Apple and Samsung briefs get even sillier -

Legal eagles swooping on the legal spat between Apple and Samsung are making their money with a range of silly court motions which reveals how childish the whole thing is getting.

M'Learned friend for Cupertino apparently threw his iToy's out of the pram when he noticed that the juror's video monitor happened to be made by Samsung.

He insisted that the tiny logo be obscured. We guess he was concerned that Apple's evidence would be somehow tainted by being seen alongside a Samsung logo. After all it can show to jurors that Samsung actually contributes technology to the US government, and at a subconscious level, it creates the impression of the court being Samsung territory.

But according to Florian Mueller, who has popped his pop corn and is watching the trial, said there are more cases of even dafter orchestrated legal manoeuvring in the dark.

Apple wants the court to exclude any "argument or evidence regarding statements attributed to Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson" in his biography.

Obviously the Apple legal team does not want the jury to know that the whole case was started because Steve Jobs believed he invented the smartphone and was determined to waste all his company's profits on frivolous lawsuits to bring down Android for daring to copy his glorious self.

Apple has also demanded the court remove any references to the fact that its products are made in sweat shops in China. It is hoping that Samsung will not be allowed to point to the fact that Apple doesn't manufacture in the United States.

Samsung has also requested a few daft things be removed from the record.

It wants to block references to blogs which clearly come from Apple fanboys and articles by non-expert newspaper reporters.

Of course that still would allow Apple to showcase some of its finest press releases written by the likes of the New York Times.

M'Learned friend for Samsung has asked the court not to listen to the opinions and testimony of Henry Urbach, who is Apple's expert on the alleged cultural significance of Apple.

Urbach has a fairly daft theory that Apple should be allowed to do what it likes because its products have reached the status of religious items.

Samsung points out that Urbach's report is full of his own subjective opinion that Apple products are desirable, beautiful, even stunning.

Samsung points out that this sort of thing is nuts "has an unusual style" and Samsung insists it is not helpful to the jury.

We have to agree with this one. Why on earth should a jury listen to this rubbish.

"An object that is a fetish is not something that is merely used, but it is something that holds a kind of auratic power. It holds the authority to compel because it stands in for something else. It promises to secure or deliver, a god is a good example of that, a god that promises good fortune or immortality or fertility."

If you stuff an iPhone in your pants, you will be lucky, immortal, and fertile.  

Another one on Samsung's list of poo is Sanjay Sood, Apple's expert on consumer decision making. He is know for saying things like Apple is "known for design" and has "design in its DNA".

Samsung said this sort of stuff is about as useful Sood's assessment of the importance of design in smartphone product choice based on irrelevant studies conducted about reactions to such basic products as lamps, staplers, tape dispensers, and alarm clocks.

The court has yet to rule on any of these items, but we guess it will be an amusing day out.