The judge sentenced the Samsung because it can not generate source code in violation of Apple's trial

a few weeks ago, Apple has brought the problem with the samsung that the company had violated its agreement with Apple. United States District Court Judge Judge Paul S. Grewal has asked for sanctions Apple Motion, Samsung punish for refusing to give evidence in a timely manner.

Apples require court sanction Samsung in March, arguing that Samsung has repeatedly failed to produce documents and source code ordered by the court, and that the thesis of the delay is creating a heavy burden because of the time-consuming analysis of the constantly changing Samsung Android code that made declare every claims of patent infringement "a moving target."

Two weeks ago, Samsung was found by the same judge for violating a court order requiring the company to document mentioning Apple products, Apple plans to use the evidence to prove that Samsung purposely breached the design. This resulted in fines.

Now, Samsung has produced a delaying tactic an additional and more serious rebuke by Judge Grewal, who ordered that "the failure of Samsung to simply generate the source code to Apple violated a court December 22 Order," as reported by Florian Mueller Patent FOSS.

The source code is supposed to document how the Samsung has been working in design or technical elements of Apple has been patented, including "bounce overscroll" described in U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381.

Instead of producing evidence that can be used to help the case of the Samsung (but can also be used by Apple to prove additional violations or continued) the company chooses not to keep Apple and awaiting trial.

Lawyers for the iPhone maker believes that it is "too late for Apple to use the late source code produced meaningful" from Samsung, and petitioned the judge to prohibit Samsung from "relying, or by using the source code fails to timely production under the December 22, 2011 order."

Judge Grewal now decided that "Samsung will be prohibited from offering evidence of design that surrounds attempts to patent '381, '891 and '163, and will not claim that the design-arounds in a manner different from their version of the code generated in accordance with a court order Samsung instead must rely only on the version of the code produced on or before December 31, 2011 .. "

Mueller explained, "In other words, Samsung may be responsible for the continued use of old, may violate the code because the code, a new possible without violation not shown in time."