Apple vs Samsung: the final round
We reached the final stage of legal battle between two of the largest companies in the world by two packages of patents vital to the development of their flagship products: the iPhone and Galaxy S. family On the one hand we have Apple, which today became the company’s most valuable of history , on the other we have a Samsung, recently crowned the largest mobile phone maker in the world.
As expected, they have not reached an agreement that allows them to avoid the judicial outcome, so both companies presented their closing arguments today in what will go down as one of the most important trials of the phone industry. Now we just wait for the verdict that answers the question: “Who copied who?”.
Will Samsung copied “blindly” Apple designs the iPhone and iPad as claimed in Cupertino? Will Apple infringed patents of Samsung in the field of telecommunications as Koreans hold?. Soon we will know, at stake are 2.5 billion dollars (about 2,000 million euros) and in a way, the way that will define the mobile phone industry in the near future, especially in the field of industrial design.
This last session began with the reading of the 109 pages to the jury instructions, read by the judge, Lucy Koh (right). Remarkable words from someone who has already said she was tired of this process at some point: “I need everyone (jurors) you remain conscious during this – including myself.” It is normal they asked this, because right after I read the 84 instructions, which included almost everything from the minutiae of patent law and American competition, a dissertation on patent infringements voluntary dissolution of the practice known as trade dress. The trade dress includes all those little details such as product packaging, advertising, appearance, etc.. also constitute intellectual property, but not the product itself.
Apple Final Argument
Apple’s lawyer, Harold McElhinny, began with a chronology, as key to see everything more clearly. His argument was already known about which states that Samsung phones between 2004 and 2007 had nothing to do with the iPhone. In 2007, Apple launched the iPhone and masked by a crisis of industrial design style, Samsung changed. Samsung did not take any of the risks Apple took with the iPhone’s design was to nail it, copying the “phone of the year”. Then he added that “we know this because we’ve seen on Samsung’s own documents. We saw how they did. “
Apple continues the lawyer arguing that Samsung’s leadership was bound to benefit from the success of the iPhone, for this rests in the documents that Samsung analyzes the iPhone feature for feature and makes recommendations for their Galaxy S phone is the closest to Apple. According to counsel for Apple, these practices saw its culmination with the Samsung Galaxy S, which ran on the market better than any of the previous models of the Koreans and marked a turning point. Sales of Samsung, who had spent years standing, saw a sudden increase when adding a dash of iPhone to the recipe.
Apple After that, how could it be otherwise, the Koreans took to court but counsel adds, “instead of doing the right thing (paying patents), Samsung decided to launch their own patent claims.” And with that we come to the beginning of this trial.
For the same, we can not say that the lawyer has left Apple in good stead to Samsung. McElhinny says that Samsung has not cooperated since no executive Samsung deigned to appear at trial. Instead, Samsung sent his lawyers, and when they are required witnesses, Samsung shipped more lawyers. After this McElhinny charged against a line of defense from Samsung: the iPhone’s features are obvious, necessary for the functionality and based on previous designs. “They have failed to prove that’s true” he said, arguing that Samsung has not provided any evidence to meet the legal standard of obviousness.
Samsung was the biggest fan of the iPhone. They knew it was a good thing when they saw it. They tried to compete with him, but when they failed, they copied.
On the issue of alleged violations of trade dress, McElhinny contributed several papers claiming that Samsung products cause confusion among consumers, including a survey of Best Buy, which returned its Galaxy Tab consumers apologizing that they had mistaken for a iPad. He also accused Samsung of copying the design of Apple, opened the door for others to do the same.
Samsung has spent billions of dollars and keeping mimicking our designs to the world so that Apple is no longer seen as unique.
After that, continued to utility patents (see the clip zoom, scroll spring effect), where Samsung returns to claim that those patents are declared invalid by should be obvious. McElhinny has again denied as “Samsung has failed to demonstrate that they are obvious.”
We have shown that Samsung has violated every one of our intellectual property rights.
Apple is offended that Samsung makes joke of damage and focuses on two factors that cause this damage:
- Samsung has sold 22.7 million units infringe Apple’s intellectual property today.
- The proceeds from the sale have been 8.16 billion dollars.
McElhinny asks a great compensation to “a spike” and compensation fixed four scenarios, from a high of 2.481 billion dollars (1/4 of what Samsung has won!) To 519 million, at least. It ends with a blunt warning to the jury that Samsung has acted willfully in violating Apple’s intellectual property, showing “disrespect impetuous”.
Think about copying documents, think that meeting with Google
Referring to the alleged meeting where Samsung Google warned that Apple should not copy if I wanted serious legal trouble.
Samsung final argument
Samsung’s lawyer, Verhoeven, start criticizing the same case for which are in court and the competitive strategy of Apple. And one of the arguments presented more ears among fans of the Android platform: Apple is asking a court to prevent its biggest rival that will give consumers what they ask.
Instead of competing in the market, Apple is trying to win in court. They are trying to prevent its most serious competitor can not even play.
He continued as a deck with more classically arguments put forward by the android community, trying to convince the jury that their decision should benefit Apple, could change the way competition works in the U.S. Focused on explaining the design process of the terminals Samsung was the result of a confluence in the world of technology by which all phones share a number of common elements.
Smartphones, as we know them today, are the result of the same natural process of design that we saw around the flat screens, and many other consumer electronic products. The iPhone design is not unique.
Samsung’s lawyer maintained a very haughty tone, reciting one by one the arguments that has been wielding Korean throughout the entire process: all phones have a rectangular shape with rounded corners and no Apple sues everyone else as well , Apple does not have a monopoly on touch screens rectangular. He continued with a stab at Apple’s argument about dressing trade, claiming that no one can mistake an Apple product with one of Samsung, and wondering if there really is someone so disappointed with Samsung products to go to Apple.
Consumers decide, not wrong.
Verhoeven’s next target was the Apple experts had been bringing along the process, grabbed a straw to the testimony of one of them whose benefit claims involving Samsung, hinting that Apple bought the witnesses and experts, and it was very sad that one provided testimony in favor of Samsung. After this happened to reiterate the idea of the box over and over again and go over the list of distinguishing features of Korean phones: the Android boot sequence, the screen size, icons, etc.. According Vanhoeven there so many similarities, they are very different.
Do not want to try to patent a color bar or an array of icons.
At this time, he played dismantle the argument that in 2007 Samsung phones design changed, and for that Verhoeven unfold a graph of the full range of Samsung phones and stated categorically that Apple ignored a range of phones in his presentation, devices with rounded rectangular shape and prove that the Galaxy is Samsung’s own development.
Samsung consumed much of his time focusing more on removing the argument Apple and its expert witnesses to justify its own argument with their own witnesses, even claiming that the advice of counsel Apple finally tienÃan mislead the jury.
No copying, Samsung is a good corporate citizen. All he wants is to make products that consumers want. Everything else is Apple waving their arms because they have nothing else.
To conclude his speech, the lawyer for the Koreans went through the list of patents that are accused of infringing Apple and after that date their own patents in dispute related to the area of telecommunications and quickly moved to the quantification of damages, or rather to deny the quantification of damages from Apple, and once again began shaking as: no Samsung to pay damages. And he repeats the mantra: Apple did not invent touch screens or rectangles with rounded corners, and defending intellectual property is not worth the money they ask for.
In this, one of Apple’s lawyers, William Lee replied to Vanhoeven
There is a saying among counsel: “If you have facts, stick to the facts. If you have no facts, attack your opponent’s customer, their witnesses and their lawyers. “ That’s what Samsung has done.
Lee argued that what most of the world thinks Apple, they want to compete with their innovations, but they have to protect their investment, those 5 years of development that brought the iPhone to another company that does not come in 3 months and copy it all. And, moreover, that company made 8000 million profit at your expense and everything I say is: “we do not pay.” And contests with great forcefulness: “The difference between Apple patents Samsung takes two hours discrediting is that Apple products that use them are commercially successful, and universally praised and even copied. Samsung products that use Samsung patents in contention have been praised and copied by anyone. “
Competition and innovation in this field are achieved with scientists, innovators, not lawyers. Apple wants to compete fairly, and copy the intellectual property of another company not fair.
The rejoinder of Vanhoeven is summarized in a brief “Let innovative to compete. Let Samsung compete with Apple in the market and not in the courts. “
Track: Track Live AllThingsDTags: Apple, patents, Samsung, trial