Apple's Schiller rehashes prior testimony in second Apple v. Samsung trial
As the first day of Apple's second California patent trial against Samsung drew to a close on Tuesday, the suit's first witness, Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller, took the stand to deliver testimony nearly identical to that given twice before during the first Apple v. Samsung case.
Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller revealing the first-generation iPad mini.
As noted by multiple in-court reports on Tuesday, Schiller hit the same bullet points under direct examination, taking jurors into the process behind developing, producing and marketing Apple's iPhone.
A familiar story for tech reporters and anyone who followed the first Apple v. Samsung trial, Schiller walked jurors through Apple's "New Product Process," just as he did last November during a retrial for vacated damages. Paramount to the executive's testimony was conveying the risk Apple took in developing the iPhone.
Schiller illustrated the handset's success through graphs, charts and articles -- many of which were identical to those seen in his previous testimony -- before moving on to the iPad, reports Re/code.
According to reporter Mike Swift, Schiller said Samsung's "copying" hurts Apple's clout as an innovator. The alleged copycat devices from Samsung have diluted Apple's cachet.
On cross-examination by Samsung's Bill Price, Schiller admitted that he was not fully briefed on the patents-in-suit, eroding somewhat the executive's claims of copying.
When asked to share his first impressions of the Samsung Galaxy, Schiller said, "It looked so much like an attempt to copy the iPhone." He reiterated that Apple had been harmed by Samsung's alleged copying.
"It has caused people to question some of the innovations we created," Schiller said, according to Re/code$2 billion in damages from Samsung on infringement of five patents. The Korean tech giant argues Apple's claims are narrow, cover minor software tweaks and should never have been granted.
Samsung is also leveling claims of its own in the second Apple v. Samsung trial, but the company's case has been whittled down to two claims from two patents.
Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller revealing the first-generation iPad mini.
As noted by multiple in-court reports on Tuesday, Schiller hit the same bullet points under direct examination, taking jurors into the process behind developing, producing and marketing Apple's iPhone.
A familiar story for tech reporters and anyone who followed the first Apple v. Samsung trial, Schiller walked jurors through Apple's "New Product Process," just as he did last November during a retrial for vacated damages. Paramount to the executive's testimony was conveying the risk Apple took in developing the iPhone.
Schiller illustrated the handset's success through graphs, charts and articles -- many of which were identical to those seen in his previous testimony -- before moving on to the iPad, reports Re/code.
According to reporter Mike Swift, Schiller said Samsung's "copying" hurts Apple's clout as an innovator. The alleged copycat devices from Samsung have diluted Apple's cachet.
On cross-examination by Samsung's Bill Price, Schiller admitted that he was not fully briefed on the patents-in-suit, eroding somewhat the executive's claims of copying.
When asked to share his first impressions of the Samsung Galaxy, Schiller said, "It looked so much like an attempt to copy the iPhone." He reiterated that Apple had been harmed by Samsung's alleged copying.
"It has caused people to question some of the innovations we created," Schiller said, according to Re/code$2 billion in damages from Samsung on infringement of five patents. The Korean tech giant argues Apple's claims are narrow, cover minor software tweaks and should never have been granted.
Samsung is also leveling claims of its own in the second Apple v. Samsung trial, but the company's case has been whittled down to two claims from two patents.
Comments
So if Samsung and Apple regurg their arguments from the first trial, wouldn't that mean the outcome is a given?
A court of law, in front of the most clueless and uninformed people the lawyers will allow to hear the case, can come up with a verdict that will defy common sense and the laws of gravity. This is why attorneys with a weak case love to sue in the hinterlands of Texas.
How the Samsung logo was born:
(from redmondpie.com)
Apple is the best!
Samesong.
Shamshun.
So if Samsung and Apple regurg their arguments from the first trial, wouldn't that mean the outcome is a given?
If course were purely scientific and the last result was entitle correct, then yes. Both both those things are unprovable. I personally don't think $2B is enough. Samsung are making that per month. I think the courts need to send a message and give Apple $5B or more.
They can only go by what was earned on the offending devices which they're not selling anymore. Current earnings would be exempt from this trial.
Then who's going to be the 'bad guy'?
Poor Koh, forced to listen to the same testimonies again, for 25 hours!
Of course his testimony is a "rehash" of what he said before. It's a different jury that hasn't heard anything about this. If a Broadway play opens to rave reviews do you criticize the performers for putting on the same show the next night?
If course were purely scientific and the last result was entitle correct, then yes. Both both those things are unprovable. I personally don't think $2B is enough. Samsung are making that per month. I think the courts need to send a message and give Apple $5B or more.
I'd go a step further and go the route of if there are current phones being sold by Samsung that infringe on Apple's patents, Apple should a portion of that sale (if they're not pulled from shelves). Maybe this will force Samsung to actually innovate and design their own things. Most other manufacturers outside of Apple are doing this. As an example, to me the recently announced HTC phone is a nice looking phone, but really doesn't look anything like an iPhone. It can be done if you try!
If you were purely scientific you wouldn't try to sound like Nostradamus in your posts.
How can it be that Schiller wasn't briefed on the patents-in-suite? That's kind of strange. The defense should have informed the witness of the case at hand I would think.
How can it be that Schiller wasn't briefed on the patents-in-suite? That's kind of strange. The defense should have informed the witness of the case at hand I would think.
Actually, it is a good thing, if he was then it open him up to questions about the specific patent in question. This way they can not ask him question about it, and Apple can bring in their own subject matter experts verse getting Schiller opinions on the patents. His purpose in the trial is to explain the harm Samsung did with creating confusion in the market place.
You all realize that Samsung has not paid Apple a Penny from the last case, they are still trying to appeal the total decision, you can expect the same from this case if Apple wins again.
I like it. Samsung didn't change its behavior one whit after the first jury found them guilty of infringement. It's the same show, on five additional Apple patents, and I'm not surprised Apple's lawyers are pursuing the same arguments.
Although little mentioned in the recent coverage, for what it's worth, Koh has already entered summary judgement against Samsung on one of the patents (as noted previously on AI). All the jury needs to do on that one is decide what damages (if any) are due Apple for that infringement.
The wicked don't like justice being served.
Karma, perhaps, for not awarding Apple triple damages and a ban on the infringing Samsung objects.