Apple portrays itself as smartphone underdog in Samsung suit opening remarks

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In the opening remarks of Apple's patent infringement suit against Samsung, Apple's attorneys have attempted to portray their company as an underdog that changed the smartphone industry with the launch of the iPhone.

Had the iPhone failed, it could have ended Apple as a company, attorney Harold McElhinny said during Tuesday's opening remarks of Apple v. Samsung in San Jose, Calif. He said that Apple came into the smartphone business with "no name in the field" and "no credibility," according to Josh Lowensohn of CNet.

"On January 9, 2007, when Steve Jobs and Phil Schiller went through that presentation," McElhinny said, referencing the unveiling of the first iPhone, "they were literally betting their company."

Apple's case against Samsung centers on the belief that the smartphone and tablet markets have changed dramatically thanks to Apple. During his remarks, McElhinny showed Samsung products from 2006, before the first iPhone was unveiled, to 2011, when Apple believes Samsung's products were infringing on its patent portfolio.

Tuesday marks the start of arguments in the trail, in which both Apple and Samsung have accused the other of patent infringement. The 10-person jury was selected for the trial on Monday.

Samsung Phones
Apple illustration of Samsung phones pre- and post-iPhone. | Source: Apple trial brief


The trial has begun more than a year and a half after Apple first sued Samsung for allegedly copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. The two sides took part in court-ordered negotiations intended to avoid a trial, but those talks did not result in an out-of-court settlement.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 112
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member


    If Samsung sells more smartphones then technically this is correct.

  • Reply 2 of 112
    jd_in_sb wrote: »
    If Samsung sells more smartphones then technically this is correct.

    In 2006, Apple sold zero phones.
  • Reply 3 of 112


    It's hard to imagine, as they are actually profiting more than Samsung, and having Samsung "imitations" exist makes the originals all the more desirable. :)

  • Reply 4 of 112
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member


    Apple's case against Samsung centers on the belief that the smartphone and tablet markets have changed dramatically thanks to Apple.


     


     


    Absolutely, 100% correct. Apple started all of this. 

  • Reply 5 of 112
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member


    What I never understood is how Android got away with pinch to zoom. I thought Apple had a patent on that plus all the other multitouch gestures. Without those you really don't have much of a smartphone.

  • Reply 6 of 112
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    What I never understood is how Android got away with pinch to zoom. I thought Apple had a patent on that plus all the other multitouch gestures. Without those you really don't have much of a smartphone.



    If Apple truly had it all sewed up do you really think they wouldn't have asserted them yet?

  • Reply 7 of 112
    allenbfallenbf Posts: 993member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    If Apple truly had it all sewed up do you really think they wouldn't have asserted them yet?



     


    Patent #7,812,826 was first applied for on December 29, 2006.  Apple owns pinch to zoom.  Just because it hasn't been asserted yet doesn't mean it won't be used, or used later.  Jobs said he'd spend every $ to crush Android for copying.  He meant what he said, and while Cook isn't the fighter Steve was, this is far from over.


     


    tl;dr  It will come up sooner or later.  

  • Reply 8 of 112
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jd_in_sb wrote: »
    If Samsung sells more smartphones then technically this is correct.

    By unit sales, sure, but if you count marketshare in terms of profit or mindshare Apple wins hands down. Mindshare is a double-edged sword and can help as well as well hurt.

    gatorguy wrote: »
    If Apple truly had it all sewed up do you really think they wouldn't have asserted them yet?

    I've never heard of a great chess players moving his queen out right away simply because it's such a powerful piece.
  • Reply 9 of 112
    just_mejust_me Posts: 590member


    image


    image

  • Reply 10 of 112

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by allenbf View Post


     


    Patent #7,812,826 was first applied for on December 29, 2006.  Apple owns pinch to zoom.  Just because it hasn't been asserted yet doesn't mean it won't be used, or used later.  Jobs said he'd spend every $ to crush Android for copying.  He meant what he said, and while Cook isn't the fighter Steve was, this is far from over.


     


    tl;dr  It will come up sooner or later.  



    I just reviewed this patent.  I did not look at all the claims.  However, claim 1, at least, is limited to a continuous adjustment of a graphical object through two different gestures.  I.e., the image zooms continuously if you pinch repeatedly.  I just tested this on my Android, in google maps, and it definitely zooms in steps, not continuously.


     


    For what it's worth, my entire life savings is in AAPL, and I have every reason to judge in Apple's favor.  But I think Android is probably intentionally avoiding this one.

  • Reply 11 of 112
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member


    Apple's hardly an 'underdog, by any stretch of the imagination... and this (pictured below) will likely put an abrupt end to all this 'They Copied Our Ideas' nonsense, and the tech world can get back to competing on a fair/level playing field without fear of Apple's overly-litigious antics:


     


     


    image

  • Reply 12 of 112
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by allenbf View Post


     


    Patent #7,812,826 was first applied for on December 29, 2006.  Apple owns pinch to zoom.  Just because it hasn't been asserted yet doesn't mean it won't be used, or used later.  Jobs said he'd spend every $ to crush Android for copying.  He meant what he said, and while Cook isn't the fighter Steve was, this is far from over.


     


    tl;dr  It will come up sooner or later.  



    err... that patent really covers 'multiple gestures in succession'


     


    from engadget at the time:


     


     


    Quote:



     


    "Apple doesn't have a patent on "pinch-to-zoom" generally, but rather pinching to zoom, and then pinching to zoom again within some fixed period of time."



     


    I do think when the other phones start to get as responsive as a iPhone/Pad, then this patent comes into play (as long as you have to wait for the screen to respond, the experience sucks...  but when I can pinch in rapid succession and get 'instantaneous' response to each, then the lawyers will be firing up the C&D letters.

  • Reply 13 of 112
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    By unit sales, sure, but if you count marketshare in terms of profit or mindshare Apple wins hands down. Mindshare is a double-edged sword and can help as well as well hurt.

    I've never heard of a great chess players moving his queen out right away simply because it's such a powerful piece.


    Apple's not playing chess. It's thermonuclear war.

  • Reply 14 of 112
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Apple's hardly an 'underdog, by any stretch of the imagination... and this (pictured below) will likely put an abrupt end to all this 'They Copied Our Ideas' nonsense, and the tech world can get back to competing on a fair/level playing field without fear of Apple's overly-litigious antics:


     


     


    image



     


    Concepts. Everyone can pull em out of thin air. 


     


    Try again. 

  • Reply 15 of 112


    You are completely missing the point!  Did you not read the article?  Samsung did not bring any of their concepts to market because they sucked and could not figure out all of the "problems" associated with the products.  There is no doubt that Samsun is ripping Apple off!  None!

  • Reply 16 of 112
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Apple's not playing chess. It's thermonuclear war.

    ... and often when one goes 'thermonuclear' they end up blowing themselves up.
  • Reply 17 of 112
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    If Samsung sells more smartphones then technically this is correct.



     


     


    It doesn't matter what either sell now. It matters what both sold back when Apple first introduced the iPhone. Apple faced entrenched players, which was why Nokia's CEO stated publicly Apple was nuts if it thought it was just going to come into the phone market and unseat entrenched players who understand the market better. 

  • Reply 18 of 112
    xmikuxmiku Posts: 32member


    I don't think the before/after comparison is fair, because the operating system dictates how will the phone look like. 

  • Reply 19 of 112
    raptoroo7raptoroo7 Posts: 140member


    Once again Apple's legal team takes shortcuts and alters things to suit their needs.  First off we all know that product designs can take 18-24 months from creation to launch and the I700 (silver phone lower right corner pre-iPhone) was a 2003 launch so saying it was a 2005 phone is way off.  They of course are selectively showing Samsung Windows Phones at the time which Android did not exist and thus their focus was dictated based on technology trends at the time.  Android came along and was focused on touch based input so designs evolved over time.  One thing is for sure a lot of HTC, Dell, Palm, Motorola etc. devices evolved as well.

  • Reply 20 of 112
    raptoroo7raptoroo7 Posts: 140member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by xmiku View Post


    I don't think the before/after comparison is fair, because the operating system dictates how will the phone look like. 



    Not just look but also how the user interfaces and inputs data.  With the push towards touch enable devices being the consumer demand it was clear that (phones being rectangular) with flat surfaces and larger displays unless your Apple and you think 3.5" is still acceptable in the world of 4.5"+

Sign In or Register to comment.