Samsung Forced To Hand Over Unreleased Products To Apple In Patent Dispute

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

Wed, May 25th 2011 7:00am — Mike Masnick

In the ongoing silly patent fight between Apple and Samsung, the judge has ordered Samsung to give Apple some pre-release products (found via Copycense). While we've seen similar things before, this kind of order always bothers me, as it just seems wrong to order a competitor to hand over pre-release versions of competitive products. What if it turns out there's no infringement? Apple still gets to play with Samsung's products before they even hit the market? Why is this kind of thing allowed? Apple's -- and the court's -- argument is that this allows Apple to stop any possible infringement before it hits the market, but it also seems like there can be significant harm in sharing still secret info with a direct competitor. Even more bizarre is the basis for the judge's claim: that news reports quoted Samsung execs saying they wanted to change the Galaxy Tab to compete with the iPad 2. So what? In what way is it wrong for a competitor to shift gears once a new product hits the market? That's competition. What doesn't seem fair is Apple getting pre-release access to Samsung's products.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: patents, phones, tablets
Companies: apple, samsung

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 6:46am

Jokes at Apple's expense
This involves Apple and patents; two things that trump the rights of some small no-name company.

Or

So that's how Apple innovates so fast yet still looks exactly the same as everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Some Other Guy (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 2:12pm
  
  Re: Jokes at Apple's expense
  Small?
  Apple : 310Bn market cap- source google finance
  Samsung : also hundreds of billions - source wikipedia
  OK, not small...
  
  No-name?
  "Apple" 1.2Bn hits (google)
  "Samsung" 1.15Bn hits. (google)
  
  OK. not no-name either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 7:19am

Completion is illegal. It's in the constitution somewhere. Ask any well-lobbied Congressman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 7:25am
  
  Re:
  Did you mean competition?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dcee (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 7:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    Did he mean the congresswhore?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 10:33am
  
  Re:
  That's why nothing ever gets completed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 7:23am

This could backfire. It might make it easier for Samsung to claim a patent violation when the next gen of iPhones comes out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 7:28am
  
  Re:
  It's not a violation if Apple patents it first:
  
  1- Sue competitor for patent infringement
  2- Demand to see competitor's unreleased tech
  3- Court agrees
  4- Call the whole thing off. You already have what you came for
  5- Patent competitor's technology
  6- Profit!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 7:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    On second though, I must've been drunk. 4 should be:
    
    4- Get competitor to pay licensing fees just to get you off his back
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 7:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    I read elsewhere that the Samsung devices were to be made available to outside counsel only. That is, no lawyers that are Apple employees. Only lawyers working for an outside firm.
    
    If those lawyers disclose confidential secrets to Apple, then that is pissing off the court (eg, contempt) and could result in sanctions including possibly jail for the lawyers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 7:31am

I think Samsung will take care of Apple just fine.

Samsung has already countersued Apple in multiple countries. 3 I think.

Samsung and Apple have asked the ITC to impound and destroy each others' phones. I hope they both get their wish. (please bear with me a moment . . .)

Samsung is much bigger than Apple. Samsung makes consumer electronics (TVs, mp3 planers, etc), appliances (washers / dryers, etc.), heavy industry (ever seen the Samsung logo on those giant gantry cranes that unload huge cargo ships?), and even jet engines. I think Samsung would survive if their phone business were disrupted. Apple, hopefully, would not.

This patent aggression must be stopped. Don't forget that Apple also sued HTC in spring of 2010 for making phones that were excessively awesome. Only Apple is allowed to do that. Doesn't everyone know that the smartphone business is God's gift exclusively to Apple?

Noticed articles recently that Apple is now looking to Intel for parts it used to get from Samsung? Gee, Intel doesn't make ARM chips. How about a nice power hungry hot running Atom processor? An iPhone with a built in cooling fan anyone? Jobs could show it on stage as the next innovation in smartphones!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dcee (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 8:02am
  
  Re:
  Samsung makes consumer electronics (TVs, mp3 planers, etc)
  
  Nice, are those the ones that includes drug inducing or the ones that fly? Or... maybe both?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 8:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    Too bad I can't edit my post. :-)
    
    Preview button? What preview button?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dcee (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 8:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Same here :D
      
      Just realized how my joke sounds bad when you don't speak french... well, at least I did a bilingual joke.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tom, 25 May 2011 @ 9:02am
  
  Re:
  Exactly! Apple's new iPhone has a new feature that has never before been seen in an iPhone! A fan! You remember all those times when your phone just exploded in your hand due to heat? Well, no more! As an added bonus you can also use your new iPhone as a space heater!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michial Thompson, 25 May 2011 @ 9:04am
  
  Re:
  Actually I hope that Samsung loses their asses on this one...
  
  Samsung opted to put profits above fixing customers issues with the Galaxy Android phones when they got into a battle with the Phone companies over charging for updating the core Android OS. They wanted to charge the cell providers for the update to the OS because they considered it a Feature rather than a FIX. The fact that the OS was free for them only further sours my opinions of them.
  
  I will NEVER buy another Samsung Phone or Tablet EVER because of this. If I had a choice for Cell I would drop the carrier too, but all the carriers united to refuse to pay for the Andriod update in that case. Both sides were equally wrong, BUT I have a choice with the Android Devices and Samsung was more in the wrong in my opinion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sean T Henry (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 9:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    You can download the updated OS directly from Samsung.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 7:58am

Apple sux, the more I hear about them - the happier I am that I haven't bought their junk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 8:01am

What they get to see is...
5 products that have already been seen. The court ordered packaging and device samples of the Galaxy S2, Galaxy Tab 8.9, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, and 4G LTE or "Droid Charge." All of which have already been on sale, close to it or have reached the light of day through other means (I'm looking at you Galaxy Tab 10.1 at Google I/O). So I'm pretty sure this won't kill Samsung's future products.

So as long as "sneak peak" now means common knowledge, Apple totally has a leg up on Samy.

This story is a mountain out of a mole hill if you ignore what devices were actually specified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 8:33am
  
  Re: What they get to see is...
  Company secrets are not publicly announced or for sale. So even though we know they exist, it's still damaging to Samsung.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - James (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 9:44am
    
    Re: Re: What they get to see is...
    They aren't secrets. I can go read a detailed review of the Galaxy S2, Galaxy Tab 10.1 (Google I/O version), Droid Charge and Infuse 4G on Engadget right now!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kb, 25 May 2011 @ 8:02am

WHAT_THE_FUCK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 8:05am

I bet the judge has an iMac. And an iPhone. And an iPad. And Steve Jobs' picture under her pillow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug B (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 8:44am

Are you sure?
From the article:

She also limited the results of discovery to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning neither Apple nor its in-house counsel will get a peek at the phones or related marketing materials.

Doesn't this mean Apple won't actually get to see/use the products?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: Are you sure?
  Yes. This is common for technology suits between competitors. Such orders often prohibit Apple's outside patent counsel from seeing the products as well (not sure if this order does).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
f100 (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 9:10am

So you hand out 5000 'prototypes"???

"While the models have yet to be officially released to the public and Samsung has argued that examination of production samples that may not necessarily reflect final shipping versions is inappropriate, Koh noted that the argument is undermined by Samsung's publicity efforts that have seen images and even demo units handed out to members of the media. In one noteworthy example, 5,000 Galaxy Tab 10.1s were given away to attendees at the Google I/O conference earlier this month."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 11:23am

What I'd do is..
I'd make sure there was some weird out-of-place and quite obviously unique feature on the prototype, and if apple copied it that would be clear proof that the 'independant' lawyers were passing on info...

Or make the prototype a pile of utter shit..since its a prototype then release the uber-cool 'final' version and point at Steve Jobs and laugh like a gibbon!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 11:24am

Also
Since Samsung is SO much bigger than Apple, I'd make sure to source components from ALL of apples suppliers, and pay more for them than apple.
Short-term iphones would grind to a screaming halt as there'd be zero production (iphone vaporware anyone?).
Just make sure Jobs has announced the phone BEFORE you buy up every single vital component on the market! (or being as large as Samsung simply buy the component company and direct its entire output to Samsung)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 6:39pm

Why do we even enforce trade secret protections if this is acceptable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]