“We are done”. Those are the words of Judge Lucy Koh expressing an understandable sigh of relief after the epic Apple vs. Samsung battle out here in the States. The testimony and deliberations included words from famed professors to more or less gag orders aimed at Samsung developers. While Samsung and Apple will have a few hours for their closing arguments on Tuesday, the ultimate decision will be left to a jury of seven men and two women on whether or not Samsung did in fact, commit several patent infringements. And in case you all weren’t sure before, the panel will have a lot to think about too. In order for an infringement ruling to be made, the jury will have to unanimously agree that a particular patent is valid and infringed by a particular device. The issue is: there are tons of different phones and tablets named in the case (i.e. the Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy Tab) in addition to the various patents.
We’re absolutely certain all eyes in the tech world will be on the ruling the jury and Judge Koh makes for the landmark case this upcoming week.
Every day seems to bring more drama to the Apple vs Samsung trial. Apple filed a 75-page briefing that covered 22 potential rebuttal witnesses they could possibly call after Samsung finishes presenting their arguments. Judge Lucy Koh was thoroughly disgusted, and when the jury was out of the courtroom, she asked why they would present such a lengthy document “when unless you’re smoking crack you know these witnesses aren’t going to be called!”
I knew they were smoking crack all along, didn’t you? Of course Apple attorney William Lee denied it by saying, “First, your honor, I’m not smoking crack. I can promise you that.” Then they agreed to trim it down and attorney Michael Jacobs said that they didn’t mean to burden the court. He also believed they would be able to run through all the witnesses in the given time, and that some of the witnesses were Samsung’s. Koh became even more frustrated and told the parties that the conversation would come at the expense of their trial time. She said, “I’m billing time because you all are being unreasonable.”
The bottomline for Judge Koh is that she wants the trial to end by next Tuesday and I highly doubt Samsung or Apple will be able to prolong this debacle any longer.
As the Apple & Samsung case winds down, Judge Lucy Koh sought one last ditch effort in order to get the executive heads to try and make peace before the final decisions where handed to a jury because after all, she “sees risks here for both sides”. While the lawyers asserted each CEO would attempt to talk (again), most patent lawyers believe it’s not likely. Florian Mueller, an intellectual property consultant believes “think this dispute isn’t ripe for a settlement” because Mueller agrees with Judge Koh and argues both sides have too much at stake in the case.
Hopefully the CEOs do end up coming together and resolving this issue once and for all. It’s time to focus on development on innovative products now— not bickering and name slander. Like Judge Koh says, “it is time for peace”.
As Samsung continues to defend itself in its legal battle with Apple, it continues to find reasons why Apple may not have such legitimate patents after all. Expert witness Dr. Andries van Dam, a faculty member at Brown University highlighted several reasons why Apple’s ’381 bounce-back patent is invalid. As seen on a certain Tablecloth application, the software allows a user to scroll through a certain image and then displays a blank white space when the user reaches the end. When that happens, a finger is removed which causes the image to snap-back— just like Apple’s feature. In addition, Tablecloth dates back to 2005, while Apple’s bounce-back patent was originally filed in December of 2007.
Dr. van Dam didn’t stop their either. He went on to demonstrate the LaunchTile user interface and highlights it didn’t appear to be similar to the ’381 patent because when a user reaches the end of the on-screen content there is no off-screen information revealed. On the other hand, van Dam argues the software does meet the requirements when swiping within the main content field itself, the next next tile serving as the “off-screen content” in this case. He adds the US Patent Office had never seen the two pieces of software before granting Apple its patent.
Apple responded to Dr. van Dam’s argument by stressing Tablecloth returns the user to the original starting point upon a bounce-back, rather than the edge of the content. Naturally that quickly became invalid when Dr. van Dam finished his point by adding:
“The patent does not tell you how you implement a touchscreen display. In every way that is a touchscreen display.”
Your move, Apple?
I honestly don’t see why Apple even did this and used this in their court preceding. I don’t see how this helps their case, and I also have to mention to take these numbers with a grain of salt as we don’t know how big the sample size was. Either way, it’s still a bit interesting to see these numbers, right?
You can expect more and more documents from this court battle to leak out as the days and weeks go by, and we’ll be sure to inform you as soon as we know.
source: The Verge
Yesterday Samsung began their arguments by defending themselves from Apple’s allegations, and today they moved into their countersuit claims. Dr. Woodward Yang, a professor at Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, was called in by Samsung’s legal team to perform an analysis of three of their utility patents. Dr. Yang found that Apple had infringed on all three with multiple devices.
We begin with email. The ’460 patent protects the elements of email and photo browsing in a camera equipped device. The patent covers three different functions: stepping through different photos in a gallery mode, sending an email with an attached photo, and sending a text-only email. According to Dr. Yang, the iPhone 4, 3GS, 3, the iPad 2, and fourth gen iPod touch all infringe the patent on both iOS 4 and iOS 5.
Apple closed their case so it’s Samsung’s turn to be a little offensive, and to kick things off, they decided to show a couple of early 2000s gesture technologies, LaunchTile and DiamondTouch.
LaunchTile was co-created by Benjamin Bederson who took the stand as a “fact witness” for Samsung. It was for Microsoft’s PocketPC devices and became available in 2004. It helped users access a lot of information and it featured thumbnails that users could zoom in on to access information. Bederson demoed it by showing three different zoom levels. Here’s a look:
Well thank you so much Apple for providing a nice, and shall I say gigantic, chart showing us just where Samsung infringed on your wonderful patents. Yes that was sarcasm, but I will say that this is helpful in understanding where Apple is really attacking Samsung, and whether it’s the design of the hardware (Patents D087, D677, and D899) or software icons (D305).
Apple showed this chart to the court yesterday when they closed their arguments. It was introduced as evidence, but shortly after, three phones from the chart were eliminated after Samsung argued that they weren’t sold here in the U.S, so therefore shouldn’t be part of the case. Those phones were the international versions of the Galaxy S (GT-i9000) and Galaxy S II (GT-i9100) as well as the Galaxy Ace.
The Apple vs. Samsung saga is about to be over here in the States at least. Apple wrapped up its case yesterday by calling in a financial expert to testify on behalf of Apple. CPA Terry Musika used his time to highlight Apple lost 2 million iPad and iPhone sales because of infringement, while also showing how much Samsung was able to benefit by its sales and more importantly, its profits. Musika shared with the courtroom 3 major items on his agenda: the profits Samsung made with the accused products, the reasonable royalty fees for the allegedly-infringed patents and the profits Apple itself may have lost. He believes Samsung was able to gain $8.16 billion in revenue generated from devices and after going through the company’s financials, he estimated that Samsung made $2.241 billion in profit— while also coming up with unusual ways to increase profits (i.e. avoiding taxes). When its all settled and done, Musika believes Apple can legitimately ask between $2.5 billion and $2.75 billion in damages.
As the Apple vs. Samsung saga continues on, the courts continue to lay the smackdown on Samsung. Judge Lucy Koh recently signed a document which bars Samsung designer Hyong Shin Park from testifying in the courtroom. Park is quoted as saying Samsung’s phones were inspired by a “bowl of water” as opposed to the iPhone. Samsung adds by explaining Park’s design patent dates back to December 2006, which is well-before when Apple launched its first iPhone. Apple on the other hand, countered by arguing her project, the F700, isn’t in the list of accused phones (i.e. the Galaxy S), and that Park’s testimony isn’t relevant to the case. In addition, the Cupertino giant has also argued that her testimony isn’t relevant because she didn’t design any of the products it says copied the iPhone’s look and feel.
Despite the major setback for Samsung, the lawsuit continues on today. As the epic trial comes to a close, the hope is that there will be some sort of resolution or compromise so the two companies can finally move on.