SAN JOSE – Apple’s head of marketing said he was “shocked” when he first saw Samsung’s “copycat” products of the iPhone and iPad that he said have impacted Apple’s sales. An attorney for Samsung suggested the designs are less distinctive and less important to customers than Apple claims and allegedly infringing phones are noticeably different.
“I was pretty shocked at the appearance of the [Samsung] Galaxy S phone, its appearance and the problems it would cause Apple,” said Phil Schiller, senior vice president of marketing at Apple in the second full day of testimony in its $2.5 patent infringement case against Samsung, one of its largest component suppliers.
Schiller said he was “even more shocked” when he first saw Samsung’s Galaxy Tab, an Android tablet that resembled the iPad. “My first thought was they have done it again, they are just going to copy our whole product line,” he said.
“It’s our belief some customers are choosing to buy a Samsung product because it looks a lot like the iPhone or iPad and subsequent purchases are affected because [the user is] then in a certain [competing] ecosystem,” Schiller said.
In cross-examination, Samsung attorney William Price showed an April 26, 2010, email from Steve Sinclair a member of Schiller’s team questioning what was novel in the iPhone.
“I don’t know how many things we can come up with that you could legitimately claim we did first,” wrote Sinclair. “We had the first commercially successful version of many features but that’s different than launching something to market first,” he added
Sinclair noted that before the iPhone launch, LG shipped its Prada phone that used a touch screen interface. He also noted Palm had more than 10,000 apps for its Treo phones.
Judge Lucy Koh noted the Prada phone does not constitute legal prior art that would invalidate any of Apple’s utility or design patents asserted in the case.
Price also showed side-by-side comparisons of the iPhone with Samsung Continuum, Infuse 4G and Droid Charge phones Apple claims infringe its patents. He showed the nine-person jury significant differences in the design of those phones such as their use of four hardware keys and a logo on their front face.
“I have looked at the phones in this case and I believe they could me confused,” said Schiller. “Samsung has ripped off a number of design elements,” he charged.
Price noted Apple only does surveys of its own users. He suggested the company has no data on whether anyone purchased Samsung products because they thought they were from Apple. He also noted Samsung phones have some unique attributes such as replaceable batteries, support for Adobe Flash and larger displays which could attract customers.
Price also showed an Apple survey indicating 78 percent of iPhone buyers also purchase a third-party case for the phone, many of them covering what Apple argues are unique design features of the handset.
As of June, Apple has sold 72 million iPhones and spent $647 million advertising the products. It has sold 28 million iPads and spent $457.2 million advertising them in the same period, he said.
Testimony continues this afternoon with Scott Forstall, senior vice president of Apple’s iOS on the stand.
Almost a year since Steve Jobs' demise his "reality distortion field" seems to be fading and lawyers rather than Koolaid seems to be Apple's preferred line of defense against Samsung's superior technology and in-house capability to design / mfr hardware components ranging from OMOLED displays down to Quad core processors built with their own 32 nm HKMG Fab process ( which BTW they seem to have held back from Apple A5x ).
In contrast, in spite of the leverage due to large buying power Apple is looking shakier by the day vis a vis Samsung ( which sources internally ) and unless they beef up on honest in-house hardware capabilities soon there could be a replay of their near-death experience when faced with cheap Windows based PCs. Actually this time around it could be even worse because at least for the Mac there was no conflict of interest with the CPU supplier ( used to be Motorola ) but for the iPhone and iPad the SOLE supplier to date has been SAMSUNG, their competitor.
What does Wall St have to say about such vulnerabilities - especially in view of Apple not getting the best Fab technology from Samsung Foundry service and having to make do with inferior chips as in the iPad3 ?
Schiller might be interested that I had an iPhone before my kids went for Samsung phones. I showed them what it could do and was writing software apps for the iPhone, but they said "Apple is a load of ..", and so the divide here is really Fanboy versus non-Fanboy. Try a GPS app on an iPhone, which really works well on a Samsung phone by the way. The Apple developer program specifically excludes any "turn-by-turn" navigation. I'm an engineer, but the kids are not, and they find more features for their needs in a Samsung phone. A few years ago it was Nokia (yes I had a few), then they lost the plot. These court cases with the head honchos being "shocked" are going to reduce their stock and market share. It is just ammo to use against iSheep when they discuss which phone to purchase with each 24 month contract amongst their peers.
"A claim (for example, iPhone) is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.(Prada phone)"
From wikipedia:Prior art (also known as state of the art, which also has other meanings, or background art), in most systems of patent law, constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.
How can the judge rule that a release product does not constitute prior art?
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.