Apple laid out several of its arguments using internal Samsung documents. For example, a July 2008 report titled "3G iPhones U.S. Market Impact" said:
While traditional OEMs are busy fighting each other in the feature phone space, Apple is busy making the category obsolete... Focusing on hardware is a losing proposition for direct iPhone competition.
A February 2010 email included the words of Samsung's global cellphone manager J.K. Shin:
All carriers tell me your phones have great technology, but it's hard to sell them because we spend all our subsidy on the iPhone, so your phones will be expensive... I heard let's make something like the iPhone... a UX that can be used by anyone from six years olds to a senior citizen... is the answer.
All this time we have been paying all our attention to Nokia... yet when our UX is compared to the unexpected competitor of Apple the difference is like Heaven and Earth -- it's a crisis of design.
An April 2011 document from Samsung's US cellphone division said, "Beating Apple is #1 Priority. Everything must be in the context of beating Apple (up to 12.5m sell-ins in 4Q)."
Samsung noted its advances in a February 16, 2012, document saying the "U.S. market is becoming a two-horse race between Samsung and Apple."
Vellturo said that since the summer of 2010 Samsung was aware of alternatives to Apple's '647 patent, but still sells phones accused of infringing the patent. All the devices in the case are accused of infringing the '647 patent on detecting telephone numbers and email addresses.
"If Samsung wanted to reduces its exposure in a case like this it would have made economic sense," to substitute an alternative approach in the Galaxy S2 products launched in 2012, he said. "But they didn't and that... indicated to me Samsung saw this as an important feature they needed to continue to use."
Next page: Cost per feature