Apple and Samsung give closing remarks in damages retrial, Samsung pushes for mistrial
In the Apple v. Samsung damages retrial on Tuesday, attorneys for each side offered their respective closing pitches to jurors -- one of which prompted Samsung to call for a mistrial -- as a decision is close at hand.
A slide from the Apple v. Samsung trial
During Tuesday's proceedings, Apple counsel Harold McElhinny used his allotted 90 minutes to restate evidence presented over the course of the week-long retrial, which for Apple is a chance to be "made whole" by reinstating some $380 million in vacated damages. In opposition, Samsung attorney William Price said Apple exaggerated the importance of the five patents-in-suit.
Of particular interest was a request to call a mistrial over a portion of McElhinny's closing arguments. According to CNET, the Apple lawyer said U.S. television manufacturers went belly-up because they did not adequately protect their patents. Samsung took this as playing a nationalistic/racial card, which has no place in the case.
"Our economy will disappear," McElhinny said of the U.S., offering the history of once-strong American TV manufacturers as an example. "If the cost of breaking the law is a small fine [...] Samsung's copying will have proven successful."
Despite hearing repeated requests for a mistrial, presiding U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied the motion, but instructed jurors to disregard where Apple and Samsung are based. Also not to be considered are race and other comments that could negatively color the arguments.
"I don't think what occurred rises to the level of a mistrial, but some remedy might be appropriate to avoid further issues later on," Koh said.
Comparison of Apple and Samsung devices. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents
According to further in-court reports from Reuters, Apple counsel Bill Lee hammered Samsung over its inability to produce senior executives for testimony, saying the jury should instead be guided by the Korean company's internal documents. The papers, when presented by Apple, point to an informed change in smartphone design and operation when the iPhone first debuted.
"Witnesses forget, or in the case of Samsung here, witnesses don't appear," Lee said.
As for Samsung, Price said the company is willing to pay a penalty for infringed patents, but noted it should not be made to overcompensate for design flourishes that any manufacturer should be able to incorporate in their products.
"Apple doesn't own beautiful and sexy," Price said. "What they're saying is, in the market, justice is just us."
The soon to be decided case involves 13 Samsung products found to be in infringement of five Apple patents. In 2012, the Apple v. Samsung jury trial awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages incurred by Samsung's copycat products. Later, Judge Koh vacated $450 million from the total after finding discrepancies in that jury's calculations. The jurist called for a retrial on the products tied to the vacated damages to settle the matter.
Apple is seeking $380 million for lost profits, Samsung profits and royalties pertaining to the infringement of five U.S. patents. Samsung does not dispute that it infringed upon Apple's property, but argues damages should be limited to $53 million.
The retrial jury is scheduled to begin deliberations today.
A slide from the Apple v. Samsung trial
During Tuesday's proceedings, Apple counsel Harold McElhinny used his allotted 90 minutes to restate evidence presented over the course of the week-long retrial, which for Apple is a chance to be "made whole" by reinstating some $380 million in vacated damages. In opposition, Samsung attorney William Price said Apple exaggerated the importance of the five patents-in-suit.
Of particular interest was a request to call a mistrial over a portion of McElhinny's closing arguments. According to CNET, the Apple lawyer said U.S. television manufacturers went belly-up because they did not adequately protect their patents. Samsung took this as playing a nationalistic/racial card, which has no place in the case.
"Our economy will disappear," McElhinny said of the U.S., offering the history of once-strong American TV manufacturers as an example. "If the cost of breaking the law is a small fine [...] Samsung's copying will have proven successful."
Despite hearing repeated requests for a mistrial, presiding U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied the motion, but instructed jurors to disregard where Apple and Samsung are based. Also not to be considered are race and other comments that could negatively color the arguments.
"I don't think what occurred rises to the level of a mistrial, but some remedy might be appropriate to avoid further issues later on," Koh said.
Comparison of Apple and Samsung devices. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents
According to further in-court reports from Reuters, Apple counsel Bill Lee hammered Samsung over its inability to produce senior executives for testimony, saying the jury should instead be guided by the Korean company's internal documents. The papers, when presented by Apple, point to an informed change in smartphone design and operation when the iPhone first debuted.
"Witnesses forget, or in the case of Samsung here, witnesses don't appear," Lee said.
As for Samsung, Price said the company is willing to pay a penalty for infringed patents, but noted it should not be made to overcompensate for design flourishes that any manufacturer should be able to incorporate in their products.
"Apple doesn't own beautiful and sexy," Price said. "What they're saying is, in the market, justice is just us."
The soon to be decided case involves 13 Samsung products found to be in infringement of five Apple patents. In 2012, the Apple v. Samsung jury trial awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages incurred by Samsung's copycat products. Later, Judge Koh vacated $450 million from the total after finding discrepancies in that jury's calculations. The jurist called for a retrial on the products tied to the vacated damages to settle the matter.
Apple is seeking $380 million for lost profits, Samsung profits and royalties pertaining to the infringement of five U.S. patents. Samsung does not dispute that it infringed upon Apple's property, but argues damages should be limited to $53 million.
The retrial jury is scheduled to begin deliberations today.
Comments
"Apple doesn't own beautiful and sexy," Price said. "What they're saying is, in the market, justice is just us."
Samsung's lawyers love these strawman, irrelevant, childish arguments that have nothing to do with the point.
Scumbags.
Actually, Apple does own beautiful and sexy.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> But, anyway, this trial is about patent infringement, and the Samsung representative seems to have forgotten that.
Samsung really cheaped out on their lawyers.
Samsung needs to be brought down a notch. They think they are not liable for any of there actions like some spoiled kid. This has to stop and I think Apple will someday convince the courts enough is enough already.
Hopefully the jury here is more wise then the judge as she has turned down action in the past against Samsung. Now the appeals court has turned down Judge Koh for her lack of action against Samsung. Maybe that will also get some justice here for Apple as well.
Also not to be considered are race ...... that could negatively color the arguments.
Couldn't help chuckling at that one.... (emphasis mine).
AND ... yes samsung, for as long as I'm alive, I support Made / Designed In California!
Hoping for a speedy and positive outcome.
They are REALLY pushing it. REAL SCUM.
"U come here lookin' for justice and that's what u find... Just Us" (Richard Pryor)
Loser Government gets involve in each and everything but cannot see OUTSIDER Company abusing Court System and Copying American products.
Get involve here you mindless fruckers and damage those liars
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Grill those Liars in Congressional hearings and issue a ban on cheaters
If S Korea tries to act smart, leave N Korea out of cage for a hunt
Dominate on the ones who cheat, not on ones who cannot fight back!
Samsung really cheaped out on their lawyers.
I find it difficult to call them lawyers, when they don't know the meaning of "confidential."
I find it difficult to call them lawyers, when they don't know the meaning of "confidential."
At least they got the first syllable right...
Apple needs to stop worrying about the old design of the iphone and worry about the next big thing. I love apple, but it worries me how desperate they are in trying to stop a copycat because they are slowing losing their market share in smartphones.
You don't have the remotest clue about what thievery is, and why it's a crime, do you?
You don't have the remotest clue about what thievery is, and why it's a crime, do you?
I believe Apple is also going to have that problem when it comes to a jury. The jury foreman is really the one that screwed Apple if what I read about the first trial is true. I really don't think people take patents seriously and most don't really see the harm. If I remember correctly the jury foreman in the first trial was seen as manipulating the jury because he has filed patents in the past.
I could be wrong but I think Samsung is going to get away easy on this. No one ever wants something to go to a jury because it can go big in either direction.
Apple and Samsung give closing remarks in damages retrial:
Apple Representative: F*ck you.
Samsung Representatative: F*ck you, also.
Apple Representative: Did you just Goddamn copy us AGAIN?
By muddying the waters and playing on the lack of knowledge of the average consumer, saying things like "it's all about rounded corners" and other idiocy will commercially compensate for any legal losses Samsung has to pay. Hence, they should pay with an injunction, not a fine. Or both.