Designer says Samsung designs "substantially the same" as Apple's

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Apple on Monday brought its first expert witness to the stand in Peter Bressler, who claimed Samsung's designs were "substantially the same" as Apple's, but faltered when cross-examined by the South Korean company's lawyers.

In his testimony Bressler, founder of design firm Bresslergroup, walked the jury through the designs of numerous Samsung smartphones and tablets in an attempt to illustrate their similarities with Apple's asserted patents.

As noted by CNet, Bressler alleged that Samsung infringes on a number of Apple patents.

"My opinion (is) that there are a number of Samsung phones and two Samsung tablets that are substantially the same as the design in those (Apple) patents," Bressler said. He went on to argue the designs are so similar that a consumer could confuse a Samsung product with an Apple device, a theory suggested by a Samsung study of Best Buy customers.

During cross-examination by Samsung lawyer Charles Verhoeven, however, Bressler admitted that he hadn't witnessed customers mistakenly purchase the Galaxy maker's products. The expert was also grilled over the minutiae in design elements between the two companies' devices, and at one point said, "you're asking me to compare peanut butter and turkey." Verhoeven quickly asked which design was which food, to which Bressler replied, "this is a level of detail that the ordinary observer would never be interested in looking at."

Bressler Testimony
Comparison of Apple and Samsung devices. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


Further questioning saw Samsung asserting prior art claims regarding the iPhone's front face which prompted Bressler to note the comparison was an improper analysis of the design patents. He said that all eight illustrations should be used when examining prior art instead of the one view Samsung was comparing against, notes The Verge.

Bressler claims the standard way of looking at patents is to take the design as a whole rather than dissecting it into small parts.

"I believe the ordinary observer should be getting an overall impression of what the design of the phone is," Bressler said. "I don't believe they should be examining teeny details the way you're doing."

Apple v. Samsung will continue on Tuesday with more testimony from Bressler and Apple expert witness Susan Kare, former Creative Director at NeXT and contributor to the first Mac's graphical elements.
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 124
    just_mejust_me Posts: 590member
    As the world turns
  • Reply 2 of 124
    blitz1blitz1 Posts: 412member
    So much for the idiotic samsung lawyers theory
  • Reply 3 of 124
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member


    Those before and after pictures are really killer. The iPhone one is good too.


     


    It's plain to see that they are "substantially the same." The only defence Samsung could use it to say, "Yes it's the same, but that's the only way to do it." But clearly that is not the only way, as their own previous designs show.

  • Reply 4 of 124
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member


    Its interesting AI doesn't comment on Samsungs line of questioning Brenner about his reimbursement by apple for his involvement in this case.


     


    Either way, does Samsung use other tablets as their prior art, where as apple only use Samsung UMPC.  Did samsung actually ever make a XP tablet edition product?

  • Reply 5 of 124


    I will say whatever Apple wants me to say if they pay me 75,000. Buying off witness and call him a designer?!?!?!?!?!?

  • Reply 6 of 124


    Nice first post. But do you have any proof the guy isn't telling the truth?


    Why exactly are you here other than to slag Apple?


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fairness View Post


    I will say whatever Apple wants me to say if they pay me 75,000. Buying off witness and call him a designer?!?!?!?!?!?


  • Reply 7 of 124
    zynikerzyniker Posts: 75member
    cycomiko wrote: »
    Its interesting AI doesn't comment on Samsungs line of questioning Brenner about his reimbursement by apple for his involvement in this case.

    It's likely not worth mentioning. It is fairly standard practice on cross-examination to inquire into an expert's compensation for his testimony. Experts are paid for their testimony, that is neither new nor surprising, but that does not mean attorneys don't love to imply bias in front of the jury by dredging up that fact on cross.
  • Reply 8 of 124
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


    Its interesting AI doesn't comment on Samsungs line of questioning Brenner about his reimbursement by apple for his involvement in this case.



     


    Considering most viewers of AppleInsider are able to view the rest of the Internet as well, I'm a little unsure what your point is... 

  • Reply 9 of 124
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Zyniker View Post





    It's likely not worth mentioning. It is fairly standard practice on cross-examination to inquire into an expert's compensation for his testimony. Experts are paid for their testimony, that is neither new nor surprising, but that does not mean attorneys don't love to imply bias in front of the jury by dredging up that fact on cross.


     


    It was worth mentioning, as that is the angle that Samsung was using as a foil.




    For AI to ignore that completely, and frame him solely as a design expert, is disingenuous.  

  • Reply 10 of 124

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


     


    It was worth mentioning, as that is the angle that Samsung was using as a foil.




    For AI to ignore that completely, and frame him solely as a design expert, is disingenuous.  



     


    I think it's quite reasonable to assume that any Expert Witness will most likely be compensated as part of the arrangement by which they appear at the Court. They're not first-hand parties to the case, therefore they have been contracted to provide their expert opinion by one side or another. If you read the term 'expert witness' you can assume they're paid but that doesn't mean they're biased on account of and because of that payment (which would be perjury anyway if they were).

  • Reply 11 of 124
    sensisensi Posts: 346member
    Ridiculed paid hack, next.
  • Reply 12 of 124
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    blitz1 wrote: »
    So much for the idiotic samsung lawyers theory

    It's all in the details!

    They have the Big Mac, I have the Big Mic. They have sesame seed buns. Mine have no seeds...

    The average consumer wouldn't fret these little details... You're asking me what?... Of course they taste the same! The hamburger is a form led by the industry!

    What does it matter if my buns are square or have rounded corners!?!
  • Reply 13 of 124


    2006


    Samsung Picture Frame


    image


     


     


    2010


    Apple iPad


     


    image


     


    :|

  • Reply 14 of 124
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post


     


    I think it's quite reasonable to assume that any Expert Witness will most likely be compensated as part of the arrangement by which they appear at the Court. They're not first-hand parties to the case, therefore they have been contracted to provide their expert opinion by one side or another. If you read the term 'expert witness' you can assume they're paid but that doesn't mean they're biased on account of and because of that payment (which would be perjury anyway if they were).



    I do not care if he is reimbursed.




    Its disingenuous for AppleInsider to ignore that, when it was a major part of the oppositions cross examination

  • Reply 15 of 124
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post


    2006


    Samsung Picture Frame


    image


     


     


    2010


    Apple iPad


     


    image


     


    :|



     


    I'm sorry. It has to be said.


     


    You Stupid. Dumb. F*ck.

  • Reply 16 of 124

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


     


    I'm sorry. It has to be said.


     


    You Stupid. Dumb. F*ck.



     U mad bro? trololol

  • Reply 17 of 124
    twopmtwopm Posts: 30member


    Clearly, Apple lost whatever limited capability they had to "innovate".


    Now, all they can do is trying to slow down their superior competitors by aggressive litigation.


    In any case, this case should be handled by in international court, for it is sadly clear that a South Korean company can no longer expect fairness in an american court (and especially in this pig sty of a court under that biased bitch koh).


    South Korea 5ting!

  • Reply 18 of 124
    twopmtwopm Posts: 30member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


     


    I'm sorry. It has to be said.


     


    You Stupid. Dumb. F*ck.



     


    Can't handle the truth, isheep?

  • Reply 19 of 124
    twopmtwopm Posts: 30member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


     


    I'm sorry. It has to be said.


     


    You Stupid. Dumb. F*ck.



     


    Can't handle the truth, isheep?

  • Reply 20 of 124
    chabigchabig Posts: 623member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


    I do not care if he is reimbursed.




    Its disingenuous for AppleInsider to ignore that, when it was a major part of the oppositions cross examination



     


    Appleinsider also neglected to mention that Samsung's attorney is receiving monetary compensation. So is Apple's counsel. And so is the judge. For that matter, so are the jurors.

Sign In or Register to comment.