Erdem explained how consumers in complex markets rely on heuristics or shortcuts in their product choices and that the major product features are the primary decision factors. She described a research method used in business and academia that applies eye tracking technology and suggested that an appropriate tool for the research question of consumer choice of smartphones. Her application of the method demonstrated significant information skipping by her research subjects when making a smartphone choice and that major attributes drove the choices.
Erdem concluded with her expert opinion that the features contested in the case do not count when it comes to consumer choice of these products.
Under cross examination, Erdem was asked if she stood by her testimony in deposition that only technos and crazy people cared about the contested features. It was a joke, she retorted.
Jeffrey Chase testified he analyzed Samsung’s source code and contradicted the work of Apple’s expert Alex Snoeren of UC San Diego. Chase claimed Snoeren made fundamental errors in the analysis of background sync adaptors. According to Chase, Snoeren did not meet the burden of proof as far as the contested features whereas Chase’s own analysis found no infringement in the source code.
Chase’s testimony included a demonstration of background sync between devices available in Windows Mobile 5 already in 2005 – well before Apple’s patent 414 was filed. Microsoft did it first per Chase, both for structured data such as calendar and contacts as well as for email. Microsoft’s source code anticipated all the Apple claims in this litigation. Moreover, Novell also offered background sync in Linux before Apple’s iPhone.
The technical aspect of Dr. Chase’s testimony was a handful for the attorneys. Cross-examination tended to be a rehash of direct
testimony and appeared to neither rile or undermine the witness.
— Magnus Thordarson is an IT consultant and freelance writer based in San Jose, Calif. With a background in industry and academia, he is a veteran of Kaiser Permanente IT and writes about all aspects of information technology and management of information systems.
Trial 2: Related content
Trial 1: Related content
- 4/2/14, Apple v. Samsung Case Tackles Stealing, Scapegoating
- 4/7/14, Apple, Samsung Allege Copying
- 4/7/14, Steve Jobs's Email Revealed
- 4/8/14, Phones Irk Apple v. Samsung Judge
- 4/9/14, Apple Lays Out Case for $2B Penalty
- 4/11/14, Samsung Grills Apple Expert
- 4/14/14, Google Takes Stand Against Apple
- 4/15/14, PC Prior Art Cited on iPhone
- 4/18/14, Patent Lessons From Apple v. Samsung
- 4/19/14, Samsung Defense: Marketing Guru vs. Marketing Guru
- 4/21/14, Samsung Attacks: Case Against Apple Begins
- 4/22/14, Apple v. Samsung: Google Agreed to Indemnify Samsung
- 4/24/14, Apple's Quick-Links May Lessen Samsung Damages