Information coming from a court report has shown that Samsung has been telling some porky pies about just how shocked it was to hear that its Galaxy tablets had been banned from sale.
Samsung originally claimed Apple’s injunction had come totally out of the blue.
“The request for injunction was filed with no notice to Samsung, and the order was issued without any hearing or presentation of evidence from Samsung,” it said.
But it now appears that this was not quite the truth, with a new court release highlighting the fact that Samsung has seen this coming a mile off.
In fact it had issued a protective plea to put its case forward well ahead of Apple’s own move.
This highlighted Samsung’s case to the court ahead of any move by its rival, and usually means a court hearing is inevitable.
So Samsung’s apparent plea for sympathy at not having a chance to defend itself seems to be rather shaky. In fact Florian Mueller at FOSSPatents describes it as “old-school spin doctoring”.
Mueller says Samsung wasn’t blindsided by the move, that Samsung knew it had this coming, and that “the court’s decision was based on both Apple’s motion and Samsung’s pre-emptive opposition pleading.”
Mueller told TechEye that a protective plea is commonly used by firms when they are aware that they are about to get landed with an injunction, and want to get their own two pence in before the inevitable happens.
As well as being a dubious way to treat its customers by misleading them, it means that the outcome of the case on 25 August does not look too good for Samsung.
“The fact that the court has heard Samsung’s case already and agreed with Apple shows that Apple is not just capitalising on Samsung not being to voice its own side,” he told us.
“Now it appears unlikely that there will be a different outcome unless Samsung manages to bring any different to its defence.
“If Samsung wants the court to lift the injunction it will need to provide information that has not yet been seen.”
Mueller says that it was a logical step to make a protective plea, but that the South Korean company should have been a bit more truthful in its claims.
“If it wants people to rely on what it says, it should not forgo mentioning to make such important details clear.”