Apple's Schiller takes stand in Apple v. Samsung retrial, says iPhone was 'bet-the-company' product

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
As the Apple v. Samsung trial continues in San Jose, California, Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller testified on Thursday, explaining the risks involved in developing and bringing to market a new device like the iPhone.

GPS
Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller revealing the first-generation iPad mini.


According to multiple in-court reports from various publications, Thursday's Apple v. Samsung proceedings were quite dry, with little information coming to light that had not already aired in the landmark jury trial last year.

Apple and Samsung are disputing roughly $400 million in damages U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh vacated in March after finding inaccuracies in the jury's award calculations. The current trial pertains to these damages, with Apple seeking some $380 million, while Samsung claims the correct amount is closer to $52 million.

As for Schiller's testimony, CNET reports the Apple executive took the stand near the end of Thursday's session, with only minutes to introduce himself and quickly describe the importance of the iPhone.

"There were huge risks," Schiller said about the original iPhone. "We had a saying inside the company that it was a 'bet-the-company' product. We were starting to do well again in iPod. Then here we're going to invest all these resources, financial as well as people, in creating this product."

He went on to say that now "almost everyone" at Apple works on the iPhone project in some capacity.

Apple argues, as it did in the 2012 jury trial, that Samsung infringed on certain utility and design patents with its smartphone and tablet lineup. In the retrial, Apple is asserting five patents against 13 Samsung devices. It will be up to the jury to decide what damages should be awarded to the Cupertino company.

The case continues tomorrow and is scheduled to run into next week, with deliberations to follow.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 69

    can't litigate my ass!

  • Reply 2 of 69
    Whether it's 50 million or 400 million, it's pocket change to both these companies. They probably spent more fighting the case than that. What I would like to know is what happens going forward (other than Apple winning the right to brand it's biggest competitor a convicted thief). Will there be royalties or licensing involved or has Samsung reverse engineered its way out of infringement?
  • Reply 3 of 69

    Even at 400 million that is like a speeding ticket for these companies.

  • Reply 4 of 69
    sennensennen Posts: 1,465member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post



    Whether it's 50 million or 400 million, it's pocket change to both these companies. They probably spent more fighting the case than that. What I would like to know is what happens going forward (other than Apple winning the right to brand it's biggest competitor a convicted thief). Will there be royalties or licensing involved or has Samsung reverse engineered its way out of infringement?

     

    I don't see why Apple should license anything, especially to a company that stole from them.

  • Reply 5 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post



    ... or has Samsung reverse engineered its way out of infringement?

    Hahaha. Seems like that has indeed happened.

  • Reply 6 of 69
    The jury would be quite a dummy if it decides to listen to samsungs proposal of a 50 million payout. They were found guilty already and they even admitted it recently to the court. They're in no position to negotiate what they owe, samsung as a company clearly only cares about money, Apple was never about that and they're just trying to protect their intellectual property Samsung has been making billions of dollars off of.
  • Reply 7 of 69
    As the Apple v. Samsung trial continues in San Jose, California, Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller testified on Thursday, explaining the risks involved in developing and bringing to market a new device like the iPhone.

    <div align="center"><img src="http://cdn1.appleinsider.com/ipadmini121023-1.jpg" width="660" height="363" alt="GPS" class="lazy" data-original="http://cdn1.appleinsider.com/ipadmini121023-1.jpg" style="display: inline;"><br><span class="minor2 small gray"></span></div>

    That's one freaking big iPhone! Yes, yes, caption. But the case is about the iPhone; I'd use a different picture. But that's just me.
  • Reply 8 of 69
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    I hope someday soon Apple can get away from Scamscum entirely.  I'm sick of Scamsum. I will NEVER buy a product they sell with their name on it.  EVER.  Their products are banned from my home.  

  • Reply 9 of 69
    drblank wrote: »
    I hope someday soon Apple can get away from Scamscum entirely.  I'm sick of Scamsum. I will NEVER buy a product they sell with their name on it.  EVER.  Their products are banned from my home.  
    So no more iPhones & iPads for you then?
  • Reply 10 of 69
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post





    So no more iPhones & iPads for you then?

    Did you not finish school and learn how to read?   re-read what i said. I'm not going to buy a Samsung product with their name on it.  If I buy an iPhone or IPad, it's got Apple's name on it.  Not Samsung's.   

  • Reply 11 of 69
    adybadyb Posts: 183member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    That's one freaking big iPhone! Yes, yes, caption. But the case is about the iPhone; I'd use a different picture. But that's just me.

     

    I agree. Without reading anything, I might have guessed that was Samsung's latest phablet!!

  • Reply 12 of 69
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    So no more iPhones & iPads for you then?

    Yes, I'm afraid you've revealed your poor comprehension skills there:

    Product - an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.

    Component - a part or element of a larger whole, especially a part of a machine or vehicle.

    As defined by the Oxford Dictionary.

    What does the "Lord" stand for in your name? "Lord, he's incredibly uneducated!" or "Lord, he's desperately grasping at straws"

    If you think that Samsung designed any of those products then I can't help but ask why, when they are turned over, we are unable to find the Samsung logo anywhere?

    Or why we can't buy them when we walk into a Samsung store?
  • Reply 13 of 69
    gtr wrote: »
    If you think that Samsung designed any of those products then I can't help but ask why, when they are turned over, we are unable to find the Samsung logo anywhere?

    They probably wanted an apple bit it was already taken. By the the son, of the Lord.

    (very subtle bit in here as well)
  • Reply 14 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,282member
    Apple argues, as it did in the 2012 jury trial, that Samsung infringed on certain utility and design patents with its smartphone and tablet lineup. It will be up to the jury to decide what damages should be awarded to the Cupertino company.

    Wha?? Why the heck would there be any argument about that? It's settled case-law at this stage with absolutely zero to be decided about whether infringement happened. For the sake of this limited retrial it's an indisputable fact Samsung infringed, period. Nothing to argue about in this venue other than the dollar damages for it.
  • Reply 15 of 69
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Wha?? Why the heck would there be any argument about that? It's settled case-law at this stage with absolutely zero to be decided about whether infringement happened. For the sake of this limited retrial it's an indisputable fact Samsung infringed, period. Nothing to argue about in this venue other than the dollar damages for it.

    And if it's "up to the jury to decide what damages should be awarded" why is the amount being lowered by a judge? Or was that a different case? With all these new iPhones and iPads flying around, I'm losing touch.
  • Reply 16 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,282member
    philboogie wrote: »
    And if it's "up to the jury to decide what damages should be awarded" why is the amount being lowered by a judge? Or was that a different case? With all these new iPhones and iPads flying around, I'm losing touch.

    Clear jury error in calculating damages for those specific phones.

    14 phones weren't found by the original jury to infringe on at least one of the patents the others were IIRC but still received the same damage amount (percent). I think one phone may have been added back to the original damages after the fact. Since the jury didn't ascribe damages on a per-patent basis but instead one lump sum there was no way for the court to determine how much to deduct for the non-infringement of that patent. Was there an equal value set by the jury for each of the infringed patents or did they consider some to be more valuable than others? In the jury's opinion was the non-infringed patent the most valuable of the lot or the least? So another jury gets seated to figure out what damages value should be assigned to those remaining 5 patents applied to those 13 (14?) Samsung phones.

    In any case it won't be more than Apple was awarded the first time if I'm reading it right. Jury instructions were that the award should be between $52M and $380M, less than the $400+ the first go-round.

    EDIT: One somewhat important thing to note is that whatever award is finally set there's interest already accruing on it based on the 52-week Treasury Rate. Should be enough to put a ding in the attorney fees.
  • Reply 17 of 69
    gatorguy wrote: »
    ^ post

    There is a count by count overview at WSJ with the design and Utility patents.
    700

    Then there's the complete jury form:
    1000

    Then there's the breakdown of damages awarded, but I'm terrible at searching the internet, and can't find it (quickly). Some list of per patent infringement with the amount of damages, like $3 for this $10 for that.
  • Reply 18 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,282member
    philboogie wrote: »
    There is a count by count overview [

    Then there's the complete jury form:
    1000

    Then there's the breakdown of damages awarded, but I'm terrible at searching the internet, and can't find it (quickly). Some list of per patent infringement with the amount of damages, like $3 for this $10 for that.

    If there was a per-patent dollar breakdown then Judge Koh could have determined how much to adjust the original erroneous damage award by...
    but there wasn't which is why you have trouble finding it.
  • Reply 19 of 69
    gatorguy wrote: »
    If there was a per-patent dollar breakdown then Judge Koh could have determined how much to adjust the original erroneous damage award by...
    but there wasn't which is why you have trouble finding it.

    Ah, ok, thanks. See, that's the trouble with these search engines; you can search for anything, but you can only find what exists.
  • Reply 20 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,282member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Ah, ok, thanks. See, that's the trouble with these search engines; you can search for anything, but you can only find what exists.

    ...damn search engines.
Sign In or Register to comment.