Wired has the summaries of Apple’s and Samsung’s opening arguments.
Just a taste:
Samsung attorney Charlie Verhoeven conducted the opening statement. “There’s a distinction between commercial success and inventing something,” Verhoeven said. Verhoeven showed a selection of tablet designs that bore a striking resemblance to the rectangular, minimalist look of the iPad — and some of these tablets dated back to 1994.
“Apple didn’t invent the rectangular-shaped form factor you keep seeing,” Verhoeven said. Harkening back to the words that Samsung’s product chief told Wired, “They have no right to claim a monopoly on rounded corners on a rectangular screen.”
PS: I know you guys are busy, but Samsung, when can I upgrade my Galaxy Note to Jelly Bean?
(HT to Directive@Yahoo)
{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }
Rectangular shaped phone was initially developed by Sony as a prototype, which apple ripped off and tried to patent the shape on a phone.
Apple = scummy company
One of the powerful takeaways from the reports of the opening arguments is that it’s difficult for us to remember what mobile phones looked like before the introduction of iPhone. Apple didn’t introduce the mobile phone, nor the smartphone — these existed in abundance before iPhone — but thanks to Apple’s research and development, Apple introduced the first popular smartphone.
Samsung released to media interesting testimonies of Apple designer Shin Nishibori:
More presentation images: http://news.nate.com/view/20120801n12777
I remember pretty clearly, actually. LG’s Chocolate was crushing the competition, and whaddaya know? It was a black rectangle with rounded corners, had a touch screen with clickable icons.
As a litigator, I deeply admire Apple’s (or, to be more exact, Morrison & Foerster’s) enterprising legal tactics. But as someone with a modicum of common sense? Apple’s case is horseshit.
This lawsuit reminds of Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation.
#2,
Apple bought it’s multi-touch technology when it acquired Fingerworks in 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerworks
And, yes, the iPhone is nothing but a scaled down version of multi-touch devices that had been previously released.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MERL-LOBBY.JPG
So, there goes your argument in favour of Apple.
And Apple won’t dare to sue LG for a very simple reason:
LG released the Prada, which looks a lot like an iPhone and has some of the same features, several months before the first iPhone.
http://swotti.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheBGCGCHJHZGE=/imglg%20prada2.jpg
This is why I hate design patents. There is no design patents in automobile industry, same should be true in the computing/telecommunication industry.
I shared this w/a Samsung engineer. I thought it was interesting.
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1259298/Beat_Apple_Court_Docs.pdf
Q@3,
Samsux’s media leaks re Sony appear to be the same “evidence” that Judge Koh ruled as inadmissible because they are irrelevant. The leaks are just a (well-established) gambit of trying to obtain in the public space what Samsux’s lawyers failed to obtain in the courtroom — i.e., to confuse the issues.
TK@4,
Have to disagree with you here, mon frere. Apple’s success at obtaining injunctions against Samsux in Europe, the U.S., and down under is, if nothing else, evidence that there are legitimate claims at issue here.
DLB
#10 I believe most of those injunctions pertains to the Galaxy Tab which is not a big seller for Samsung. The injunctions were eventually gotten around with few modifications to the Tab. If the US court puts an injunction on the Galaxy S line of phone’s, then that indeed would be a first.
Correct me if I’m wrong anyone, but I think all the courts in Europe and Australia have thrown out the claims against the Galaxy phones.
CM,
You are at least partially correct. I confess that I myself sometimes need a flow-chart to keep track of some of this international litigation.
BTW, the Apple-Samsux kerfuffle is so highly technical that the temptation to pick sides based on nationalist sympathies should be resisted. I have no love for Samsux, but not because it’s a Korean company. I don’t have much love for the Microsoft of yore, either, and in both cases it’s because the companies were/are quasi-criminal organizations.
Additionally, I’d suggest that saying Apple has legitimate claims under the current patent regime is NOT the same thing as saying that the patent regime as it currently stands is a good one. I’d love nothing more than to throw out the current patent rules and start over.
But as they say on The Wire, the game is the game.
DLB
I don’t know guys. I think Samsung is at a severe disadvantage here since the trial, judge and jury will be in Apple’s home court of Silicon Valley. I think people there will know where to spread their butter.
@#5
FYI, Samsung’s release of that to the media got them in deep, deep brown stuff with the judge. I’ve been attending the trial, and let me say that Judge Koh was ticked off when Apple brought this to her attention at the end of the day. Earlier, she had threatened to sanction John Quinn if he brought up this issue again after 3 rejected motions for reconsideration. She demanded Quinn to file a declaration by 9 am this morning relating to the circumstances of the release (Quinn had gone back to LA earlier that day). I expect some pungent words on this from the judge come Friday (the next trial day).
@ # 15,
Yeah, but seems like Lucy is giving Samsung’s lawyers a lot of fodder for an appeal if things don’t go their way in this trial.
WK@14,
Nice. In three lines you’ve managed to question the entire legitimacy and impartiality of America’s internationally respected and admired federal judicial system.
Even Samsux’s own attorneys would never try a stunt like that.
DLB
DLB,
Well, I’m not an attorney…
WK,
Count your blessings, my friend. I’m sure you lead a more glamorous life than I!
Now, on to more pleasant things. Did you ever trade in that BMW 5 series of yours?
And did you get a convertible, dammit!
DLB
Here are some selected paragraphs from the declaration, FYI:
2. On July 31, 2012, I approved and authorized the release of a brief statement—it was not a general press release—and proposed trial demonstrative exhibits. This followed multiple requests from members of the media seeking further explanation—including requesting the demonstrative exhibits at issue—as to the basis for Samsung‟s claims, made in open court and in its public trial brief, that it had the right to present evidence that the iPhone was inspired by “Sony style” and that Samsung had independently created the design for the F700 phone—that was alleged in Apple‟s opening statement to be an iPhone copy—in 2006, well before the announcement of the iPhone.
4. Contrary to the representations Apple‟s counsel made to this Court, Samsung did not issue a general press release and more importantly, did not violate any Court Order or any legal or ethical standards. These false representations by Apple‟s counsel publicly and unfairly called my personal reputation into question and have resulted in media reports likewise falsely impugning me personally.
6. All of the material in the excluded trial demonstrative exhibits at issue was previously in the public record. The substance of these trial demonstrative exhibits was included in Samsung‟s trial brief, in other public filings (including filings by Apple) and reports, and were specifically addressed in open court with the media in attendance. . . .
9. As this Court has acknowledged, this is a case with genuine and substantial commercial and public interest and with enormous potential commercial impact. The media has been reporting in salacious detail Apple‟s allegations of Samsung’s supposed “copying”, causinginjury to Samsung‟s public reputation as a company. Moreover, Apple‟s baseless and public assertions that Samsung‟s transmission to the media of public information constituted contempt of court and that these actions were intended to pollute the jury were themselves glaring falsehoods, highlighting why Samsung has every right to defend itself in the public domain from unfair and malicious attacks.
12. Samsung‟s brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to press inquiries was not motivated by or designed to influence jurors. The members of the jury had already been selected at the time of the statement and the transmission of these public exhibits, and had been specifically instructed not to read any form of media relating to this case. . . .
DLB,
Still have it. I’ll probably get a new car next year. My German friend says that the Audi A7 is hot. I’ll check it out.
I don’t think I’ll ever get a convertible. I’m not a sun worshiper and it wrecks havoc with the life of the upholstery. Furthermore, without the roof, the body of the car bends more and after a couple of years the chassis starts to creak.
… I grew up poor and even in selecting my big purchases, I am extremely practical with my choices.
What do you do for a living WK?
cm,
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/09/17/korean-barbarians-at-the-gate/#comment-193500
So you’re an investment broker? I’d hate to see you stuck with that Audi once the stock bubble bursts again, with absolutely nothing learned from the last bursting of the bubble. Maybe hold off or buy an Elantra?
cm,
M&A = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions
cm,
Also check out this comment of mine.
Ah.. got you. A7 is a mighty nice car.
cm, what do you do for a living?
I wonder when Google’s Cream Puff OS will come out.
I looove cream puffs.
TonyK@ 20,
Nice summary. Thanks for the updates. I hear the gallery is packed to overflowing.
So tell me, is anyone in the hallways of South First taking bets as to how soon (not whether) Quinn gets sanctioned?
DLB
DLB@31
The court staff is closing off the main courtroom to everyone except media and parties, at least for the first week; the rest of us have been shoehorned into an adjoining courtroom with a video feed (oddly, the video and audio are not synced). My guess is that Judge Koh may let both sides have it: Samsung for again pushing what should be a dead issue, and Apple for characterizing it as a press release (implying mass circulation).
“In three lines you’ve managed to question the entire legitimacy and impartiality of America’s internationally respected and admired federal judicial system.”
You’re kidding, right?
The courtroom drama in this trial has been spectacular. As patent litigation goes, I can’t think it could be any more fun.
@34
Definitely. Apple filed a response the same day; from the introduction: “Samsung apparently believes that it is above the law, and that it—not this Court—should decide what evidence the jury should see. . . . Litigation misconduct is apparently a part of Samsung’s litigation strategy—and limited sanctions have not deterred Samsung from such misconduct. Now, with so much at stake, Samsung has taken the calculated risk that any sanctions arising from its attempt to influence the jury with its excluded arguments are a price it is willing to pay. Indeed, Samsung may have determined that its gambit could lead to a mistrial—which it apparently would welcome.”
What was Lucy Koh’s original rationale of excluding this info in the first place?
@36….
It is my understanding what it was not Judge Koh but a certain Judge Grewal who decided that. The reason, as I understand it, was that it was just late. Not really “just” late, but frankly “just like everything else.” SEC’s law firm was late on everything, to the point where some people began to wonder whether it was deliberate. At some point the court has to sanction the disrespect for deadlines (for handing over documents, twice) and court orders (like “have Samsung preserve its emails), and it (Judge Grewal, again) sanctioned them on those accounts. As I understand it, this evidence was excluded for the same kind of reason. This can be hard for Koreans to understand because Korea doesn’t have jury trials, whereas in the US you’d have to keep a jury occupied with a case from between six months to a couple years if they had to be around for the whole process of deciding procedural matters and the process by which the court determines what the evidence is going to be. In order to interrupt the lives of a jury of regular citizens for as short a time as possible, as many of those things have to be determined by judges ahead of time as is possible, and doing that requires deadlines. From what very little I know, and whether deliberate or not, you’d almost think the strategy is to test the patience of the court at every turn.
DLB wrote:
In Apple vs. Microsoft case of 1994 in which Apple had lost, Apple copied xerox. In Samsung vs. Apple, Apple copied Sony. Why is the evidence irrelevant?
Actually, this law suit vs. Samsung is a part of Apple’s war against Google. Jobs said:
And I agree with Lance Ulanoff’s article at Mashable Tech:
http://mashable.com/2012/08/01/apple-samsung-patent-war/
Crapple copied bunch of designs and software from whole different companies and patented them as theirs.
Crapple is all about monopolizing the industry. That is why they are constantly suing Google, and Android phone developers like HTC and Samsung.
The only winners here are gonna be the lawyers.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-24/patent-wars-lawyers-are-the-only-winners
So Phil Schiller knocks it out of the park, and Samsux’s Bill Price, well, doesn’t.
Can’t wait to be there again next week.
DLB
We could say Apple copied iPad design from slate used in childhood days:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QVUDlJ7G9DM/TFmS0tD6iII/AAAAAAAADf0/1cF-GSpuGC4/s1600/labor3.jpg
Nice. I have no doubt that that’s how Koreans see this case…
…which alone speaks volumes.
DLB
“I have no doubt that that’s how Koreans see this case…”
DLB,
Seriously, you too? Can you like, stop stereotyping?
You must log in to post a comment.