or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple, Samsung present closing arguments in California patent trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Samsung present closing arguments in California patent trial

post #1 of 136
Thread Starter 
Apple and Samsung on Tuesday presented closing arguments in their high-stakes patent trial, with each side jockeying for position ahead of jury deliberation expected to start on Wednesday.

Kicking off Tuesday's proceedings was a reading of the 109-page jury instructions by presiding Judge Lucy Koh, who said, ?I need everyone to stay conscious during [this] — including myself.? In-court reports from All Things D described the long list of 84 instructions as "byzantine," saying the dry document covered details of patent and antitrust law, willful infringement and the dilution of trade dress. At times Judge Koh called for everyone to stand up and "get the blood flowing again."

Apple's closing arguments

Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny wanted to make three main arguments, reports The Verge, the first being "documents are the most valuable key in the truth-finding function." He went on to say that witnesses can be incorrect, "historical documents are almost always where the truth lies."

The second point, and one of the main arguments in Apple's case, was to take into consideration the chronology of events leading to litigation. McElhinny expounded on chronology for nearly 20 minutes, starting with iPhone development in 2003 and ending with Apple's allegations that Samsung copied the "look and feel" of the iPhone and iPad.

Presented for the jury were two familiar slides illustrating the evolution of Samsung product before and after the iPhone first launched in 2007. The information was also made available during the trials' testimony phase in a single exhibit demonstrating the product timeline of Samsung's handsets and tablets post iPhone and iPad.

Before iPhone
Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents

After iPhone

McElhinny pointed out the "crisis of design" document was in response to the lack of success Samsung suffered directly after the iPhone launched. In the comparison document, the Galaxy S was pitted side-by-side against the iPhone, with Samsung engineers taking note of the many features iOS implemented more efficiently than the Korean company's solutions.

The lawyer then called back to internal Samsung emails that showed Google, maker of the Android operating system, demanded the Korean company change the designs of their Galaxy S smartphones and certain tablet products because they looked too similar to Apple's iDevices.

Concluding the Apple counsel's second point of creating a chronology was McElhinny's assertion that Samsung's top executives "were bound and determined to cash in on the iPhone's success." He attributed the company's resurgence in the marketplace to the allegedly copied features, noting sales "took off after the first iPhone-derived product was added to the mix," referencing the Galaxy S. ?They were copying the worlds most successful product,? McElhinny said.

As for the third argument, Apple's attorney brought the Korean tech monolith's case handling into question.

?No Samsung executives were willing to come here from Korea,? McElhinny said. ?We called some of their top people. ? Samsung had a chance to defend itself in this case; instead they sent you lawyers. Instead of witnesses, they brought you lawyers.?

Next, Apple rebuked Samsung's contention that the iPhone's patents are obvious, functional and based on prior art. McElhinny said there "has been a complete failure of proof" regarding the invalidation of Apple's design patents, alluding to Samsung's lack of evidence to support such legal claims.

?Samsung was the iPhone?s biggest fan,? McElhinny said. ?They knew a good thing when they saw it. They tried to compete with it, and when they couldn?t, they copied it.?

Tablet Evolution
Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


The same was said in regard to claims against Apple's utility patents such as the pinch-to-zoom and rubber-banding features seen in iOS.

LaunchTile
LaunchTile technology pointed to as prior art against Apple's utility patents.
Source: University of Maryland Dept. of Computer Science


Also touched on was consumer confusion relating to certain Samsung products, with the lawyer presenting a Best Buy survey that studied the reasons why customers were returning the Galaxy Tab. During testimony, Apple was quick to point out that a number of customers returned the Samsung tablet after realizing it wasn't an iPad. It was later reported that many more customers returned the Galaxy Tab due to malfunctions than mistaken identity, though the metric is still not a positive for Samsung.

Wrapping up, McElhinny said there are two factors driving the damages claims: Samsung sold 22.7 million infringing handsets to date; and sales of said handsets generated $8.16 billion in revenue for the company.

?The damages in this case should be large, because the infringement has been massive,? McElhinny said, presenting four different damages proposals ranging from $519 million to $2.5 billion.

To page 2 of 3: Samsung's closing arguments

Samsung's closing arguments

Unlike Apple's closing argument, Samsung brought up case handling first, taking jabs at the the Cupertino, Calif., company's business practices. Charles Verhoeven, counsel for the Korean company, described Samsung as Apple's biggest competitor, and alluded that the iPhone maker wanted to compete in the courtroom rather than the marketplace.

?Apple?s here asking for what it is not entitled to,? Charles Verhoeven said. ?It?s here asking you to prevent its largest competitor from giving consumers want they want. It?s attempting to block its most serious competitor from even playing the game.?

Verhoeven issued some lofty claims in his remarks, saying to the jury, ?Your decision, if it goes Apple?s way, could change the way competition works in this country."

The Samsung lawyer pushed the repeated argument that Apple's designs were part of a natural design evolution, not any unique invention. He cites the change in design of HDTVs with flat front panels as an example of this naturally occurring change in design.

?Guess what, every single smartphone has a rectangular shape with rounded corners and a big screen,? Verhoeven said. ?Just walk through Best Buy. So Apple is here seeking $2 billion in damages for what? That little ornamentation on the screen. It?s amazing, really. Apple thinks it?s entitled to have a monopoly on a rounded rectangle with a touchscreen.?

Verhoeven dug into Apple expert witness Peter Bressler's testimony, reminding jurors that small details in design may be of importance. To this end, Bressler's take on the flat front face of the iPhone was attacked as a number of Samsung smartphones were presented, including the Galaxy S 4G.

Galaxy S 4G
Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


Next up was Verhoeven's take on Apple's consumer confusion argument, with the attorney saying normal consumers would have no problem distinguishing one from the other. Samsung denies copying or trying to create confusion in the marketplace, Verhoeven said, adding that "Apple has no evidence" to bolster such allegations.

Once again, the rectangle with rounded corners argument was brought up, a bone of contention seen multiple times before both in and out of court. Samsung contends that Apple cannot patent the rectangle shape, and argues against the iPhone's rounded corners by saying many devices have the feature because it is integral to usability.

Verhoeven then brought out a Droid Charge to illustrate how the device's startup sequence is unique when compared to the iPhone, discounting the iPhone maker's claim of consumer confusion. The Charge must first cycle through a Samsung logo, the Droid animation sequence, the proprietary Android skin and a user must press a button before reaching the application screen Apple asserts is being infringed.

As for testimony from Apple's expert witness Susan Kare, Verhoeven scoffed at the idea of being able to patent "a matrix of icons." He brought up the Galaxy Fascinate user interface, which Apple argues Samsung copied from their trademarked icon designs. Kare previously testified that she found "substantial similarities" in the two companies' UIs.

?There are only two icons that Apple?s expert witness said were similar, the phone and the clock," Verhoeven posited. "And I would submit that the vast majority of the icons are substantially different. Let?s not pretend you can patent a colorful row, a colorful matrix of icons.?

Messaging
Apple exhibit comparing Samsung messaging icons with the iOS Messages app.
Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


Getting into the meat of the suit, Verhoeven calls Apple's assertion of copycatting "an intentional attempt to mislead the jury." To drive the point home, a slide was presented showing a chart of numerous Samsung phones, some of which Apple failed to include when making its case.

?They?re intentionally ignoring an entire category of phones,? Verhoeven said. ?This is a shell game. They?re pretending these phones never existed.?

Instead of using Samsung's witnesses to make his closing arguments, the lawyer attacked testimony from Apple's witnesses.

?Counsel for Apple is trying to mislead you,? Verhoeven said, talking to the jury. ?There is no bad intent. There is no copying. Samsung is a good corporate citizen. All it wants to do is make products that consumers want. All this copying evidence is hand-waving by Apple. Why? Because they don?t have anything else.?

Wrapping up, Samsung called Apple's damages number "ridiculous," and said ?Apple didn?t invent touchscreen. Apple didn?t invent the rectangular smartphone with rounded corners. And the intellectual property it is asserting in this case is not worth the money Apple is asking for.?

To page 3 of 3: Rebuttals

Closing argument rebuttals

Rebuttals started with Apple lead counsel William Lee, who had some strong words for Verhoeven's closing remarks.

?There?s a saying among attorneys,? Lee said. ?If you have the facts, stand by the facts. If you don?t, attack your rival?s clients, attack their witnesses and attack their lawyers. And that?s what Samsung has done.? He added that companies should "Compete on [their] own innovations."

More to the point, Lee rebuked Samsung's claims that Apple is attempting to stifle competition, noting research and development investments must be protected in order to survive in the marketplace.

?We have to protect our investment in these innovations. Because if we don?t, we won?t have people like Apple spending five years in a room coming up with a device that revolutionizes the mobile phone," Lee said. "Apple took five years to bring this revolution to us, Samsung took three months to copy it. That?s truth, and that?s simple, clear, and undisputed. Samsung copied our products, and they made $8 billion dollars doing it. What they?re saying to you is this: we don?t want to pay.?

Lee went on to compare the two companies' patents-in-suit, proposing the difference between the two is that Apple's properties are "commercially successful and have been universally praised and copied," while the Samsung products which use the Korean company's inventions asserted in the case "haven?t been praised or copied by anyone.? The lawyer went on to dismantle the Samsung patents in question, including certain 3GPP patents, by restating standards-essential FRAND licensing arguments posed over the course of the trial.

The lead counsel concluded by saying, ?Competition and innovation in this field has been accomplished by real innovators and scientists, not lawyers. Apple wants to compete fairly and squarely. Taking someone else?s intellectual property as Samsung did is not fair and square.?

Following Lee was McElhinny, who said if the jury finds Samsung guilty, they "will have reaffirmed the American patent system."

Samsung's Verhoeven used his remaining 14 minutes to argue FRAND patent issues as well as patent exhaustion in regard to Intel chips used by Apple in the company's products. As most of the time was spent rebutting Apple's claims, not much was said in the way of concluding statements besides the final remark, "Let's have Samsung compete freely in the marketplace instead of Apple trying to stop it in the courtroom."

With that, Apple v. Samsung arguments ended. The jury has received the much-disputed verdict form and will begin deliberations on Wednesday. A timeline for judgment is hard to estimate, though a decision could come as soon as this week.
post #2 of 136

Well, that was quick.

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #3 of 136

I told you it would be over on Tuesday, it was scheduled like this.

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #4 of 136
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
"Samsung was the iPhone's biggest fan," McElhinny said. "They knew a good thing when they saw it. They tried to compete with it, and when they couldn't, they copied it."

 

And it's not that they couldn't, it's that they chose not to. They're quite capable of creating designs that don't look like the iPhone. Just look at everything they made before it came out.

 

Also, I hope I got all the question marks. If anyone sees any other errors, as always, let me know (PM would be fastest)!

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #5 of 136

Here's hoping the jury decide in Apple's favour.

post #6 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by TogetherWeStand View Post

Here's hoping the jury decide in Apple's favour.

If they lose, at least there will still be vodka....

 

And Samsung says Apple only owes them something like 500 mil, which isn't that substantial to Apple.

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #7 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by TogetherWeStand View Post

Here's hoping the jury decide in Apple's favour.

 

I hope so too.  No matter what, it needed to get this far in the court system so that a message can be sent, and a precedent set.

Are Apple's patents valid and be enforced, or will the court decide that it's okay to copy a design without repercussion.  We'll hopefully know soon.

Regardless of the outcome, this will go to appeals for who knows how long.
post #8 of 136

I think you guys know this things before you accusing samsung....

 

1. Samsung alrady developed that design before iphone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-infuriates-apple-with-iphone-evidence-leak-01241146/

 

2. That design is not Apple's own

 

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada-separated-at-birth-part-2/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth/

 


LG Mobile Handset R&D Centre, Woo-Young Kwak, publicly announced the following statement:


"We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006."
We take that to mean "Apple stole our idea."
http://www.applematters.com/article/the-iphone-lawsuits/

 

 

3. Filder Tablet (Prior-Art of ipad)

Here is the tablet that apple copied its design.

 

 

 

 

4. Jeff Han's Multi Touch Before Apple filed its patent

 

Apple : Nothing is original

post #9 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

I think you guys know this things before you accusing samsung....

 

1. Samsung alrady developed that design before iphone

 

(.........)

 

Apple : Nothing is original

 

Well does this prove Samsung didn't copy Apple?

post #10 of 136
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

 

 

Oh, they decided that in 1994… 

 

😔

Originally Posted by 845032 View Post
[post]

 

Except no.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #11 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

I think you guys know this things before you accusing samsung....

 

1. Samsung alrady developed that design before iphone

 

Apple : Nothing is original

 

yeah its not fair eh, I designed the Lamborghini back in the 60s but cause I didn't release/patent or make it known about in any other way, people say I only made those drawings after the Lamborghini came out. Not fair! Not Fair! Not Fair!

post #12 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

I think you guys know this things before you accusing samsung....

 

 

 

How many times have you posted this moronic post and those idiotic comparisons? Are you on Samsung's legal team and just mindlessly vomit out all the desperate horse-shit they've shown/said? You're seriously posting that Fiddler tablet shit again, after Apple built a replica and tore that argument to pieces? If this board had a shred of moderation you would have been banned ages ago. You're a broken record and contribute nothing of worth or intelligence. 

 

Also, with all due respect, learn some english. I don't post on message boards in languages I don't speak, is it too much to ask you to do the same? Almost every word in that 1st sentence of yours is wrong. 

post #13 of 136

The jury foreman threw his back out and was rushed to the hospital. He was last seen struggling to carry the jury instructions to the deliberation room.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #14 of 136

Wouldn't it be great if the jury decided both companies were jerks and award 100,000 to each and tell them to go away and shut up.

 

Strange they are suing each other considering Samsung is investing on expanding a plant to make chips for iPhones

post #15 of 136

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion either right or wrong, & I will not say anything more or get drawn into a debate, but this is my take on the subject.

 

That there were large screen phones & tablets before Apple's iPhone & iPad is not the issue or debated, the issue is how 'almost' all the other brands phones & tablets were changed to try look & act too closely like the iPhone & iPad after they were announced / came out is the issue.

 

As the saying goes, 'the devil is in the detail,' (& could add, the IP where applicable). Hopefully this case will help the other brands realise this.

post #16 of 136
Originally Posted by old-wiz View Post
Wouldn't it be great if the jury decided both companies were jerks and award 100,000 to each and tell them to go away and shut up.

 

Why are you pretending this isn't the most fundamental and earth-shattering case in tech in decades?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #17 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimys1022 View Post

 

Well does this prove Samsung didn't copy Apple?


You don't seem to understand the charges filed. They're quite specific.

post #18 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimys1022 View Post

 

Well does this prove Samsung didn't copy Apple?

If you are using 845033 information, then lets review.

The phones that were in development according to Samsung never made the light of day, since if they had a world class product, you certainly would want to be first to market.

iPad reference is so stupid, not worth replying to that issue, really iPad is copy of 1994 concept tablet, really!

Next you will tell me, Samsung chromebox is not direct copy of Mac Mini.

 

http://www.gadgetreview.com/2012/06/apple-mac-mini-vs-samsung-chromebox.html

http://www.cultofmac.com/170727/samsung-is-now-shamelessly-ripping-off-the-design-of-the-mac-mini/

http://www.cultofmac.com/104985/samsung-certifies-the-most-shameless-smart-cover-rip-off-youll-ever-see/

http://www.cultofmac.com/128500/check-out-the-latest-way-samsung-has-shamelessly-ripped-off-apple/

 

This last one made me laugh, because Samsung are ultimate rip-off artists

 

http://www.cultofmac.com/137562/samsung-shamelessly-steals-child-actress-from-iphone-4s-commercial-to-shill-galaxy-tab-video/

post #19 of 136

I like what Judge William Alsup did when he ordered Oracle and Google to disclose whether they have paid any bloggers, journalists, or commentators to write about the case. This should be done in every case and maybe Judge Koh should order Apple and Samsung to do the same.

post #20 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandigges View Post

If they lose, at least there will still be vodka....

 

And Samsung says Apple only owes them something like 500 mil, which isn't that substantial to Apple.

 

Apple owes me something like 500 ml -- of vodka -- if they lose!

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #21 of 136
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
Apple owes me something like 500 ml -- of vodka -- if they lose!


Celebratory/conciliatory vodka, french fries, elevator shots… 

 

Our community's memes are the only ones of which I approve. lol.gif

 

Next week we'll hear that an inebriated Tim Cook fired an employee during an elevator ride when he refused to give Tim some of his fries… 

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #22 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

Apple : Nothing is original

 

Good. Then you won't mind going back to this:

 

 

It's what you wanted, isn't it? A world without Apple.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #23 of 136
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

It's what you wanted, isn't it? A world without Apple.

 

And since you've brought it up, I think it's time to bring this back to attention… 


Originally posted by It's A Wonderful OS
Jimmy Stewart stars as Steve "Jobs" Bailey, who runs a beleaguered but beloved small-town computer company. For years, big monopolist Bill "Gates" Potter has been wielding his power and money to gain control of the town. And for years, Steve has fought for survival: "This town needs my measly, one-horse computer, if only to have something for people to use instead of Windows!"

But now an angry mob is banging on Apple's front door, panicking.

"The press says your company is doomed!" yells one man.
"You killed the clones! We're going to Windows!" calls another.
"We want out of our investment!" they shout.

Steve, a master showman, calms them. "Don't do it! If Potter gets complete control of the desktop, you'll be forced to buy his bloatware and pay for his cruddy upgrades forever! We can get through this, but we've got to have faith and stick together!" The crowd decides to give him one more chance.

But the day before Christmas, something terrible happens: On his way to the bank, the company's financial man, Uncle Gilly, somehow manages to lose $1.7 billion. With eyes flashing, Steve grabs the befuddled Gilly by the lapels. "Where's that money, you stupid old fool? Don't you realize what this means? It means bankruptcy and scandal! Get out of my company --and don't come back!"

Desperate and afraid, Steve heads to Martini's, a local Internet cafe, and drowns his sorrows in an iced cappuccino. Surfing the Web at one of the cafe's Macs, all he finds online is second-guessing, sniping by critics, and terrible market-share numbers. As a blizzard rages, Steve drives his car crazily toward the river.

"Oh, what's the use?!" he exclaims. "We've lost the war. Windows rules the world. After everything I've worked for, the Mac is going to be obliterated! Think of all the passion and effort these last 15 years -- wasted! Think of the billions of dollars, hundreds of companies, millions of people...." He stands on the bridge, staring at the freezing, roiling river below -- and finally hurls himself over the railing.

After a moment of floundering in the chilly water, however, he's pulled to safety by a bulbous-nosed oddball.

"Who are you?!" Steve splutters angrily.

"Name's Clarence -- I mean Claris," says the guy. "I'm your guardian angel. I've been sent down to help you -- it's my last chance to earn my wings."

"Nobody can help me," says Steve bitterly. "If I hadn't created the Mac, everybody'd be a lot happier: Mr. Potter, the media, even our customers. Hell, we'd all be better off if the Mac had never been invented at all!" Music swirls. The wind howls. The tattoo on Steve's right buttock --Buzz Lightyear from Toy Story -- vanishes. Steve pats the empty pocket where he usually carries his Newton. "What gives?"

"You've got your wish," says Claris. "You never invented the Mac. It never existed. You haven't a care in the world."

"Look, little fella, go off and haunt somebody else," Steve mutters.

He heads over to Martini's Internet cafe for a good stiff drink. But he's shocked at the difference inside. "My God, look at the people using these computers! Both of them -- they look like math professors!"

"They are," says Claris.

"What is this, a museum? It looks like those computers are running DOS!"

"Good eye!" says Claris. "DOS version 25.01, in fact -- the very latest."

"I don't get it," Steve says.

"DOS is a lot better and faster these days, but it hasn't occurred to anybody to market a computer with icons and menus yet. There's no such thing as Windows -- after all, there never was a Mac interface for Microsoft to copy."

"But this equipment is ancient!" Steve exclaims. "No sound, no CD-ROM drive, not even 3.5-inch floppies!"

"Those aren't antiques!" Claris says. "They're state-of-the-art TRS-80s, complete with the latest 12X, 5-inch-floppy drives. Don't forget, Steve: The Mac introduced and standardized all that good stuff you named."

"But that's nuts!" Steve explodes. "You mean to tell me that the 46 percent of American households with computers are all using DOS?"

"Correction: All 9 percent of American households," says Claris cheerfully. "Without a graphic interface, computers are still too complicated to be popular."

"Bartender!" shouts Steve. "You don't have a copy of Wired here, do you? I've got to read up on this crazy reality!" The bartender glares. "I don't know what you're wired on, pal, but either stop talking crazy or get outta my shop."

"No such thing as Wired," whispers Claris. "Never was. Before you wished the Mac away, most magazines were produced entirely on the Mac. Besides, Wired would be awfully thin without the Web."

"Without the -- now, wait just a minute!"

Horrified, Steve rushes over to one of the PCs and connects to the Internet. "You call this the Net? It looks like a text-only BBS -- and there's practically nobody online! Where's Navigator? Where's Internet Explorer? Where's the Web, for Pete's sake?"

"Oh, I see," Claris smiles sympathetically. "You must be referring to all those technologies that spun off from the concept of a graphic interface. Look, Steve. Until the Mac made the mouse standard, there was no such thing as point and click. And without clicking, there could be no Web... and no Web companies. Believe it or not, Marc Andreesen works in a Burger King in Cincinnati."

Steve scoffs. "Well, look, if you apply that logic, then PageMaker wouldn't exist either. Photoshop, Illustrator, FreeHand, America Online, digital movies -- all that stuff began life on the Mac."

"You're getting it," Claris says. He holds up a copy of Time magazine. "Check out the cover price."

Steve gasps. "Eight bucks? They've got a lot of nerve!"

"Labor costs. They're still pasting type onto master pages with hotwax."

"You're crazy!" screams Steve. "I'm going back to my office at Apple!"

He drives like a madman back to Cupertino--but the sign that greets him there doesn't say, "Welcome to Apple." It says, "Welcome to Microsoft South."

"Sorry, Steve; Apple went out of business in 1985," says Claris. "You see, you really did have a wonderful machine! See what a mistake it was to wish it away?"

Steve is sobbing, barely listening. "OK, then -- I'll go to my office at Pixar!"

"You don't have an office at Pixar," Claris reminds him. "There was no Mac to make you rich enough to buy Pixar!"

Steve has had enough. He rushes desperately back to the icy bridge over the river. "Please, God, bring it back! Bring it back! I don't care about market share! Please! I want the Mac to live again!"

Music, wind, heavenly voices -- and then snow begins softly falling. "Hey, Steve! You all right?" calls out Steve's friend Larry from apassing helicopter. Steve pats his pocket -- the Newton is there again! It's all back!

Steve runs through the town, delirious with joy. "Merry Christmas, Wired! Merry Christmas, Internet! Merry Christmas, wonderful old Microsoft!" And now his office is filled with smiling people whose lives the Mac has touched. There's old Mr. Chiat/Day the adman. There's Yanni the musician. And there's Mr. Spielberg the moviemaker. As the Apple board starts singing "Auld Lang Syne," somebody boots up a Power Mac.

Steve smiles at the startup sound. "You know what they say," he tells the crowd. "Every time you hear a startup chime, an angel just got his wings."

 

You can tell when this was written… and it's just as true now as it was then.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #24 of 136

Here is my prediction:

 

Any phone that did not have a Samsung logo on it will be found to be infringing.  Here is my reason, although some of Apple's ideas were not original by themselves, all the design elements put together made Apple's iPhone unique.

 

It was also very clear that Samsung was copying every market leader from Palm Treo to BlackBerry.  Yes, Samsung made many different types of phones, but Samsung made "More" of iPhone looking phones after they realize the iPhone was a huge success.

 

From my research, if a design has a function, it cannot be a trade dress.  For example, the size of the screen cannot be a trade dress.  Or the location of the home button

post #25 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

I think you guys know this things before you accusing samsung....

 

1. Samsung alrady developed that design before iphone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-infuriates-apple-with-iphone-evidence-leak-01241146/

 

2. That design is not Apple's own

 

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada-separated-at-birth-part-2/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth/

 


LG Mobile Handset R&D Centre, Woo-Young Kwak, publicly announced the following statement:


"We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006."
We take that to mean "Apple stole our idea."
http://www.applematters.com/article/the-iphone-lawsuits/

 

 

3. Filder Tablet (Prior-Art of ipad)

Here is the tablet that apple copied its design.

 

 

 

 

4. Jeff Han's Multi Touch Before Apple filed its patent

 

Apple : Nothing is original

 

 

You have several problems with your arguments. I am too lazy to address them all. First, however, Jeff Hand was beat by Fingerworks, which was started in 1998 based on research by Professor Wesserman. It was acquired by Apple in 2005. Fingerworks held several multi-touch patents, that became the property of Apple. See this link. You will also notice Han has not sued Apple. Second, the Fidler Tablet was never built. Apple's witness actual built one to disprove Samsung's prior art argument. 

 

Third, the LG Prada phone and iPhone were announced at about the same time, yet LG used a GUI layered over FLASH. It was worked horribly, and probably only took a few months if that to work out. By comparison, Apple has shown that it actually was working on the GUI that was used on the phone way before the phone was released. Apple actually worked on the iPad first. More importantly, LG never sued Apple even though it hinted it would. There is a reason for that.

 

In terms of Samsung having designs similar to the iPhone in the works before the iPhone in my mind is meaningless. First, Samsung destroyed tons of evidence, and has a history of doing so. Second, being that Samsung supplied Apple many of the parts Apple used, Samsung, likely had inside knowledge of what the iPhone was going to look like well before it was released. 

post #26 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

And since you've brought it up, I think it's time to bring this back to attention… 

 

You can tell when this was written… and it's just as true now as it was then.

I really liked reading that.  It was great.

 

Good luck apple.  Like the other poster said it......

 

Copying is copying.  iPhone may have some other ideas in it but it was a collaboration of greatness.  Samsung is a collaboration of iPhone and that's it.  It's pathetic.  Even copying the packaging!?!  Holy crap.  That's a nail in the coffin if you ask me.

 

I bought an electronic cigarette from blucigs.com, and the packaging that it came it was EXACTLY like unpacking my iphone.  EXACTLY!!!!  It's crazy how EVERYONE copies Apple.

post #27 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

I think you guys know this things before you accusing samsung....
 

<insert whining, b!tching, kicking, screaming, and all Scamsung-paid shilling here>

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

You have several problems with your arguments. I am too lazy to address them all. First, however, Jeff Hand was beat by Fingerworks, which was started in 1998 based on research by Professor Wesserman. It was acquired by Apple in 2005. Fingerworks held several multi-touch patents, that became the property of Apple. See this link. You will also notice Han has not sued Apple. Second, the Fidler Tablet was never built. Apple's witness actual built one to disprove Samsung's prior art argument. 

 

Third, the LG Prada phone and iPhone were announced at about the same time, yet LG used a GUI layered over FLASH. It was worked horribly, and probably only took a few months if that to work out. By comparison, Apple has shown that it actually was working on the GUI that was used on the phone way before the phone was released. Apple actually worked on the iPad first. More importantly, LG never sued Apple even though it hinted it would. There is a reason for that.

 

In terms of Samsung having designs similar to the iPhone in the works before the iPhone in my mind is meaningless. First, Samsung destroyed tons of evidence, and has a history of doing so. Second, being that Samsung supplied Apple many of the parts Apple used, Samsung, likely had inside knowledge of what the iPhone was going to look like well before it was released. 

 

It's unfortunate that your time was wasted in responding to 854032's shill rant.  He's a drive-by troll that not only does not deserve a response, but he will not acknowledge nor man-up to his actions.

post #28 of 136

My question is: How can a jury of 10 people that are not Patent knowledge savvy grasp all the theatrics, BS, and facts presented in this trial. And to top it off an unusual 84 pages of instructions.

 

The outcome should be interesting and surprising.

post #29 of 136
Originally Posted by djkikrome View Post

I bought an electronic cigarette from blucigs.com, and the packaging that it came it was EXACTLY like unpacking my iphone.  EXACTLY!!!!  It's crazy how EVERYONE copies Apple.

 

Myriad Pro Semibold on the box? Plastic indented holder with a circular hole in the middle (you can tell I only own a first-gen iPhone)? Set of two small-size BluCigs logo stickers (with middle-size ones for multiple unit boxes and large-size ones for their electronic cigars)? lol.gif

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #30 of 136

If anyone wants to be entertained, read this Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 review from an Android fansite. This is what Samsung is shitting out with the iPad as a template. Amazing. 

How anyone can root for and support this company, pretending it represents quality and innovation, is beyond me. 

 

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/08/21/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-review-an-embarrassing-lazy-arrogant-money-grab/

 

Quote:

On paper, it all sounds very good. Reality, however, is an entirely different story. It's not enough to just have a good idea, you have to actually make it real, you need to build it.

I'm sad to report that Samsung failed at execution on all fronts. Samsung has been pushing the skinning envelope further and further, and, with this revision of TouchWiz, they've slammed into a brick wall. Couple this failure with astonishingly bad hardware and a $500 price tag, and you've got yourself a real disappointment. Samsung promised us the moon, and then cut corners everywhere possible, and it's hard to walk away not feeling a little insulted.

 

Quote:
  • The build quality. Terrible even by Samsung's low standards. The back is actually squishy, and you can feel it deform while holding it. It's noisy too, the plastic creaks, groans, and grinds when you pick it up. Regular, strong plastic would still be unacceptable when everyone else uses aluminum, but this... this is insulting for a $500 tablet.
  • An ugly two-tone "please don't ever confuse this with an iPad" design. It's not designed to look good, it's only designed to not look like an iPad.
  • A 1280x800 resolution display on a flagship device is not ok. Asus does 1920x1080, and Samsung makes a 9.7 inch, 2048x1536 display for Apple. They seriously cheaped out here.
  • The pen feels cheap too. It's a hollow plastic tube. It's got a button that doesn't do anything useful, and you can't customize it.
  • No NFC on a device that is, by definition, a secondary device. Have aGalaxy S III and a Note 10.1? Well, guess what? You can't tap to share because Samsung cheaped out. 2 months ago, NFC was all the rage at Samsung HQ. Now, all of a sudden, it's not important enough to include in your flagship tablet. What happened?
  • The new multitasking features, floating apps and split screen, just aren't any good. Compatibility is limited to a handful of not-very-useful TouchWiz apps, and split screen has terrible lag when switching between the two open apps.

 

 

Quote:

This is a Samsung device, so you just know things in this department are going to be bad, but I never expected they would be this bad. Sure, there's the usual, tame stuff. You get, for instance, the same nasty looking corner construction I complained about in my Galaxy S III review. But this time, Samsung went all out and invented a new, even more horrible form of plastic.

The Note 10.1 is wrapped in the trashiest, most awful, cheapest-feeling plastic I've ever experienced. Sure, the finish is Samsung's usual glossy-plastic junk, but this plastic isn't even rigid. It's squishy.

Yeah, you heard me, squishy plastic. You can easily flex it with a light touch, and you can feel the whole back deform in your hands when using it. It's sort of like holding a marshmallow. Don't believe me? Watch this:

 

You need to watch the video of him pushing down on the back plastic. Its unreal. These are the products that Apple haters root for simply because they compete against Apple's products. Is this the type of product brought to market from a company that gives a ****? This shit is the same price as the iPad, yet haters call the iPad 'overpriced' a product with screen quality, build quality, and performance that completely decimates this piece of shit. 


Edited by Slurpy - 8/21/12 at 10:14pm
post #31 of 136

Can this type of case be appealed? What are the chances of this being over when this trial is through?

post #32 of 136
Good one !!
Nice reply
post #33 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

 

Good. Then you won't mind going back to this:

 

 

It's what you wanted, isn't it? A world without Apple.

 

His argument is about the phones physical design.

 

YOUR argument is about the OS design.

 

TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS.

 

Stick with the program wise guy.

 

Dont try to play at words.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #34 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


 

In terms of Samsung having designs similar to the iPhone in the works before the iPhone in my mind is meaningless. First, Samsung destroyed tons of evidence, and has a history of doing so. Second, being that Samsung supplied Apple many of the parts Apple used, Samsung, likely had inside knowledge of what the iPhone was going to look like well before it was released. 

 

Those statements are pure speculations on your part. You have no evidence.

 

Apple has also destroyed email evidence. So both parties are at fault.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #35 of 136

Samsung is going to win this one.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #36 of 136
They also stole the Apple Store look as well for their Samsung store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Third, the LG Prada phone and iPhone were announced at about the same time, yet LG used a GUI layered over FLASH. It was worked horribly, and probably only took a few months if that to work out. By comparison, Apple has shown that it actually was working on the GUI that was used on the phone way before the phone was released. Apple actually worked on the iPad first. More importantly, LG never sued Apple even though it hinted it would. There is a reason for that.

The interesting thing to point out is that the iPhone UI, in the SDK uses the MacOS X API, because iOS is MacOS X. This saves Apple from having to write two different operating systems (See where Microsoft dropped the ball with WindowsCE) or having different hardware platforms to compile against (You have one x86 target and one ARM target, or in theory a Universal Binary.) But the tradeoff is that the "iPhone emulator" is nothing more than the iPhone's UI running on full fledged MacOS X. So you can have a really overpowered mac that you develop your software on, and the actual device doesn't run it anywhere near as good. So Samsung trying to claim that Apple didn't invent any of the UI stuff is just silly. I would be willing to bet that the earliest iPad/iPhone prototypes were running the full OS X before someone said 'this isn't a very good experience clicking on these tiny UI elements, Lets throw away finder and try something else"
post #37 of 136
I always think that the Prada phone is a funny case bc it it was announced in December 2006, knowing that Macworld was in January 2007, with many months or years speculating an iPhone announcement., even more closer to the date.
post #38 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Samsung is going to win this one.

 

When you turn on to be wrong, can you finally ban yourself so we can be rid of your fucking trolling? I've yet to see a shadow of a shred of a fact or objectivity in any of your posts. Just drive by trolling bullshit. 

post #39 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

 

His argument is about the phones physical design.

 

YOUR argument is about the OS design.

 

TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS.

 

Stick with the program wise guy.

 

Dont try to play at words.


WTF??  It was a valid comparison.  If it weren't for Apple, Samsung and everyone else would be making Blackberry / Nokia clones.  
 

post #40 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

If anyone wants to be entertained, read this Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 review from an Android fansite. This is what Samsung is shitting out with the iPad as a template. Amazing. 

How anyone can root for and support this company, pretending it represents quality and innovation, is beyond me. 

 

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/08/21/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-review-an-embarrassing-lazy-arrogant-money-grab/

 

 

 

 

 

You need to watch the video of him pushing down on the back plastic. Its unreal. These are the products that Apple haters root for simply because they compete against Apple's products. Is this the type of product brought to market from a company that gives a ****? This shit is the same price as the iPad, yet haters call the iPad 'overpriced' a product with screen quality, build quality, and performance that completely decimates this piece of shit. 


I read and watched it all.  I bookmarked this link to show the next Android fanboy / Scamscum shill that tries to defend such a bad product.  I've only casually seen the Note at the store but never really tried it.  It's usually a wasteland of Android tablets that no one tries so it's kind of sad to be even in the area.  Even I was taken a bit off-guard about the how truly bad Samsung's latest and "greatest", especially coming from an Android fansite.

This is exactly what I've been telling people and fandroids and I get skewered for it.  They are just iHaters and hate for the sake of hating.  For them to even TRY defending Samsung and pretending their products "blows Apple out of the water" is laughable and really does say tons about the posters and their low standards.  Sad, pathetic group of people.

When you're paying $500 for a tablet (like an iPad), to pay that much for Samsung's offering and have it made of cheap plastic, shoddy construction, lower quality screens, etc... that is just an insult of biblical proportions and really shows how little Samsung cares about their products and consumers.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple, Samsung present closing arguments in California patent trial