SAN JOSE – Samsung sketched the outlines of its countersuit case against Apple in opening statements here Tuesday. The Korean giant showed prior art on all the patents Apple claims it infringes and details of why it believes Apple infringes a handful of its patents.
The case puts in stark relief the differences between the two companies that have deep links in the smartphone market. Samsung is not only one of Apple’s fiercest competitors but one of its largest component suppliers.
“Samsung is an innovator and a competitor--it hasn’t done anything wrong,” said Charles Verhoeven, lead attorney for Samsung in the trial in San Jose’s U.S. District Court.
For example, Verhoeven showed the LG Prada phone and three Japan and Korean patents on handsets with an iPhone-like shape. He said they are prior art that invalidates Apple’s ‘087 design patent. In addition he noted differences between the details in the Apple patent and the Samsung handsets Apple claims infringe it.
“An ordinary observer can tell the difference. There is no infringement,” he said.
Verhoeven also showed multiple examples of prior art on three Apple utility patents it claims Samsung infringes. They included a video of Jefferson Han in a TED talk demonstrating a multi-touch display using zoom and scroll gestures that pre-dates an Apple patent on the gestures.
“For each of these three very simple utility patents, others did it before [Apple, and when that is the case], you don’t have an invention,” he said.
In contrast, he showed details of five Samsung patents he claimed Apple infringes. They include two US patents (7,447,516 and the ‘941 patent) that boost data rates and reduce dropped calls over 3G networks.
The patents became part of the ETSI3G networking standard, implemented in baseband processors from Intel (formerly the Infineon wireless group) and used in iPhones and iPads, he said.
“This is much more fundamental than neat little things you can do on a touch screen,” said Verhoeven.
Apple contends Samsung failed to disclose its patents on the standard until two years after it was frozen, breaking ETSI rules. The iPhonhe maker also claims Samsung sought a royalty of roughly $12 per iPhone for the patents, an amount equal to or greater than the cost of the baseband chip itself, it said.
Separately, Verhoeven alleged Apple infringes three media patents. They include patent 7.577.460 on using a handset to send a photo in an email, as well as a music and another photo patent.
Apple’s lead attorney questioned Samsung’s motives, noting it made no mention of the infringement until after Apple sued Samsung, “as if our patents weren’t any good,” said Verhoeven. “We had a major business relationship with Apple,” he said.
“Samsung isn’t in the habit of suing its business partners and isn’t the one who launched this litigation,” he added.
A diverse ten-person jury will decide the issues between the two tech giants. Testimony is expected to continue through about August 17.
The opening statements highlighted several differences between the companies. While Apple rolls out one new smartphone and tablet a year, Samsung may ship dozens of them using a wide variety of designs. Samsung routinely surveys customers and mines the findings to direct new product development, whereas Apple relies on the instincts of its engineers and marketers, conducting no user surveys.
The presentations also made clear how Apple is focused on delivering innovation in the form of user experiences often expressed in software and casings defined by a small team of elite industrial engineers. Samsung has clearly been studying Apple’s techniques, but also spends significant engineering time developing technologies and patents around broad industry standards.
My Handspring Platinum browsed the internet (using WAP) via the Sprint phone plug-in. I forget how long ago that was. But it was one of the earliest "smart" phones with internet capability I know of.
I think I still have these items somewhere :)
The corporation, no matter how large, foots the bill for development. There is an enormous societal cost that creates the environment for that 'development'.
The whole body of culture, prior art in the broadest sense, the education and government footing the bill for university research.
The problem is that there is much social content in all development but a narrow insistence of private ownership.
Although the lone inventor still exsits, much more IP today is being generated by development teams and in many cases working in conjuction with expert consultants and university researchers. The complexity of technology today has created specialization. This is not for free, somebody is footing the bill. The investment and effort to launch a product today is huge. Besides the design people you have huge efforts in marketing, quality, procurement, and testing. You will not have innovation if no one will find it worth investing the capital to launch the products. My last two patents took over five years to make it through the USPTO, if it will be worth my company's effort they want some protection. As far as innovation being reduced, I think that figuring a way to solve a problem in a manner different from that shown in a particular patent stimulates more innovation and force you to come up with new ideas that you may not come up with if you merely copied others. There are limitless possiblities if you allow them to manifest.
Unless Apple beefs up its serious Engineering side ( i,e. not just the aesthetic look and feel but also the hardware / software guts ) I can foresee a replay of the Mac debacle circa 1987 - 97 when Windows pushed them to less than 3 % market share. Apple now has the $$$ to invest but does it have the management to implement such a strategic change ?
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.