Samsung experts say Apple's patented features not valuable in trial
During the Apple v. Samsung trial on Friday, Samsung continued its defense by calling on a number of expert witnesses who asserted Apple has grossly exaggerated the value assigned to each of its patents-in-suit.
According to in-court reports, Samsung spent most of the day trying to dismantle Apple's patent valuation arguments that put damages in the case at nearly $2.2 billion on lost profits and royalties. The Korean company calls the number a "gross exaggeration" of the patents' worth.
Apple is seeking damages on five patents, including the so-called "slide-to-unlock" feature made popular by the original iPhone, unified search, data identifiers, background syncing and word input prediction.
In Friday's proceedings, Samsung brought up New York University professor Tulin Erdem who blames the inflated damages claim on an allegedly flawed study presented by Apple expert John Hauser, reports Re/code.
Earlier in the case Hauser, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified that his conjoint survey found smartphone users willing to spend between $32 to $102 for the features covered by Apple's patents.
Erdem argued that Hauser's study created "demand artifacts" by teaching consumers about features most were not aware of and did not already value.
"You are elevating artificially the importance, the value of these things," Erdem said. "They are not even in the radar screen of consumers. These are very granular...and they wouldn't drive demand."
As noted by Re/code, the statement was slightly different from her deposition, in which Erdem said Apple's patents covered features that only a "weird" or "crazy person" or a "techno-whatever" would see as valuable.
According to CNET, Erdem offered specifics of her own studies that used eye-tracking technology to discover what consumers look for in a smartphone.
"As a group, the minor things didn't drive demand," Erdem said. "It was the major things that drive demand."
Included among these "minor" features are processors, an on-screen keyboard, and GPS. She went on to say that extras like a secondary camera also do not impact consumer desire. However, Erdem failed to include the features described by Apple's patents in her study, saying it wouldn't be in line with consumer review and comparison websites.
Apple pointed out that Erdem's testimony ran counter to that of Samsung expert David Reibstein, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. Reibstein also disagreed with the results of Hauser's study, in part because it did not include the very features Erdem omitted.
"You're trying to predict what it is people will buy, and if you just focus on smaller aspects and a couple major factors, you're going to miss what would drive sales and why people would buy your products," Reibstein said of Hauser's survey.
Reibstein said using the study is similar to determining what car consumers would buy by asking which cup holder they like rather than noting an auto company's brand, CNET reports.
Friday's proceedings wrapped up week three of the second California Apple v. Samsung patent trial. Presiding Judge Lucy Koh said the testimony phase of the trial should be completed by next Friday with closing arguments to be heard on Apr. 28.
According to in-court reports, Samsung spent most of the day trying to dismantle Apple's patent valuation arguments that put damages in the case at nearly $2.2 billion on lost profits and royalties. The Korean company calls the number a "gross exaggeration" of the patents' worth.
Apple is seeking damages on five patents, including the so-called "slide-to-unlock" feature made popular by the original iPhone, unified search, data identifiers, background syncing and word input prediction.
In Friday's proceedings, Samsung brought up New York University professor Tulin Erdem who blames the inflated damages claim on an allegedly flawed study presented by Apple expert John Hauser, reports Re/code.
Earlier in the case Hauser, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified that his conjoint survey found smartphone users willing to spend between $32 to $102 for the features covered by Apple's patents.
Erdem argued that Hauser's study created "demand artifacts" by teaching consumers about features most were not aware of and did not already value.
"You are elevating artificially the importance, the value of these things," Erdem said. "They are not even in the radar screen of consumers. These are very granular...and they wouldn't drive demand."
As noted by Re/code, the statement was slightly different from her deposition, in which Erdem said Apple's patents covered features that only a "weird" or "crazy person" or a "techno-whatever" would see as valuable.
According to CNET, Erdem offered specifics of her own studies that used eye-tracking technology to discover what consumers look for in a smartphone.
"As a group, the minor things didn't drive demand," Erdem said. "It was the major things that drive demand."
Included among these "minor" features are processors, an on-screen keyboard, and GPS. She went on to say that extras like a secondary camera also do not impact consumer desire. However, Erdem failed to include the features described by Apple's patents in her study, saying it wouldn't be in line with consumer review and comparison websites.
Apple pointed out that Erdem's testimony ran counter to that of Samsung expert David Reibstein, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. Reibstein also disagreed with the results of Hauser's study, in part because it did not include the very features Erdem omitted.
"You're trying to predict what it is people will buy, and if you just focus on smaller aspects and a couple major factors, you're going to miss what would drive sales and why people would buy your products," Reibstein said of Hauser's survey.
Reibstein said using the study is similar to determining what car consumers would buy by asking which cup holder they like rather than noting an auto company's brand, CNET reports.
Friday's proceedings wrapped up week three of the second California Apple v. Samsung patent trial. Presiding Judge Lucy Koh said the testimony phase of the trial should be completed by next Friday with closing arguments to be heard on Apr. 28.
Comments
Samsung. We would love to reach the height of Apple, but were just not tall enough.
Meanwhile, Apple's patented features are used and loved by millions of people around the world. Samsung might take notice of these things, which are far greater than their pathetic patent bashing on Apple.
Samsung. We would love to reach the height of Apple, but were just not tall enough.
It seems it's in blood of Korean companies. Look at Samsung or Hyundai in their respective category. No doubt, they have better copy machine engineers to make replica at lower cost with quality HW, but not capable of any innovation on SW.
I agree. Plus I think they actually are proud of copying the works of others. And that isn't limited to Korea either.
That TV is not really valuable, I'll just take it, here's 5 bucks.
Besides those patents Shamesung copied more than 1000 things from Apple and whole world knows that, even now recently they copied Apple'iPhone features with their S5: Fingerprint Scanner, Gold obtion color, Camera located on Locked Screen, Slow Mo 720p at 128 fps (Depth of field), fast autofocus, SHealth + Heartrate sensor (M7 + Nike app), TouchWizz (iOS 7 look)...i don't understand why Shamesung doesnt atleast pay for that 5 patents for what Apple is asking.
If these patents are as worthless as Samsung claims, then why don't they just drop them out of their products? They'd lose nothing of any value, by their logic.
Even the name S5 is an inversion of 5S. That's how innovative they are.
I hope you're being sarcastic on that one, considering the use of S through S4.
While it wasn't the sole reason for the car, it was a feature that was definitely a plus.
Sorry, forgot about that... Here it is... S4 is an inversion of 4S.
Okay I'll keep in mind that you're just another troll. The line goes back to S. S, S2, S3, S4.... What's after 4 Mr. Troll?
Samsung's defense is like a carjacker stealing a car and after getting busted claiming that they should be let off the hook because they think it was an inexpensive car, "it was only a Ford and not a Mercedes." So the thief gets to assert the value of what they steal? I think a four year old cookie jar thief could come up with a better defense than this. Very pathetic, but with a jury trial you never know how lame of a defense will play to the emotions of the jury members.
Also, if all those Apple patented features have "no value" then Samsung should have no problem at all and not suffer any business losses by promptly removing all those "non valuable" features from all of their infringing products. That seems like a reasonable and equitable remedy. Oh, by the way that's exactly what Apple has been asking them and the Android community to do all along, "quit copying our stuff." Only after most of them collectively thumbed their noses and flipped off Apple did the lawyers have to get called in. Now it's all ugly and messy and stupid.
I wouldn't lump Samsung's sleazeball business practices and customer contempt (Apple was their biggest customer) with the ethics and morality of an entire nation of incredibly hard working, highly moral, and extremely dedicated people. The USA has had more than it's fair share of sleazeballs (e.g. Enron, most of the companies involved in the subprime mortgage crisis/crash of 2008) so no nation has exclusivity on morality or immorality. It's individuals and individual organizations like Samsung in its dealings with Apple that make you think that the whole system is broken, but it's not. Most people and most organizations play by the rules and respect their customers.
I'm still in shock that the greater Samsung organization would jeopardize its global reputation, public image,business relationships, and trustworthiness as a business partner by publicly violating their biggest customer. Being defiant and resorting to further denigration of their business partner and customer, not to mention their customer's customers, is not a way to save face. I hope that Samsung can rescue themselves from this moral crisis and get someone in the chief leadership position who can restore their reputation as a trusted business partner. Even if Samsung "wins" some of these tiny battles in court due to clueless and befuddled juries they'll never be able to get rid of the stink that they've attached to themselves as a trusted business partner. If Apple didn't have so many supply channel dependencies on Samsung they would have jettisoned them at the onset of this situation. No doubt that Apple is trying to exorcise the Samsung dependencies as quickly as they can. This should be a big red flag for all other product vendors looking to source components from Samsung. If you think you're dealing with a trusted business partner or even just a reliable supplier: think again - and watch your back.
Meanwhile, what's the latest with the Rockstar trial?