By 
You would think that Apple would be the company requesting permission to use quotes from the late Steve Jobs as a means to sway jurors in deciding the ultimate fate of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, but it’s the other way around. Samsung was hoping Judge Lucy Koh would find certain infamous quotes from Jobs’ biography permissible in hearings regarding the claims that their own tablet infringes on design rights granted to Apple’s iPad.
Specifically, Samsung was hoping to use Jobs’ aggressive stance shown in statements such as “I am going to destory Android…I’m willing to go thermonuclear war” and “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong” to illustrate “Apple’s bias” and “improper motives.” Koh denied the company’s request, saying this case is not “a trial about Steve Jobs.”
Judge Koh has already ordered a temporary injunction on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 pending the results of hearings to determine whether or not Samsung in fact infringed upon Apple’s rights. The trial is set to begin in San Jose, CA at the end of the month.
[via GigaOM]
Judge in UK: Samsung did not copy the iPad with the Galaxy Tab 10.1
Judge in US: Samsung did copy the iPad with the Galaxy Tab 10.1
Funny how that works.
*pending hearings
verdict distributed from her new ipad
Correction:*gold and diamond encrusted New Ipad paired with her new Aston Martin*
(can’t be anything flashier, don’t want to draw attention to the bribes)
Hm. When you put “U.S” in there, it makes perfect sense.
The UK judges said that Samsung did not infringe on Apples design (i.e. physical appearance). Patents are a completely different issue. Patents are about internal technologies.
I personally think that it is all BS. Apple’s lawsuits are just getting ridiculous. The patent system in this country is broken and needs to be completely restructured. unfortunately, that would take an act of Congress and that is even more broken than the patent system.
Ok fine, then don’t allow the mention of the broadest patent ever awarded just recently to Apple. What a crock that is.
Edit to add, someone is being paid off here. I just have that feeling.
Me too…
Me four….
Me eight!
Me sixteen!
C-C-C-CCCCOMBO BREAKER
Here is your answer
“I am going to destory Android…I’m willing to go thermonuclear war” and “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong” , that is Steve Job word.
I’m almost sure…….rotten company still support millions……rotten world…..everyone who buys Apple product is utterly immoral person for me
Koh needs to be investigated, at the VERY least.
Koh needs to go. She is obviously incapable of handling this case as can be seen by her words and actions. Time for a new judge or a change of venue.
theres a petition out to have her removed not sure how far along it is though
Where is this petition?
Federal judges are appointed for life, unless they are impeached. A petition isn’t gonna hack it.
Petition with enough signatures can cause an impeachment.
This judge is obviously a nerd-raging fanboi… How is a comment made intended for public consumption expressing an irrational will to use all of Apple’s money to destroy a competing product not relevant? and how does using that quote make it a case about Steve Jobs?
*opens crackerjack box in hopes of discovering MY own free law degree*
Because it is heresay. Heresay is inadmissible in court. Steve isn’t around to defend those statements he might or might not have made to his biographer.
The biography was approved by Steve Jobs himself… and it was not denied as hearsay, according to Koh, it was denied because ” this case is not ‘a trial about Steve Jobs.'”… again, irrelevant.
Actually Adam, I’m going to disagree with you there. Hearsay is not blanketly inadmissible in court. There are several exception to the hearsay rule, especially under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The one this most likely qualifies under is an admission or statement of spontaneous statement. Samsung could very well have shown this as Steve Job’s intent as head of a corporation or as the de facto leader of an organization that leads and directs policy’s intent to go so far as to use the courts for Abuse of Process or Maliciously Prosecute. A very good line to take considering what’s happening.
What this tells me is that either Judge Koh didn’t buy that argument and saw it as an attack on a decedent defendant (or plaintiff depending on whether they filed the counter suit) or Samsung’s attorneys didn’t go far enough in drawing a clear difference between an Attack on Jobs vs an Attack on Apple with Jobs as the Director of Policy which Apple is following on their “10 Year Plan” that Jobs allegedly left in place for the company to follow. (which for all we know is a complete lie told to the public to keep confidence up) Either way, if this is against its company and this is regards to a member of the company now dead, unless it changes the lawsuit as a whole, it wouldn’t kill the case (which is why its still going on) so I’m at a loss as to why Koh decided not to allow those statements. I sincerely hope it’s not because Samsung didn’t argue the point well enough.
Is there a human being a live (that’s at least “heard” of Steve Jobs) that doesn’t believe he said that?
I actually agree with you. The fact he was an employee, officer and/or major shareholder of apple when he made those statements, he was representing apple by proxy. If any of his statements were carried down the line, as a threat or company wide mantra makes it all the more relevant IMHO, but more along the lines of an anti-trust monopoly type of case. Bummer though…
judge koh: tech racist…
Ok, it is not a trial of steve jobs. He was just some guy who controlled Apple andis most likely the guy who recommended that Apple would fight in court instead of trusting their own products in the market. Steve jobs has nothing to do with this or any other trial where apple drags any android using company into court. I thought you had to be smart to become a judge, guess not.
could it be that apple wins so many trials in the US because the government borrows money from apple? or is this so called judge a complete moron who is being bribed?
Yes the trial is not about steve jobs…its about a company that was run in a “dictator” fashion by someone who made those comments to destroy android and be anti comepetitive. And the company is continuing in successive fashion to do the same as the mentioned comments in a biography. I think this is highly relevant to the case….you’ve got to powerhouse operating systems integrated into the lives of human beings and these judges placing or removing bans do not see the outright anticompetitive approach by apple?
This judge is looking more and more like an Apple shill. And I bet she probably can’t turn on her computer without calling tech support.
Lucy Koh was called a “Judge” Dum dum dum dum dum
She sounds like she is really, well, Dum dum dum dum dum
Judge Koh = Lionel Hutz Esq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u9JAt6gFqM&feature=related
That’s bogus. Judge Koh is an apple sympathiser.
For those of you that do not understand the justice system (which sound like most of you from these comments), please take a look at this
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1982#comic
STOLEN!! As a law graduate who is taking the bar exam on Tuesday, I’m especially amused by this. I’ll be sharing this quite a bit! Thanks!
Koh needs a vote of confidence (or lack of) from consumers. I know i sure as heII did not authorize for her to be a judge
Judges make decisions based on the merit of the case presented to them. There is a very good reason that judges do not need a “vote of confidence” from consumers that can be uneducated about the topics. They need to be impartial and unswayed by popular bias and only make their decisions based on the reading of the law. If judges had to worry about public opinion polls, the judicial system would be as broken as congress.
“I did not authorize authorize here to be a judge”…no that would be the Constitution. We do not live in a direct democracy, we live in a democratic republic. That means we elect representatives to make laws and approve federal appointments, like judges. Judges are appointed by the President (who is elected by a vote of the people) and confirmed by the Senate (who’s members are voted on by the people of their states).
Do I agree with her decision? No I do not (I am a proud Android fanboy). But I was not in the court room and did not hear the arguments. Samsung was unable to make a stong enough case to have Job’s comments included and avoid the “temporary” injunction.
The most common phrase from those people that have never read the Constitution or just do not understand it: “That’s un-Constitutional”.
First, my comment was sarcasm. Second, i didnt mention the constitution at all, not even remotely, so dont label me with that group. Stop jumping to conclusions.
Samsung should use everything against Apple to defend them self, anyway.
The two companies represent two countries. The verdict is ____________.
He was CEO. He had full control over the company and was their representative. If he claimed these things as active CEO, Apple did as well.
Apple seems to have GREAT influence over our legal system….. or promised the judge the new Iphone 5. LOL “I am going to destory Android…I’m willing to go thermonuclear war” and “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong” this reflects the companies position since Steve jobs was CEO. This job seems nuts
thumbs up if you pronounce her name Lucy Cow…. (as I do)