Apple vs. Samsung vs. Koh: How the Public are Being Misled in this Patent Trial

What an utter farce this Apple vs. Samsung trial is. Judge Koh might as well be sitting up an Apple tree presiding over this nonsense.

Samsung is being denied pretty much any way to defend themselves over Apple’s erroneous, spurious and downright bullshit claims. Why? “The Law,” of course. See, the US legal system — more specifically, the patent legal system — is broken, and thus Judge Koh can manoeuvre proceedings, and production of evidence in any way she likes. Given her actions so far, it’s fairly easy to deduce which side she is coming down to support.

That’s the problem; the various mechanisms of the law she is using to toss out nearly every Samsung request, is based on a game in which the rules are set up to do this very exact thing — when required to do so.

The Apple space opera fantasy

Samsung wanted to introduce evidence of prior art based on the sci-fi film “2001: A Space Odyssey,” in which you can see clear designs for technology we see today — especially in the case of the iPad and iPhone. Judge Koh, in all her legal meanderings, brings up the law of discovery, and refuses Samsung.

To make matters worse, she also bars Samsung from producing evidence of their own phone concepts made prior to any iPhone being known to the World. Again, Koh refuses this, citing more legal bullshit about it being introduced too late.

This law, these laws, are fucked, they do not work, and sheer common sense is pushed aside for the benefit of companies to manipulate the existing laws in order to dominate something that is already in the world consciousness.

There be bullshitters in them there hills

I’ve read various stories on other sites, news outlets, etc. and most of them splutter out the reasoning why these things I’ve talked about have been refused. Screw that. Remove that walled-in garden in which they want us to argue within, and all based on their biased criteria, and most of all, faulty reasoning.

Then we come to bloggers and writers presenting this case to the public, and once again we see the same nonsense of steering readers down one path, in the hope they don’t see what is really going on. “Don’t look that way, look here! We don’t want you to be aware of all the information for you to make a basic common sense judgement.”

One example of this, was the leaking of some information which Samsung wished to produce in court, and would blow Apple’s core out of its ass — this was denied by Koh, again. The documents that were leaked contain images of Samsung devices which demonstrate that they were designing mobile phones pretty much exactly like the iPhone, and before the iPhone was ever announced publicly. The other part of these documents, was the whole “Apple copied a Sony design.” Now, when CNN Money (MSM agenda-drive outlet) covered this story yesterday, the author liberally quotes some known Apple shill called John Gruber — I won’t link to them since they don’t deserve the page views — and yup, the audience is steered down the pro-Apple path by means of only talking about the Sony aspect — the weakest point in Samsung’s leaked documents — and utterly fail to mention the Samsung-created, mobile phone designs that basically blow Apple’e whole argument off the face of the Earth.

So, it’s ok to write that “Apple didn’t copy Sony; Sony copied Apple!” so long as the writer is defining the boundaries of this argument within a context dictated by them! Misleading the reader by not presenting the full information at hand, and stopping the line of inquiry when it suits their pro-Apple stance. Of course, how dare anyone else follow that train of thought and say, “yeah, yeah, and Apple copied Braun, and also a film, and also many others.”

We come right back to the main point here, and that’s basic common sense. This court case has been set up in a manner in which the two companies are to argue in a pre-defined manner, slanted towards Apple.

For me, the case is over, since based on that “common sense,” Apple have no right to claim Samsung copied them, and throwing a hissy fit, only for Samsung to come back and say, “Bitch, we were doing this stuff before you knew how to hold a phone the right way.”

I have an easy test. Koh said the 2001 movie evidence can’t be used. Well, why not ask Jony “go lightly on the money” Ive if he has ever seen the film prior to the year 2001. Yeah, thought so. Those ideas from films weren’t patented, or even patenable, etc. So, I can basically create a watch which moulds around my arm morphs into a car, and use it in my film; another company can patent that idea, then sue anyone else who merely designs something kinda similar. Yeah, that’s how stupid this is.

Koh.apple.com can use her brain to figure out the law of discovery in a magical little way, and piece together those “all so hard to see the connections” bits by merely asking Jony Ive that question.

PS. This article was brought to you by the magic of Jony Ive’s plea to the public court of opinion, when he said that Apple wasn’t in it for the money — nicely timed with the current patent trial.

PPS. If this article appears to favour one side — Samsung — then you may have misunderstood it. The purpose of this is to show how slanted various outlets have been — including Apple and others — and to redress the balance. “Oh, but you just called Apple names, and was mean about Judge Koh.” Nope. I did nothing of the sort — I mocked them for the very point I am making, which is that this whole fiasco should never have been raised by Apple in the first place; their weeping and whimsical pleas to the soul that they have been wronged, and all of this allowed to go to court because of flawed laws.