Judge Suggests Apple Is 'Smoking Crack' With Its Witness List In Samsung Dispute
from the benchslap dept
While Judge Lucy Koh has been so far favorable to Apple in the Samsung/Apple patent dispute, she clearly got fed up today when Apple tried to add a ton of witnesses at the last minute, telling the company’s lawyer that he was wasting the court’s time in no uncertain terms:
“I am not going to be running around trying to get 75 pages of briefing for people who are not going to be testifying,” U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh told Apple’s lawyer Bill Lee.
“I mean come on. 75 pages! 75 pages! You want me to do an order on 75 pages, (and) unless you’re smoking crack, you know these witnesses aren’t going to be called when you have less than four hours,” Koh said.
She went further too, warning of possible sanctions:
“If it turns out I went through 75 pages for people who are not going to be called, I am going to think of a proper tax for that,” Koh warned.
As with many of these big company vs. big company patent disputes, it seems that so much of the focus is just wearing each other down with paperwork. At least in this case, the judge isn’t going to allow it.
Filed Under: lucy koh, paperwork, patents, smoking crack, witness list
Companies: apple, samsung
Comments on “Judge Suggests Apple Is 'Smoking Crack' With Its Witness List In Samsung Dispute”
Good on the judge saying hey don’t weigh this down with paperwork or I’m going to penalize you.
She can call it the Apple Tax.
Re: Re:
Introducing the new iTax.
Re: Re: Re:
iCrack
I love the response from the lawyer are she said he must be smoking crack: “Your honor, I can assure you, I’m not smoking crack,” Lee replied matter-of-factly.
You can get Hollywood writers to come up with this stuff.
Re: Re:
Yeah, he must be smoking something stronger 🙂
Re: Re:
“Your honor, I can assure you, I’m not smoking crack,” Lee replied matter-of-factly, “I only use Apple flavoured methamphetamine.”
Re: Re: Re:
MethamphetaGREEN if you please.
Re: Re:
YOU CAN’T
Re: Re:
When fiction and reality collide: welcome to the patent world!
the only ones going to win, as in copyright infringement cases, is the lawyers. the only ones that lose are the people, the customers that want to use the products. if one product doesn’t do a certain thing that is wanted, the person buys a different make product. there are only so many shapes and functions a device is capable of, done in so many ways. it’s about time companies started thinking about what they have done, what they are doing and what they want to do and how they can be stopped. it works both ways. Apple are one of the worst for using others innovations and using their financial might to win patent/copyright cases. if i was Samsung, however, and i lost the case, i would stop selling all my products in the USA and pull out of the country completely. Apple obviously wants to take over and the USA governments and courts love giving monopolies to their companies. i would let that be the case and i wouldn’t go back either! but that’s just me!
Re: Re:
It is quite nice that you have a lot to say ^_^ I have a few pointers for you so that most people can understand your statement better. I had a very scattered writing style similar to yours at one point. Please understand I’m only trying to help.
It is a lot more readable when you group similar thoughts together, and use different paragraphs to separate different ideas. If you have a lot to say, separate it out so you make shorter points per paragraph 🙂
No worries you’re cool and you have a right to your opinions. The way you wrote may be one of the best ways to argue in text though. Makes it hard to read.
What does everybody expect? Apple’s case is that they own the rectangle.
Re: Re:
Correction, they own the … rectangle with rounded edges.
Re: Re: Re:
It seems to me the designs are just made based on good human factors. Rounded corners don’t hurt. I’ve seen lots of counter-tops with this design as well and never hear about litigation. Maybe Samsung should try rounded rectangles with knives sticking out?
Re: Re: Re:
And things that are centered in other things.
Re: Re:
“What does everybody expect? Apple’s case is that they own the rectangle.”
I’m glad to see im not the only one whois actually thinking on these lines.
And AC, you are absolutely right. Rectangled aren’t the case at all.
To Apple’s credit, they took literally years to develope the actual design of the original iPhone (Model Number A1203). They did hard R&D in the span of 7 years or more only to have Samsung carbon copy of a prototype from 2006.
It takes years to develope and design and tweak something to a suitable ergonomic shape to hold in the palm of your hand, not a sudden change in a little over a month.
People seem to forget that Samsung had originally been liscensed and contracted to manufacture the A1203 iPhone and its prototypes. Hell the original iPhone’s processor was a Samsung SL58900 (not a phone, a processor).
So maybe I’m a bit crazy, but I think it’s a bit more than “rectangles”.
Re: Re: Re:
It took 7 years of R&D to come up with a rectangle with rounded corners? Either Apple has the least efficient R&D department ever, or the 7 years were spent on other aspects of the device that aren’t a part of this lawsuit.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
John Fenderson, I know you’re potentially making a playful quip 🙂 But I think that I may be able to explain why it took so long to develop the A1203.
From what we know from reading articles about the trial:
Apple does a lot of consumer research first to see what people want in a phone. Variables include (but are by no means limited to) ergonomics, features, ease of access (lets face it, I hated those tiny buttons on the smart phones of 2007), how they want to make their calls and how they want to interact with people.
How I see the design came into play:
They tweaked the so called “rectangle patent” around what consumers wanted and found that their specific dimensions to suit the needs of those they surveyed.
I respect your comment. I just know from experience that design patents are not limited to the laws of basic Euclidean (finally spelled correctly) Geometry.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Firstly you are arguing for something that would make Apples rectangle patents invalid. You are talking about design patent (trade dress more or less) that are NOT meant to be functional. So if you are arguing that this stuff is functional Apple should lose. This is why Apple is claiming people can make phones that are just as effective of different sizes and sharp edges.
Now even if we are talking function there is nothing that is novel or not obvious or not already being worked towards by any number of other people. For example phones have always come with rounded corners, hell even a phone called the “Razor” had rounded corners. This is because phones go in peoples pockets and sharp pointy edges are not fun in there.
Now talking of pockets, they are only so big, in a world of wide screen content the only way to produce a device that sit’s in a pocket and has as big a screen as possible for best viewing is a rectangle.
Given the tech and the market phones would have ended up looking like this with or with out Apple. They clearly opened up the door first but every one else was already reaching for the handle. Patents are not meant to be granted for that kind of advance, the benefit of being first with the obvious next step is being the first to market.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08/users-choose-androids-over-iphones-due-to-larger-screens-android-market/
Talking of consumer testing here some interesting inhouse stuff from Apple regarding why people where swaping to android. Seems “but I thought it was an iphone” is not one of them.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Find me where they are referenced in Google’s new Patent Search function.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I don’t think either side in the matter has a say.
http://www.slashgear.com/sloppy-slates-not-ipad-envy-fueled-samsung-refund-rush-07241998/
Apple got it wrong by showing their ego in saying “iPhone envy”. Samsung got their figures cooking the books.
http://www.slashgear.com/sloppy-slates-not-ipad-envy-fueled-samsung-refund-rush-07241998/
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I was being playful, and serious at the same time. My point is that the 7 years of R&D could not possibly have been spent only determining the proper shape of the device — the bulk of that time was probably spent on other aspects of the design — so the total R&D investment is not really that relevant, as the shape is the issue at hand.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Take a gander at the Samsung Galaxy S1+. It’s the model Apple is complaining about. I was wrong in saying the Galaxy S2 was it.
http://phonewebz.com/samsung-galaxy-launch-russia.htm/samsung-galaxy-s-plus
One thing I would like to point out (and I’m sure you may be able to agree with me) is that both sides have been really really silly about all of this. Apple refuses to say “Live and let live” and Samsung argues “Apple is using our component patents”. Funny thing is, Samsung liscensed their patents to Apple to create the iPhone and Apple had Samsung build their 2007 iPhone prototype in 2006. So we have them both destroying a good healthy relationship they once had. Either way they both are being dumb about it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Oh, I am with you 100% on this! This ridiculous all around.
Re: Re: Re:
You must be smoking crack for real… 7 years for a rectangle phone ergonomics? Like millions of other phones out there in the market must have taken thousands of years to design all those arcane shapes… oh wait they are all rectangles designed to house in the hardware.
Re: Re:
Don’t forget that Microsoft already patented 0 and 1’s. why can’t Apple own the rectangle?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes,599/
Re: Re: Re:
I know it was a shame when MS got the 0 and 1 patent. At least I managed to get the 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and sometimes Y patents!
Crackheads!?
Apple said “We want a crack team of lawyers on this case!” instead they got a team of crackhead lawyers….
Re: Crackheads!?
i thought they got a team of lawyers on crack
“it seems that so much of the focus is just wearing each other down with paperwork. At least in this case, the judge isn’t going to allow it.”
The judge isn’t going to allow either party to wear her down with paperwork. They are free to wear each other down as much as they like.
Re: Re:
I’m not totally sure on this, but I think any paperwork they throw at each other would end up with a copy of it on her desk, being part of the case she’d have to go over, so sadly no, she couldn’t just sit back and watch them bury each other in papers.
What puzzles me is why these time and paper-wasting cases are even allowed in the first place. Megacorporations should have heavy restrictions on the amount and type of cases they can file, and the amount of appeals they can use.
New cereal
Kellogg’s Apple Crack.
Re: New cereal
It’s not new.
I started out with beerios in high school and that led me to crack-ka-jacks. Killogs is for the lames
Apple the innovation killer! The company from a garage and hippie values becomes the asshole of the world. Sound familiar. Money Destroys.
A tax? Since when can judges tax people? Or is she the one smoking crack?
Smoking crack? Sheeee, y’all niggas is cray-cray.