SAN JOSE, Calif. – Apple and Samsung both made compelling points in closing arguments of a case in which Apple seeks more than $2.751 billion. Here’s a sampler of their comments from four hours in front of a crowd that extended into two overflow courtrooms.
Apple’s lead attorney Harold J. McElhinny laid out a plausible time line marked by documents he said jurors could follow to conclude Samsung infringed its patents.
“Through 2009 Samsung was trying to compete fairly [with the iPhone], but Samsung sales continued to decline,” said McElhinny. “At a Samsung executive meeting the head of the [mobile] division said Samsung was facing ‘a crisis of design’…and carriers told them they had to make something like the iPhone,” he said.
Among the documents he cited was a 100-page Samsung report comparing feature-by-feature its Galaxy S1 and the iPhone, generally recommending the S1 adopt iPhone techniques.
“When Samsung [user interface] designer Jeeyeung Wang spoke quite movingly about three intense months of [work on Samsung’s first Galaxy smartphone], I almost fell out of my chair when she said it--she said it was a three-month effort,” McElhinny said. “In those three months Samsung was able to copy Apples’ four years of innovation without taking any of the risks because they were copying the world’s most successful product,” he said.
With the Galaxy S in 2010, “Samsung got exactly what it wanted--its sales that had been doldering along suddenly took off …a whole series of iPhone knock offs followed up through the day Apple sued them,” he said.
“Samsung makes fun of us for asking for billions of dollars,” he said, but claimed the Korean giant sold 22 million infringing phones making $8.16 billion in revenue. “The damages should be large because the infringement has been massive,” he said.
Apple is trying to recoup Samsung profits of $2.241 billion on those phones as well as estimates of its own lost profits of $488.8 million and royalties of $21.24 million. Given many variables in the case, if jurors find infringement they should at least award Apple $519 million, he added.
“Every smartphone has a rectangular shape with rounded corners and 90 percent of that device is a screen—there’s nothing nefarious about this, it’s the way technology has evolved,” an iDiot would disagree with this..
This is what happens if too many silly patents gets approved. Lawsuits, big fees, waste of time. After all, 10 yrs from now, no one would be using either of these fought items, everything would be obsolete.
Both the smartphone are good. The main fact is that apple couldn take samsung winning the battel. They say they copied S1 and sales was up. But S2 and 4 or 4S was released in the same year. S2 was preferred by most of the people even though it had few bugs. Because the cost of S2 was cheaper than iphone. Apple have just few models with them where as samsung released too many low end models. which made even budget people to buy samsung Mobiles. If apple had released similar kind of low end products damn sure samsung wouldn have had chance like this.
What about providing services to the bannned Samsung phone already sold to customers? If any of those phones need to be repaired/serviced, is Samsung allowed to do that? Does this affect Samsung's customers?
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.