| SAN JOSE, Calif., July 18
SAN JOSE, Calif., July 18 A U.S. judge on
Wednesday approved Apple Inc's request to bar disparaging
statements by Steve Jobs about Google's Android operating system
from an upcoming patent trial against Samsung Electronics Co
Apple and Samsung, the world's largest
consumer electronics corporations, are waging legal war in
several countries, accusing each other of patent violations as
they vie for supremacy in the fast-growing market for mobile
Samsung's phones and tablet run on the Android operating
system, developed by Google.
Before he died last year, Apple co-founder Jobs made a
number of statements to his biographer about the company's
intellectual property, saying he was willing to go
"thermonuclear" to "destroy" Google's operating system.
In seeking to introduce Jobs' statements in court, Samsung
argued in a filing that the thermonuclear quote "speaks to
Apple's bias, improper motives and its lack of belief in its own
claims in that they are a means to an end, namely the
destruction of Android."
However, Apple argued in a court filing that Jobs' quotes
are an inadmissible distraction, and asked that they be barred
At a hearing in a San Jose, California federal court on
Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said Jobs' statements
were not relevant.
"I really don't think this is a trial about Steve Jobs," Koh
Apple sued Samsung last year, claiming the South Korean
company blatantly copies its designs for the iPhone and iPad.
Samsung denies the allegations and has countersued.
The trial is scheduled to begin July 30. Apple has won
pretrial injunctions against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Galaxy
Nexus phone. Samsung is appealing both injunctions.
In another case in the smartphone wars, Chicago federal
judge Richard Posner had said Jobs' quotes would be fair game in
a trial between Apple and Google's Motorola Mobility unit.
However, Posner eventually dismissed that case before trial,
saying neither side could prove damages.
Also on Wednesday, Koh ruled that evidence about Apple's
operations in China could be discussed, but could not be cast as
human rights problems. Evidence of Samsung's taxes paid in the
U.S. could also be discussed, Koh ruled, but Apple would not be
able to make any insinuations of tax avoidance.
The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, is Apple Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al,