Tech titans face off in court over iPhone, iPad

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
By PAUL ELIAS, AP


SAN FRANCISCO — Two tech titans will square off in federal court Monday in a closely watched trial over control of the U.S. smartphone and computer tablet markets.

Apple Inc. filed a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co. last year alleging the world's largest technology company's smartphones and computer tablets are illegal knockoffs of its popular iPhone and iPad products. The Cupertino-based company is demanding $2.5 billion in damages, an award that would dwarf the largest patent-related verdict to date.

Samsung counters that Apple is doing the stealing and that some of the technology at issue — such as the rounded rectangular designs of smartphones and tablets — has been industry standards for years.

The U.S. trial is just the latest skirmish between the two over product designs. A similar trial began last week, and the two companies have been fighting in courts in the United Kingdom and Germany. The case is one of some 50 lawsuits among myriad telecommunications companies jockeying for position in the burgeoning $219 billion market for smartphones and computer tablets.

In the United States, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose last month ordered Samsung to pull its Galaxy 10.1 computer tablet from the U.S. market pending the outcome of the trial, though the judge barred Apple attorneys from telling the jurors about the ban.

"That's a pretty strong statement from the judge and shows you what she thinks about some of Apple's claims," said Bryan Love, a Santa Clara University law professor and patent expert. Love said that even though the case will be decided by 10 jurors, the judge has the authority to overrule their decision if she thinks they got it wrong.

"In some sense the big part of the case is not Apple's demands for damages but whether Samsung gets to sell its products," said Mark A. Lemley, a Stanford Law School professor and director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology.

Lemley also said a verdict in Apple's favor could send a message to consumers that Android-based products such as Samsung's are in legal jeopardy. A verdict in Samsung's favor, especially if it prevails on its demands that Apple pay its asking price to certain transmission technology it controls, could lead to higher-priced Apple products.

Lemley and other legal observers say it's rare that a patent battle with so much at stake doesn't settle short of a trial. Court-ordered mediation sessions attended by Apple's chief executive Tim Cook and high-ranking Samsung officials failed to resolve the legal squabble, leading to a highly technical trial of mostly expert witnesses opining on patent laws and technology. Cook is not on the witness list and is not expected to testify during what is expected to be a four week-trial.

Lemley, Love and others say it also appears that Apple was motivated to file the lawsuit, at least in part, by its late founder's public avowals that companies using Android to create smartphones and other products were brazenly stealing from Apple. To that end, Samsung's attorneys made an unsuccessful pitch to have the jury hear excerpts from Steve Jobs' authorized biography.

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong, I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product," Jobs is quoted as saying in Walter Isaacson's book "Steve Jobs" published in November. "I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

But the judge barred those statements in a ruling earlier this month.

"I really don't think this is a trial about Steve Jobs," Koh said.

In court papers filed last week, each company laid out its legal strategy in so-called "trial briefs."

Apple lawyers argue there is almost no difference between Samsung's products and Apple's and that the South Korean company's internal documents show it copied Apple's iconic designs and its interface.

"Samsung once sold a range of phones and a tablet of its own design," Apple lawyers argue in their documents filed Wednesday. "Now Samsung's mobile devices not only look like Apple's iPhone and iPad, they use Apple's patented software features to interact with the user."

Samsung denies the allegation and counter-charges that Apple copied its iconic iPhone from Sony. Samsung lawyers noted that the company has been developing mobile phones since 1991 and that Apple jumped into the market only in 2007.

"In this lawsuit, Apple seeks to stifle legitimate competition and limit consumer choice to maintain its historically exorbitant profits," Samsung lawyers wrote in their trial brief also filed Wednesday. "Android phones manufactured by Samsung and other companies — all of which Apple has also serially sued in numerous forums worldwide — offer consumers a more flexible, open operating system with greater product choices at a variety of price points as an alternative to Apple's single, expensive and closed-system devices."

"Between 2005 and 2010 alone, Samsung invested $35 billion in research and development relating to telecommunications technology, with over 20,000 engineers worldwide dedicated to telecommunications research and development," Samsung's lawyers wrote.

"One thing that is notable is that this trial is happening at all," said Love, the Santa Clara law professor and patent expert. He said that in an industry such as this where so many companies hold so many vital patents needed by all players, lawsuits are viewed as toying with "mutually assured destruction" and that most disputes are solved through "horse trading" and agreements to share intellectual property and royalties.
 
It is a silly trial as it presents massive risks to both sides. No one with any logic would have proceeded with it. I suspect it is Apple who due to Steve Jobs' attitude forged ahead. This would have been Cook's opportunity to show positive differentiation from him, putting logic ahead of dogma and cross license with Samsung. Some key points come to mind:

1. A jury duty is usually picked when one side wants to appeal to emotions as opposed to true strength of their case. Usually a single person suing a large company does that with the implied claim of "look at poor little me damaged by this large ruthless company." A judge is not swayed by such things as he/she sticks to the law. But average jurors probably not.

2. Adding to #2, when you are a foreign company, the last thing you want to do be in in a jury trial against an American company on matters like this. In this case, that effect is amplified 100 times with Apple being such a darling of a company to mass consumers. Yes, like #1 this should not matter but it does.

3. I have been in that industry. There is a cartel there like there is in consumer electronics where companies got together to create "standards" that use all of their patented technologies. The longer you have been in that world, the more of your patents are in there. While Samsung is not as well situated as companies like Nokia, they still have massive advantage over Apple. There is no question that Apple is vulnerable on a lot of what is called "core patents." You cannot enter the scene in 2007 and not have to pay boatload of money for other people's patents. Older companies have cross licenses with each other so the system works for them but severely disadvantages of newcomer. I remember when the rumors of Apple coming out with a phone people in the industry always said it was impossible as there would be no reasonable way for Apple to get a proper license for all that it needed to build a phone. Yet here it was and Apple forged ahead.

4. You cannot rely on jurors to understand complex patent language. You just can't. You can bring all the expert witnesses in the world but you simply can't count on that working. So even if the "truth" is on your side, it is still a game of chance. That said, Apple has an advantage in that its patents are more to fresh consumer features as opposed to Samsung patents which are the nuts and bolts.

I don't see how this is good for any of us. Competition has been good and choice has been good.
 
And how many of us have been in jury deliberations of even the simplest of cases, where jurors care more about their wristwatch. "I have to pick up my kid from daycare at 4" is my favorite one.
 
.
A jury duty[sic] is usually picked when one side wants to appeal to emotions as opposed to true strength of their case. Usually a single person suing a large company does that with the implied claim of "look at poor little me damaged by this large ruthless company." A judge is not swayed by such things as he/she sticks to the law. But average jurors probably not.
This a position often advanced by the losing party. I agree that jurors when faced with complex scientific issues are likey to accpet the experts opinion. I blame this on the lawyers who went to law school because they don't like science. The purpose of a jury is to decide facts. If the case is not fact intensive you might consider allowing the judge to decide. Jury waivers usually require the consent of both sides.This is particularly true if you have the burden of proof(no hung jury). You may recall the NFL anti-trust suit. The jury was able to handle the complex issues and found the NFL had violated the anti-trust laws. However the award was only 1 dollar. That indicates a lack of emotion.
 
Apple claims Samsung copied iPhone technology

By PAUL ELIAS, AP


SAN JOSE, California — Apple Inc. designer Christopher Stringer spent many of his 17 years at the company developing the company's iconic iPhone and iPad.

On Tuesday afternoon, the Apple designer wrapped up the first day of testimony in a closely watched patent trial proudly discussing his accomplishments in support of his employer's lawsuit alleging Samsung Electronics Co. ripped off Apple's technology to market its own products.

Dressed in a tan suit, the bearded and long-haired Stringer said because of Apple's desire to create original products, he and his co-workers surmounted numerous engineering problems such as working with the products' glass faces in producing both products over a number of years. Stringer said he was upset when he saw Samsung's Galaxy products enter the market.

"We've been ripped off, it's plain to see," Stringer said. "It's offensive."

In his opening statement moments before, Samsung attorney Charles Verhoeven countered Apple's allegations by arguing that the South Korean company employs thousands of designers and spends billions of dollars on research and development to create new products.

"Samsung is not some copyist, some Johnny-come-lately doing knockoffs," he said.

Verhoeven asserted that Apple is like many other companies that use similar technology and designs to satisfy consumer demands for phones and other devices that play music and movies and take photographs.

For example, he said several other companies and inventors have filed patent applications for the rounded, rectangular shape associated with Apple products.

"Everyone is out there with that basic form factor," Verhoeven said. "There is nothing wrong with looking at what your competitors do and being inspired by them."

Earlier, an attorney for Apple told the jury that bitter rival Samsung faced two options to compete in the booming cellphone market after Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone to critical acclaim in 2007: Innovate or copy.

Samsung chose to copy, making its smartphones and computer tablets illegal knockoffs of Apple's popular products, attorney Harold McElhinny claimed.

Samsung "has copied the entire design and user experience" of Apple's iPhone and iPad, McElhinny told a jury during his opening statement at the patent trial involving the world's two largest makers of cellphones.

A verdict in Apple's favor could lead to banishment of Samsung's Galaxy products from the U.S. market, said Mark A. Lemley, a professor and director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology.

A verdict in Samsung's favor, especially if it prevails on its demands that Apple pay its asking price for certain transmission technology, could lead to higher-priced Apple products.

The witness lists of both sides are long on experts, engineers and designers and short on familiar names. Apple CEO Tim Cook is not scheduled to testify.

The trial resumes Friday with the testimony of Apple senior vice president for marketing Philip Schiller.

Cupertino, California-based Apple Inc. filed its lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co. last year and is demanding $2.5 billion in damages, an award that would dwarf the largest patent-related verdict to date.

The case marks the latest skirmish between the two companies over product designs. A similar trial began last week, and the two companies have been fighting in other courts in the United Kingdom and Germany.

In the patent case, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh last month ordered Samsung to pull its Galaxy 10.1 computer tablet from the U.S. market pending the outcome of the patent trial. However, she barred Apple attorneys from telling jurors about the ban.

Apple lawyers argue there is almost no difference between Samsung products and its own, and that the South Korean company's internal documents show it copied Apple's iconic designs and its interface.

Samsung counter-claims that Apple copied its iPhone from Sony. In addition, Samsung alleges Apple is using some of Samsung's own inventions without payment, such as a computer chip at the heart of the iPhone.

Samsung lawyers also stressed the company has been developing mobile phones since 1991, long before Apple jumped into the market in 2007.

Also at issue at the trial are some of the most basic functions of today's smartphones and computer tablets, including scrolling with one finger and zooming with a finger tap.

Tuesday morning's proceedings began with a bit of drama.

First, a juror pleaded with the judge to be released from the trial, saying she suffered a panic attack and spent a sleepless night after belatedly discovering that her employer would not pay her salary while she served. A sympathetic judge granted her request and left the jury with nine members.

Then the judge rebuked John Quinn, one of Samsung's attorneys, for refusing to stop a line of legal argument the judge said she had ruled on numerous times.

"Mr. Quinn, don't make me sanction you," the judge said as the lawyer continued his argument. "Please. Please. Please, take a seat."

Quinn relented and sat down, but his tenacity underscored the high stakes of the trial that is costing both sides millions of dollars in legal fees and expenses. Battalions of lawyers from prestigious law firms are working overtime to file myriad court documents.

The most senior lawyers on each side charge upward of $500 an hour for their representation.

Legal experts said that most patent disputes are resolved way before trials that can bring unpredictable and ruinous verdicts.

"A patent case of this magnitude has the possibility of impacting phone technology for years to come," said Manotti Jenkins, a patent attorney with no stake in the trial. "Given the substantial revenue that is generated by smartphone technology, companies are likely to prompt more litigation of this type and continue to use the courts as an attempt to protect and expand market share."
 
Seoul court rules Samsung didn't violate Apple design.....

Reuters



SEOUL (Reuters) - Samsung Electronics Co's flagship Galaxy smartphone looks very similar to Apple's iPhone, but the South Korean firm has not violated the iPhone design, a Seoul court ruled on Friday.
The South Korean ruling comes as the two technology titans are locked in a high-stakes global patent battle that mirrors a fierce rivalry for industry supremacy between two companies that control more than half the world's smartphone sales.
The Seoul court ruling on Friday comes ahead of more crucial U.S. verdicts. Nine jurors began deliberation on Wednesday in California in one of many disputes between the two firms around the world that analysts see as partly aimed at curbing the spread of Google Inc's Android, the world's most used mobile software.
"There are lots of external design similarities between the iPhone and Galaxy S, such as rounded corners and large screens ... but these similarities had been documented in previous products," a judge at the Seoul Central District Court said on Friday.
"Given that it's very limited to make big design changes in touch-screen based mobile products in general ... and the defendant (Samsung) differentiated its products with three buttons in the front and adopted different designs in camera and (on the) side, the two products have a different look," the judge said.
The judge said it was difficult to say that consumers would confuse the iPhone with the Galaxy given they clearly have the respective company logos on the back of each model, and consumers also factor in operating systems, brand, applications, price, and services when buying a phone.
The judge ordered Samsung to immediately stop selling 10 products, including the Galaxy S II, and also banned sales of four Apple products, including the iPhone 4 and iPad 2.
The court ruled that Apple infringed on two of Samsung's wireless technology patents and was ordered to pay Samsung 40 million won ($35,400). Samsung was fined 25 million won for violating one patent relating to so-called bouncing-back function used when scrolling electronic documents.
The compensation sought by both Apple and Samsung in South Korea is small due to the relatively small size of the market.
The wrangle was triggered by Apple's lawsuit in April last year claiming Samsung slavishly copied Apple's smartphones and tablets. Samsung has countered that it simply developed its own "unique" products in a bid to "best the competition," and that Apple actually owes money for using its patented technology.
In the United States, Apple is demanding more than $2.5 billion in damages and an order to permanently ban Samsung from selling patent-infringing products. Samsung argues Apple owes $422 million for violating a clutch of its patents.
Neither Apple nor Samsung had an immediate comment on the Seoul ruling.
In Seoul, Samsung shares last traded down 1.3 percent, in line with the broader market.
 
Apple's $1B patent verdict could corner market

By PAUL ELIAS | Associated Press

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — It was the $1 billion question Saturday: What does Apple Inc.'s victory in an epic patent dispute over its fiercest rival mean for the U.S. smartphone industry?
Analysts from Wall Street to Hong Kong debated whether a jury's decision that Samsung Electronics Co. ripped off Apple technology would help Apple corner the U.S. smartphone market over Android rivals, or amount to one more step in a protracted legal battle over smartphone technology.
Many analysts said the decision could spell danger for competitors who, like Samsung, use Google Inc.'s Android operating system to power their cellphones.
"I am sure this is going to put a damper on Android's growth," New York-based Isi Group analyst Brian Marshall said, "It hurts the franchise."
The Silicon Valley jury found that some of Samsung's products illegally copied features and designs exclusive to Apple's iPhone and iPad. The verdict was narrowly tailored to only Samsung, which sold more than 22 million smartphones and tablets that Apple claimed used its technology, including the "bounce-back" feature when a user scrolls to an end image, and the ability to zoom text with a tap of a finger.
But most other Apple competitors have used the Android system to produce similar technology, which could limit the features offered on all non-Apple phones, analysts said.
"The other makers are now scrambling" to find alternatives, said Rob Enderle, a leading technology analyst based in San Jose.
Seo Won-seok, a Seoul-based analyst at Korea Investment said that the popular zooming and bounce-back functions the jury said Samsung stole from Apple will be hard to replicate.
The companies could opt to pay Apple licensing fees for access to the technology or develop smarter technology to create similar features that don't violate the patent — at a cost likely to be passed onto consumers.
Apple lawyers are planning to ask that the two dozen Samsung devices found to have infringed its patents be barred from the U.S. market. Most of those devices are "legacy" products with almost nonexistent new sales in the United States. Apple lawyers will also ask that the judge triple the damage award to $3 billion since the jury found Samsung "willfully" copied Apple's patents.
A loss to the Android-based market would represent a big hit for Google as well. Google relies on Android devices to drive mobile traffic to its search engine, which in turn generates increased advertising revenue. Android is becoming increasingly more important to Google's bottom line because Apple is phasing out reliance on Google services such as YouTube and mapping as built-in features on the iPhone and iPad.
Some experts cautioned that the decision might not be final, noting the California lawsuit is one of nine similar legal actions across the globe between the two leading smartphone makers.
Samsung has vowed to appeal the verdict all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Apple's patents for such "obvious" things as rounded rectangle were wrongly granted. A Sept. 20 hearing is scheduled.
The $1 billion represents about 1.5 percent of Samsung's annual revenue. Jerome Schaufield, a technology professor at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute said the verdict wouldn't upend a multibillion-dollar global industry.
"Samsung is powerful," Schaufield said. "The company will regroup and go on."
Samsung engineers have already been designing around the disputed patent since last year.
"We should never count out Samsung's flexibility and nimbleness," said Mark Newman, a Hong Kong-based analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. "This is merely an embarrassment and annoyance to the company that they will have to find ways around."
The dispute centers on Apple's dissatisfaction with Google's entry into the phone market when the search company released its Android operating system and announced any company could use it free of cost.
Google entered the market while its then-CEO Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board, infuriating Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who considered Android to be a blatant rip-off of the iPhone's innovations. Apple filed its patent infringement lawsuit in April 2011, engaging the country's highest-paid patent lawyers to demand $2.5 billion.
The verdict didn't faze some iPhone users, who said that they already know Apple phones are superior.
The rivals are "modeling phones based on what they see with the iPhone," said David Green of Wareham, Mass., finishing a call on his iPhone while waiting to catch a train.
He switched to Apple from a BlackBerry about a year ago, after becoming disenchanted with the reliability and technological features of non-Apple smartphones.
"When I got the iPhone, it worked so well that I told my friends, 'Now I have a REAL smartphone,'" Green said.
 
They have won the battle, but they haven't won the war.

Frankly, Apple are behaving in an unbelievable manner. Imagine if Volkswagen went around suing everybody who made a hatch. Or if Boeing sued Airbus for making a cylinder with wings. That is about where we are with Apple, who are arguing that they came up with the "rectangle with rounded corners" or "wedge shaped laptop" and claim them to be patents.

I would normally never consider buying a Samsung product, but I am almost tempted to do so out of sympathy.
 
They were found guilty by a jury full of Americans who were supporting the home team. From Grok Law:

In two instances, results were crazily contradictory, and the judge had to have the jury go back and fix the goofs. As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, 1 down from $1,051,855,000. For just one example, the jury had said one device didn't infringe, but then they awarded Apple $2 million for inducement. In another they awarded a couple of hundred thousand for a device they'd ruled didn't infringe at all.

And from Above the Law:

Here’s the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?

As Grok Law says, "If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn't take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement."

Why am I annoyed - because this decision will be bad for everybody. Remember what happened when Microsoft got their monopoly? Well, same thing will happen with Apple. And Apple seems to be a far more evil company than Microsoft ever was.
 
Keith

Here is what I said because I agree with a jury of Americans there is definite bias and anticipate appeals court changes

Samsung was found guilty in a court of law (although the appeal process will be interesting)

Now, having said that Keith, weren't there similar type judicial awards by Korean courts in favor of Samsung
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing