Apple's Schiller takes stand in Apple v. Samsung retrial, says iPhone was 'bet-the-company' product
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.
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.
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.
Comments
can't litigate my ass!
Even at 400 million that is like a speeding ticket for these companies.
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.
... or has Samsung reverse engineered its way out of infringement?
Hahaha. Seems like that has indeed happened.
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 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?
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.
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!!
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?
They probably wanted an apple bit it was already taken. By the the son, of the Lord.
(very subtle bit in here as well)
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.
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.
There is a count by count overview at WSJ with the design and Utility patents.
Then there's the complete jury form:
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.
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.