Judge Instructs Jury That Apple Destroyed Evidence, Just Like Samsung Did

Judge Instructs Jury That Apple Destroyed Evidence, Just Like Samsung Did

Samsung has been handed a lifeline in its trial against Apple.

Judge Lucy Koh has overruled Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal in the ongoing Apple vs. Samsung trial and handed the Korean company a chance to get a better verdict. Rather than providing an adverse interference instruction against Samsung alone over deleted emails — as Judge Grewal ordered — the court will tell the jury exactly the same thing about both companies.

According to FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller, this gives Samsung the chance to get a “verdict it can live with.” This is what the jury will hear from the court about Samsung:

Samsung Electronics Company has failed to preserve evidence for Apple’s use in this litigation after Samsung Electronics Company’s duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide.

And this is what the jury will hear from the court about Apple:

Apple has failed to preserve evidence for Samsung’s use in this litigation after Apple’s duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide.

FOSS Patents notes that as a result of this, the jury will not consider Samsung any less trustworthy than Apple, which would have been the case had Judge Grewal’s order been upheld.

Samsung argued that Apple’s duty to preserve emails must have arisen no later that Samsung’s, and the company wanted to be treated equally. If Samsung received an adverse inference instruction, it wanted Apple to get one, too. Or it wanted neither party to receive one. Judge Grewal dimissed Samsung’s motion as untimely, according to FOSS Patents, but Judge Koh was much softer with her ruling.

It appears that Judge Koh was too concerned about appearing to apply double standards to the two parties. However, I continue to believe that the facts in Samsung’s case — given that the Korean company already faced problems in U.S. litigation due to its automatic deletion of emails seven years ago — were far more serious than the ones in Apple’s case. Judge Koh certainly missed an opportunity to show strength and treat companies differently if the facts warrant it, even if the parties’ conduct may appear comparable at the highest level of abstraction.

FOSS Patents notes that if the outcome of the trial does’t go Apple’s way, the Cupertino company could use this situation in its appeal, and ask for a retrial with a different instruction. Right now, all it can do is convince Judge Koh to change her mind ahead of the jury deliberations that will start on Wednesday.

Apple is still said to be in a good position, and it likely to win the case. However, the company would be in a much better position if Judge Grewal’s decision was upheld. “Now there will be two extremely soft instructions that cancel each other out,” Mueller writes.

  • The_Truth_Hurts

    This lawsuit has nothing to do with who is copying whom.

    The Galaxy devices that are really the ones that look the most like iDevices, are the world versions, not the American versions. Thus, those would have to be taken to a World court. But I guess Apple “lost” there because many of these have already been in court and found not to be infringing. And if they were, they were (later) overturned. In the world, How much of an “impact” had these Apple lawsuits had on Samsung? Literally, nothing, except that Samsung is out several millions (if not hundreds of millions of dollars). But, that could have been offset, with the increase of sales Samsung has seen because of these lawsuits. (No joke, Samsung has seen an increase of sales because of Apple suing them).

    Now to the American devices. The Galaxy Phone that could have had an impact on iPhone sales, would have been the Galaxy S version on At&t. The thing is, out of all the Galaxy S versions, this is the one that is the MOST DIFFERENT from the iPhone and doesn’t look like the iPhone. That is followed by the Sprint version which (again) is quite different, followed by Verizons and t-mobiles. Verizon’s version looks (pretty much) like any generic “block” phone. T-mobiles? The closest looking one to the World. Maybe there, Apple has can case.

    Did people “mix up” The Galaxy Devices with iDevices? That would have ONLY happened on At&t, since the iPhone was ONLY on at&t. Yet, the Galaxy Device does not even remotely look like an iDevice on that network.

    If Apple thinks that their users are so stupid and walk into t-mobile, WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE IPHONE!!!, and ask for an iPhone, I’ll leave because what Apple is telling me, is that I’m dumber than a rock.

    (regardless) what store you go into, you’ll have to (specifically) ask for an iPhone or Samsung device. Then, you’ll go through stuff that say Samsung or Apple. YOU’RE NOT GOING TO GET STUFF MIXED UP!!!

    And those who do? It’s the population that will mix up stuff (regardless) what it is.

    What does that all mean? It means that (really) the only thing Apple could get money from Samsung is for “infringing” on their (Apple) design, patents.

    Yet, if Apple’s design got “busted” by prior art (or the patents/etc.. regarding those design have been found invalid), they really don’t have a case.

    This will pretty much end like any other Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. The lawyers walk away happier. That’s about the only outcome. Will Apple get these Samsung devices banned? No. Will Apple get billions from Samsung? No.

    All it is, is a desperate move to “stifle” innovation. Instead of being “innovative”, and making a far better product, it’s an attempt to DRAG DOWN the competition to your level.

  • mr_bee

    This lawsuit has nothing to do with who is copying whom …

    Jeez, get your own stupid blog why don’t you? Posting this long conspiracy crap is just beyond the pale. You really expect anyone to read this nonsense?

  • Tallest_Skil

    This lawsuit has nothing to do with who is copying whom.

    Thanks for removing all of your credibility in the first sentence. Really saved some time!

  • technochick

    This lawsuit has nothing to do with who is copying whom.

    It means that (really) the only thing Apple could get money from Samsung is for “infringing” on their (Apple) design, patents.

    First you say the case isn’t about copying, then you say it is. Make up your mind

About the author

Killian BellKillian Bell is a staff writer based in the U.K. He has an interest in all things tech and also covers Android over at CultofAndroid.com. You can follow him on Twitter via @killianbell.

(sorry, you need Javascript to see this e-mail address)| Read more posts by .

Posted in News | Tagged: , , , , , , |