Samsung annoys judge and goes public with excluded trial evidence
To some over in the US, the patent fight between Apple and Samsung seems to be a bit one sided where the judge is concerned, as it appears that old Sammy has gone public with trial evidence that was originally blocked from being submitted in the trial by the judge, evidence that Samsung says would establish without a doubt that they didn’t copy the iPhone.
In the Apple versus Samsung trial, according to Samsung, Judge Koh has excluded evidence on independent creation that meant Apple could inaccurately argue that the Samsung F700 was a copy of the iPhone, reports Slash Gear. However Samsung says they were not allowed to show the jury the pre-iPhone design of the F700 or previous handsets that were developed before the iPhone in 2006.
Thus old Sammy decided to release that excluded evidence to the public space, and in a statement says that fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all of the evidence.
Both Apple and Judge Lucy Koh were quick to react to this release, with Koh saying she wanted to know who drafted the press release and who from the legal team authorised it, along is demanding an immediate meeting with John Quinn, Samsung’s lawyer.
Earlier apparently Quinn begged the court to allow further discussion on whether the excluded evidence should be accepted, but Koh threatened Samsung with sanctions if they continued with their appeal.
Now if you are going to hold a trial over such matters, then surely all possible evidence should be accepted, even if that evidence means Apple could be shown as being in the wrong. But it would appear that Koh is more on the side of Apple in this case than Samsung’s, which seems somewhat wrong to me, as a judge should be seen to be impartial and consider all possible evidence, but then I never have really understood the inner workings of US courts.
What do our readers think about all this, should the judge allow all possible evidence to be submitted in court, rather than only allowing evidence that could possibly support Apple’s claims?