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.
I wonder how many Judges in America get to a point in a case where they want to throw up their arms and yell “I’m sick of this!” Well it wasn’t as dramatic, but U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, who is presiding over the Samsung vs. Apple case, has apparently grown weary of the quibbling attorneys and had asked them to meet in person yesterday (Sunday). Judge Koh reportedly said in her order yesterday “The Court is disappointed by the parties’ respective reports regarding their meet and confer efforts on final jury instructions. Lead trial counsel shall meet and confer in person today and file joint and disputed final jury instructions by Monday, August 13, 2012 at 8 a.m.”
As a week of courtroom drama drew to a close in the Apple v. Samsung patent case, a new document surfaced showing how Samsung used Apple’s features as a measuring stick for their own development. The document was an internal analysis comparing the Samsung Behold 3 (also known as the Vibrant) to the iPhone. Some of the features that Samsung identified included things like a bouncing visual effect, the slide to unlock feature, and even the transition time when entering passwords.
It remains to be seen whether the jury will see this as an attempt to copy the iPhone’s features or as identification of capabiities and features that could be improved upon or done in a different manner.
source: The Verge
The Samsung vs Apple battle has certainly given us a fair share of courtroom drama. The latest developments has both companies releasing documents of each of their respective smartphone sales dating back since 2007 for Apple, and 2010 for Samsung. While these documents are not exactly significant in the grand scheme of things (reason that these two are battling it out in court), it’s still interesting to look at from a consumers standpoint. It is also important to keep in mind that these numbers represent sales from within the United States and doesn’t account for sales from everywhere else in the world. Samsung’s latest Galaxy S III line is also absent from these sales reports.
On Monday Apple showed an email that proved that the iPhone caused a “crisis of design” for Samsung and they showed a decent amount of evidence that Samsung’s icon designs were influenced by iOS. Apple wasn’t finished as yesterday they showed the jury a 132-page internal document from 2010 that shows that Samsung was definitely trying to design icons that resembled iOS and not only that, was trying to make the whole UI experience (TouchWiz) resemble it.
Sure the Samsung vs. Apple battle has been a serious one, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have a laugh or two about the situation. Late night host extraordinaire Conan O’Brien took some time to poke some fun at Samsung and its perceived infatuation at Apple and you gotta admit— even the most hardcore Samsung purists will chuckle and laugh at the skit. While the skit does give a chuckle or two to the average Joe, one can only hope that Judge Lucy Koh and the jurors find this funny as well.
The drama of the Apple v. Samsung court case continued today with more irritation for Judge Koh. This time it was Samsung who turned up the heat in the courtroom. Apple presented a photo of a Samsung Epic 4G Touch that shows an icon layout very similar to the iPhone layout. Samsung objected to this claiming Apple had rearranged to the icons so that the photo no longer represented the “out of the box” layout of the product.
Yesterday’s court battle between Apple and Samsung continued with Apple showing an email from J.K. Shin, Samsung’s Head of Mobile Communications. According to Apple, Samsung went through a “crisis of design” shortly before the launch of the Galaxy S in 2010. Shin’s email said:
“All this time we’ve been paying all our attention to Nokia, and concentrated our efforts on things like Folder, Bar, Slide,”
“Yet when our UX is compared to the unexpected competitor Apple’s iPhone, the difference is truly that of Heaven and Earth. It’s a crisis of design.”
I’m no lawyer, but what’s the deal with Judge Lucy Koh? First she rules that Samsung is unable to use evidence that clearly shows they were working on designs that resembled the iPhone back in 2006, and now she ruled that Samsung can’t use footage from the movie, “2001: A Space Odyssey.”
As you know “2001: A Space Odyssey” features a tablet well before the iPad was even thought of let alone designed. I assume the reason why Koh keeps refusing these exhibits is because this case isn’t about refuting Apple’s patents. It’s on whether Samsung infringed on them or not. The fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office should have or shouldn’t have granted these patents is not on the table.