Apple execs Phil Schiller, Greg Joswiak, others might testify in upcoming Samsung damages retrial

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2016
Current and former Apple executives, including Phil Schiller,Greg Joswiak and Scott Forstall, are on a list of potential witnesses who could appear at the second Apple v. Samsung damages retrial set for March.




Apple and Samsung filed respective witness lists with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Friday in accordance with a case management order lodged last year. In its filing, Apple expects to call VP of iPhone, iPod and iOS Product Marketing Greg Joswiak and VP of Procurement Tony Blevins to offer testimony at the upcoming retrial. On the "may call" list is SVP of Worldwide Marketing Schiller, Senior Director of Industrial Design Christopher Stringer and VP and Chief IP Counsel Bruce Watrous.

Along with active employees, Apple might call on alums like former iOS chief Scott Forstall, Mac icon designer Susan Kare, Director of Patent Licensing and Strategy Boris Teksler and financial analyst Mark Buckley.

Many of the execs named today were summoned during the first Apple v. Samsung court action nearly four years ago. Schiller, Forstall, Stringer, Kare and Teksler offered testimony in 2012.

Also of note is Peter Bressler, the expert witness whose testimony and reports were used extensively by Apple to successfully argue its case against Samsung.

Blevins, Buckley, Joswiak, Teksler and Watrous are also on Samsung's list of potential witnesses, while other current and former Apple employees include Freddy Anzures, Imran Chaudhri, Daniel Coster, Daniele De Iuliis, Richard Howarth, Eric Jue, Duncan Kerr, Stan Ng, Andrew Platzer, Arthur Rangel, Matthew Rohrbach, Steven Sinclair, Michael Tchao, Sissie Twiggs, Eugene Whang, Tamara Whiteside and Rico Zorkendorfer.

Samsung executives and other expert witnesses with specialties in patent law, marketing and financial operations are expected to be called by both sides.

Judge Lucy Koh ordered retrial proceedings to commence after Samsung's unsuccessful petition for an en banc rehearing of a prior $399 million damages ruling. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Samsung's request for appeal, handing the case back down to district court.

The March retrial will be the third to reach a jury as part of the original Apple v. Samsung saga that initially left Samsung on the hook for $1.06 billion in damages. Subsequent court actions whittled Apple's award down to $548 million, which the Korean company agreed to pay in December with reimbursement caveats.

Judge Koh has set a trial date for March 28. The proceedings are scheduled to run eight days.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    This is interesting to me:

    I do a search for "list of samsung smartphones" with Google on the desktop and regardless if I am logged in or not and regardless of the browser, the top result is a paid advertisement from Apple served by Google linking to Apple dot com. Same thing happens regardless if I have an adblocker active.

    When I do the same exact thing on the iPad the results are the same across Chrome and Safari unless I have an adblocker active on Safari. With an adblocker active with Safari on the iPad I do not see the Google served ad paid for by Apple.

    The same thing happens if you search for "list of samesung smartphones" - notice the 'e' in 'same'.

    I wonder how much Apple winds up paying Google for that top advertisement link.

    I apologize if it's a bit off topic but for some reason I did the search after reading the article and thought the results were interesting.

    Maybe some other folks can give their results?


    macky the mackycornchip
  • Reply 2 of 19
    Blevins, Buckley, Joswiak, Teksler and Watrous are also on Samsung's list of potential witnesses, while other current and former Apple employees include Freddy Anzures, Imran Chaudhri, Daniel Coster, Daniele De Iuliis, Richard Howarth, Eric Jue, Duncan Kerr, Stan Ng, Andrew Platzer, Arthur Rangel, Matthew Rohrbach, Steven Sinclair, Michael Tchao, Sissie Twiggs, Eugene Whang, Tamara Whiteside and Rico Zorkendorfer. 
    Most of the people on this list are industrial designers and if you read any of the depositions from the original clear they know nothing about patent filings or the drawings/claims in those filings. It's obviously not their job to know these things. Having them on a witness list is kind of pointless.
  • Reply 3 of 19
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    Is calling a guy who was fired to the stands a good idea?

    techlover said:
    This is interesting to me:

    I do a search for "list of samsung smartphones" with Google on the desktop and regardless if I am logged in or not and regardless of the browser, the top result is a paid advertisement from Apple served by Google linking to Apple dot com. Same thing happens regardless if I have an adblocker active.

    When I do the same exact thing on the iPad the results are the same across Chrome and Safari unless I have an adblocker active on Safari. With an adblocker active with Safari on the iPad I do not see the Google served ad paid for by Apple.

    The same thing happens if you search for "list of samesung smartphones" - notice the 'e' in 'same'.

    I wonder how much Apple winds up paying Google for that top advertisement link.

    I apologize if it's a bit off topic but for some reason I did the search after reading the article and thought the results were interesting.

    Maybe some other folks can give their results?





    On a crap Linux on Goog Chrome spyware.
  • Reply 4 of 19
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    Hang 'em high!
    cornchip
  • Reply 5 of 19
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    techlover said:
    This is interesting to me:

    I do a search for "list of samsung smartphones" with Google on the desktop and regardless if I am logged in or not and regardless of the browser, the top result is a paid advertisement from Apple served by Google linking to Apple dot com. ...
    Because authentic Apple iPhones are much better than Samsung iPhone counterfeits maybe?
  • Reply 6 of 19
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,393member
    cali said:
    Is calling a guy who was fired to the stands a good idea?



    cali said:
    Is calling a guy who was fired to the stands a good idea?

    techlover said:
    This is interesting to me:

    I do a search for "list of samsung smartphones" with Google on the desktop and regardless if I am logged in or not and regardless of the browser, the top result is a paid advertisement from Apple served by Google linking to Apple dot com. Same thing happens regardless if I have an adblocker active.

    When I do the same exact thing on the iPad the results are the same across Chrome and Safari unless I have an adblocker active on Safari. With an adblocker active with Safari on the iPad I do not see the Google served ad paid for by Apple.

    The same thing happens if you search for "list of samesung smartphones" - notice the 'e' in 'same'.

    I wonder how much Apple winds up paying Google for that top advertisement link.

    I apologize if it's a bit off topic but for some reason I did the search after reading the article and thought the results were interesting.

    Maybe some other folks can give their results?





    On a crap Linux on Goog Chrome spyware.
    Hopefully the Apple board of directors will bring back Scott Forestall to run the company.    Especially if it the stock keeps tanking.
  • Reply 7 of 19
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,077member
    Nothing to win here, forget it and act on the new economy taking place.
    Missing out on something like the internet again would be unforgivable.
  • Reply 8 of 19
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    k2kw said:
    cali said:
    Is calling a guy who was fired to the stands a good idea?



    Hopefully the Apple board of directors will bring back Scott Forestall to run the company.    Especially if it the stock keeps tanking.
    I don't think he should have been fired. Demoted or placed on a smaller role maybe but not terminated. He seemed important enough and could have easily shared secrets with Goog or been "poached" after he left. Seemed risky and not worth it.

    I think it was Tim Cook's way of showing the company he wasn't fu**ing around, since he was new CEO and all.
  • Reply 9 of 19
    k2kw said:
    cali said:
    Is calling a guy who was fired to the stands a good idea?



    Hopefully the Apple board of directors will bring back Scott Forestall to run the company.    Especially if it the stock keeps tanking.
    What does Scott Forstall know about running a company, especially a $200B company?
  • Reply 10 of 19

    cali said:
    k2kw said:
    I don't think he should have been fired. Demoted or placed on a smaller role maybe but not terminated. He seemed important enough and could have easily shared secrets with Goog or been "poached" after he left. Seemed risky and not worth it.

    I think it was Tim Cook's way of showing the company he wasn't fu**ing around, since he was new CEO and all.
    or maybe they just really didn't like each other. And if Cook demoted him I'm sure he would have left anyway.
  • Reply 11 of 19
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    k2kw said:
    What does Scott Forstall know about running a company, especially a $200B company?
    I think he meant run part of the company, like a division. At least that's how I read it. (I know the quote makes it look like i said that.)


    cali said:
    I don't think he should have been fired. Demoted or placed on a smaller role maybe but not terminated. He seemed important enough and could have easily shared secrets with Goog or been "poached" after he left. Seemed risky and not worth it.

    I think it was Tim Cook's way of showing the company he wasn't fu**ing around, since he was new CEO and all.
    or maybe they just really didn't like each other. And if Cook demoted him I'm sure he would have left anyway.
    I heard he wasn't getting along with people. I still would have placed him elsewhere. Take some weight off Eddy.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 12 of 19
    techlover said:
    This is interesting to me:

    I do a search for "list of samsung smartphones" with Google on the desktop and regardless if I am logged in or not and regardless of the browser, the top result is a paid advertisement from Apple served by Google linking to Apple dot com. Same thing happens regardless if I have an adblocker active.

    When I do the same exact thing on the iPad the results are the same across Chrome and Safari unless I have an adblocker active on Safari. With an adblocker active with Safari on the iPad I do not see the Google served ad paid for by Apple.

    The same thing happens if you search for "list of samesung smartphones" - notice the 'e' in 'same'.

    I wonder how much Apple winds up paying Google for that top advertisement link.

    I apologize if it's a bit off topic but for some reason I did the search after reading the article and thought the results were interesting.

    Maybe some other folks can give their results?



    Thats not how it works. Advertisers simply provide the demographics they wish to target. Google decides (based on data it's collected about you) which ads are appropriate for you to see.

    Can you imagine the uproar if Google allowed companies to "buy" their way into search results?
  • Reply 13 of 19
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,356member
    techlover said:
    This is interesting to me:

    I do a search for "list of samsung smartphones" with Google on the desktop and regardless if I am logged in or not and regardless of the browser, the top result is a paid advertisement from Apple served by Google linking to Apple dot com. Same thing happens regardless if I have an adblocker active.

    When I do the same exact thing on the iPad the results are the same across Chrome and Safari unless I have an adblocker active on Safari. With an adblocker active with Safari on the iPad I do not see the Google served ad paid for by Apple.

    The same thing happens if you search for "list of samesung smartphones" - notice the 'e' in 'same'.

    I wonder how much Apple winds up paying Google for that top advertisement link.

    I apologize if it's a bit off topic but for some reason I did the search after reading the article and thought the results were interesting.

    Maybe some other folks can give their results?



    Thats not how it works. Advertisers simply provide the demographics they wish to target. Google decides (based on data it's collected about you) which ads are appropriate for you to see.

    Can you imagine the uproar if Google allowed companies to "buy" their way into search results  
    :) ...and before anyone mentions it, not the same as something like this: http://directplacement.co/services/directplacement/ Those are 3rd party companies and not subsidiaries or partners of a search provider.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 14 of 19
    techlover said:
    This is interesting to me:

    I do a search for "list of samsung smartphones" with Google on the desktop and regardless if I am logged in or not and regardless of the browser, the top result is a paid advertisement from Apple served by Google linking to Apple dot com. Same thing happens regardless if I have an adblocker active.

    When I do the same exact thing on the iPad the results are the same across Chrome and Safari unless I have an adblocker active on Safari. With an adblocker active with Safari on the iPad I do not see the Google served ad paid for by Apple.

    The same thing happens if you search for "list of samesung smartphones" - notice the 'e' in 'same'.

    I wonder how much Apple winds up paying Google for that top advertisement link.

    I apologize if it's a bit off topic but for some reason I did the search after reading the article and thought the results were interesting.

    Maybe some other folks can give their results?



    Thats not how it works. Advertisers simply provide the demographics they wish to target. Google decides (based on data it's collected about you) which ads are appropriate for you to see.

    Can you imagine the uproar if Google allowed companies to "buy" their way into search results?
    This particular case has not as much to do with data Google has collected, although some. It has everything to do with who has paid Google the most for the AdWords. In my opinion anyway.

    According to this that is exactly what companies do when they buy Google AdWords:

    http://www.google.com/adwords

    In this case I believe that Apple has paid Google to be the top spot when a phrase using a word like "smartphone" is entered.

    Search for just "smartphone" and Apple is the top paid advertisement, meaning they are paying Google the most for that placement.

    Do a search for just "samsung" and Samsung is the top result, Apple is nowhere to be found. Which is what the uproar you are talking about would be.

    Edited for a few typos.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 15 of 19

    gatorguy said:

    Thats not how it works. Advertisers simply provide the demographics they wish to target. Google decides (based on data it's collected about you) which ads are appropriate for you to see.

    Can you imagine the uproar if Google allowed companies to "buy" their way into search results  
    :) ...and before anyone mentions it, not the same as something like this: http://directplacement.co/services/directplacement/ Those are 3rd party companies and not subsidiaries or partners of a search provider.
    I don't know about that.

    Seems like Google AdWords are quite similar.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    techlover said:

    Thats not how it works. Advertisers simply provide the demographics they wish to target. Google decides (based on data it's collected about you) which ads are appropriate for you to see.

    Can you imagine the uproar if Google allowed companies to "buy" their way into search results?
    This particular case has not as much to do with data Google has collected, although some. It has everything to do with who has paid Google the most for the AdWords. In my opinion anyway.

    According to this that is exactly what companies do when they buy Google AdWords:

    http://www.google.com/adwords

    In this case I believe that Apple has paid Google to be the top spot when a phrase using a word like "smartphone" is entered.

    Search for just "smartphone" and Apple is the top paid advertisement, meaning they are paying Google the most for that placement.

    Do a search for just "samsung" and Samsung is the top result, Apple is nowhere to be found. Which is what the uproar you are talking about would be.

    Edited for a few typos.

    Feel free to show me anywhere in Adwords where there's an option to "pay more to guarantee your position". You're literally just making shit up.

    I tried your search terms and Apple didn't even make the first page.


  • Reply 17 of 19
    techlover said:
    This particular case has not as much to do with data Google has collected, although some. It has everything to do with who has paid Google the most for the AdWords. In my opinion anyway.

    According to this that is exactly what companies do when they buy Google AdWords:

    http://www.google.com/adwords

    In this case I believe that Apple has paid Google to be the top spot when a phrase using a word like "smartphone" is entered.

    Search for just "smartphone" and Apple is the top paid advertisement, meaning they are paying Google the most for that placement.

    Do a search for just "samsung" and Samsung is the top result, Apple is nowhere to be found. Which is what the uproar you are talking about would be.

    Edited for a few typos.

    Feel free to show me anywhere in Adwords where there's an option to "pay more to guarantee your position". You're literally just making shit up.

    I tried your search terms and Apple didn't even make the first page.


    Lighten up.

    You are searching from Canada not the USA.

    Maybe that has something to do with it. Maybe Apple paid for the localized results in the USA or my specific area. 

    Which you can do buying AdWords.

    Regardless take it easy. You are awfully harsh.

    These forums are supposed to be a community. Reasonable people come here to discuss things. 

    I thank you for your result. This is exactly what I was looking for.

    No need for the name calling and bad language. I am just curious.

    Also its interesting that your results do represent as you say: "Google decides (based on data it's collected about you) which ads are appropriate for you to see."

    Have you ever had a business where you purchased AdWords? I have.

    This stuff is interesting to me and nothing to get your underpants in wad about.

    Relax.


  • Reply 18 of 19
    @ericthehalfbee ;;

    You said:

    "
    Feel free to show me anywhere in Adwords where there's an option to "pay more to guarantee your position". You're literally just making shit up."

    Then there is this:

    https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/1722087?hl=en

    "
    An ad's position on the page is based on your Ad Rank

     (a combination of your bid, the quality of your ad and landing page, and the expected impact of extensions and other ad formats). To be eligible for a top spot, your Ad Rank needs to meet a minimum threshold. The minimum Ad Rank required to appear above search results is generally greater than the minimum Ad Rank to appear beside search results. As a result, the cost-per-click (CPC) when you appear above search results could be higher than the CPC if you appear beside search results, even if no other advertisers are immediately below you. Although you may pay more per click, top ads usually have higher click-through rates and give you access to certain ad extensions (like sitelinks) and other features available only in top ad positions. As always, you’re never charged more than your max CPC bid."

    What does that mean to you?

    Paying the most for the top link I would say.

    Edited to include relevant quote from eric.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 19 of 19
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,774member
    techlover said:
    This is interesting to me:

    I do a search for "list of samsung smartphones" with Google on the desktop and regardless if I am logged in or not and regardless of the browser, the top result is a paid advertisement from Apple served by Google linking to Apple dot com. Same thing happens regardless if I have an adblocker active.

    When I do the same exact thing on the iPad the results are the same across Chrome and Safari unless I have an adblocker active on Safari. With an adblocker active with Safari on the iPad I do not see the Google served ad paid for by Apple.

    The same thing happens if you search for "list of samesung smartphones" - notice the 'e' in 'same'.

    I wonder how much Apple winds up paying Google for that top advertisement link.

    I apologize if it's a bit off topic but for some reason I did the search after reading the article and thought the results were interesting.

    Maybe some other folks can give their results?


    Same results as you.  I notice Apple are not paying for similar placements on Bing or Duck Duck Go.
    edited January 2016 techlover
Sign In or Register to comment.