Apple’s draconian sanction demands for Samsung have been rejected, with the Apple vs Samsung judge refusing to grant an early victory and instead waiting to hear from top Cupertino execs today. Following Samsung’s publication of rejected evidence, much to the court’s fury, Apple had insisted that the only rightful judgement was that its design patents – and accusations of Samsung infringement – be upheld. Justice Lucy Koh failed to agree, however, instead laying down the law to Samsung with regards what “Sony-style” design evidence it could cite. Meanwhile, senior VP of worldwide marketing Phil Schiller and senior VP of iOS software Scott Forstall are expected to testify first thing on Friday morning.
Samsung had strongly protested against Apple’s requested punishment, describing it as “an affront to the integrity of the jury.” Part of Apple’s argument had been that, while the jury itself was barred from reviewing press about the ongoing case, individual members could be externally pressured by family and friends who had seen details of Samsung’s unofficial arguments. Apple’s demands were “frivolous,” Samsung concluded.
Although a ruling directly in Apple’s favor was apparently out of the question, Judge Koh was quick to lay down the rules to Samsung once more, FOSS Patents reports. She listed the five reasons believed to be behind Samsung’s intentions with the “Sony-style” evidence and excerpts from testimony by ex-Apple designer Shin Nishibori:
“(1) [to] rebut Apple’s creation theory that the iPhone was ‘revolutionary’; (2) to rebut allegations of copying; (3) to establish that the industry at large was moving toward the basic design concepts; (4) to prove design functionality; and (5) to rebut allegations of willfulness” Judge Lucy Koh, San Jose Court
Of those five, only reason number four will be permitted, Koh instructed Samsung. The South Korean company will be allowed to cite an internal Apple email regarding iPhone design functionality, along with sections of an expert report which mentions Sony designs as evidence of the functional nature of iPhone design.
Schiller and Forstall are expected to be quizzed by the court over the inspiration for the iPhone and iPad’s design, along with details of high-level discussions regarding Samsung’s alleged infringement of design patents. Meanwhile there will also be questions around Samsung’s counter-claim, which argues Apple refused to license Samsung patents over 3G technology for the iPhone and iPad.