SAN JOSE — Do the contested features of Samsung’s mobile products determine what brand consumers buy? Do those features pass an infringement test?
These questions were the focus of Samsung’s defense on day three in the Apple-Samsung patent trial that continued here on Good Friday in Judge Lucy Koh’s courtroom in front of a jury of four men and four women.
Samsung called three experts to the witness stand on Friday, as part of its defense strategy, emerging in court last week, to convince the jury that the mere semblance of the contested features in Apple and Samsung mobile devices does not constitute patent infringement. One of Samsung’s chief targets is the Hauser marketing study that helped establish the monetary award in the the 2012 trial. Apple rested its case in trial two on Friday, April 11.
All three of Samsung’s experts were academics, two in marketing research and one a programming expert: David Reibstein, professor of marketing at Wharton School of Business, a specialist in quantitative aspects of marketing, author of seven marketing books; Jeffrey Chase, professor of computer science at Duke University and a 32-year veteran of software development; and Tülin Erdem, professor of business and marketing at NYU School of Business, an expert in the field of consumer decision making and marketing research methods.
David Reibstein’s testimony was directed at undermining John Hauser, an MIT marketing professor, and the analytical work he did for Apple for this trial to quantify the damage claim. Hauser used a marketing study, called a conjoint analysis, in which survey takers compare similar features on products and indicate which product they would buy.
Reibstein testified that Hauser’s conjoint study cannot be used to predict what phones consumers would have bought unless all major decision drivers were taken into account, not a selected slice as Hauser did.
Reibstein testified that Hauser’s results are therefore invalid and do not capture ‘willingness to buy.’ He described a test survey he conducted that, according to him, shows respondents’ confusion or lack of understanding of the features contested in the case. At the conclusion of the direct examination, Reibstein testified Hauser’s study would have been rejected by a peer reviewed academic journal.
In cross-examination, Apple’s attorney James Bennett aggressively attacked Reibstein's methodology and execution of his test survey in an attempt to establish an element of bias and lack of statistical validity.
The focus of Tülin Erdem’s testimony were her research findings on ‘complex markets’ as she defined the smartphone and tablet market. She also offered criticism of the Hauser study.
Next Page: It's the major product features, stupid!