report on S1, iPhone." I'm guessing that you never worked in technology or product engineering team? Again, this internal doc was presented in the trade dress part of the lawsuit -- which Apple eventually lost. Both parties initially agreed not to present anything too confusing to jury because there were so many confusing overlaps between the design and trade dress parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed its mind at the last minute -- and the judges duly embraced Apple's evidence, but rejected Samsung's counter-evidence on procedural ground (untimeliness). A lot of Apple fanbois like yourself are just still confused about the trade dress and design parts of the lawsuit -- I could only imagine the confusion the internal doc had on the jury, but obviously in Apple's favor since Samsung's never saw the light.