Apple-Samsung Trial

  • Avatar

    Posted: 31 July 2012 07:37 PM

    For ongoing updates and discussion…

    [ Edited: 08 September 2012 12:02 AM by lovemyipad ]      
  • Avatar

    Posted: 31 July 2012 01:28 PM #1

    From a liveblog of the Apple v. Samsung trial:

    25 years covering courts, and haven’t seen big name law firm partner eviscerated in court like that….i think i see an intestine on the court floor

    by hmintz 11:02 AM

    Samsung atty Charles Quinn trying to get judge to rehear an issue, and she just blasts him..“I want you to sit down, please!”

    by hmintz 11:01 AM

    Signature

    The only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. — Steve Jobs

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 02:08 PM #2

    I know we have attorneys on AFB or at least we did rolleyes
    My question is - approximately how long can one expect this trial to go on? I know it isn’t written in stone but as a guess…before deliberation.

    Signature

    Keep Calm and Carry On

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 02:15 PM #3

    Phoebear611 - 31 July 2012 05:08 PM

    I know we have attorneys on AFB or at least we did rolleyes
    My question is - approximately how long can one expect this trial to go on? I know it isn’t written in stone but as a guess…before deliberation.

    I read it’s expected to last four weeks.

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 02:51 PM #4

    Samsung atty trying to object to Apple slides, but, and there’s no other way to put it, he’s pissing off Judge Koh again…I’ve ruled, she says, get over it….
    by hmintz 10:47 AM

    sounds good

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 31 July 2012 02:53 PM #5

    roni - 31 July 2012 05:51 PM

    Samsung atty trying to object to Apple slides, but, and there’s no other way to put it, he’s pissing off Judge Koh again…I’ve ruled, she says, get over it….
    by hmintz 10:47 AM

    sounds good

    They are still trying though:

    Samsung atty trying to object to Apple slides, but, and there’s no other way to put it, he’s pissing off Judge Koh again…I’ve ruled, she says, get over it….
    by hmintz 1:47 PM

    Signature

    “Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.”
    - Jimi Hendrix

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 03:14 PM #6

    Phoebear611 - 31 July 2012 05:08 PM

    I know we have attorneys on AFB or at least we did rolleyes
    My question is - approximately how long can one expect this trial to go on? I know it isn’t written in stone but as a guess…before deliberation.

    I would anticipate both sides submitting testimony from engineers and experts in the field.  That and a pile of technical data. Apple may try to put in a straightforward and concise case.  Samsung on the other hand may try to confuse the issues by submitting a mountain of testimony, documents, and data.  Keep in mind the jury is not a group of patent experts.  I know there was quite a bit of discovery exchanged between the litigants.  After a verdict the loser could try to tie up the case with appeals for a number of years.  The prevailing party may not see a nickel for a long time.  The remedy that could bring a settlement is a ban on sales of an offending product.  This would force the other side to cut losses and pay up. 

    So how long?  It depends; which is a great legal answer.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 31 July 2012 03:24 PM #7

    Grover - 31 July 2012 06:14 PM
    Phoebear611 - 31 July 2012 05:08 PM

    I know we have attorneys on AFB or at least we did rolleyes
    My question is - approximately how long can one expect this trial to go on? I know it isn’t written in stone but as a guess…before deliberation.

    I would anticipate both sides submitting testimony from engineers and experts in the field.  That and a pile of technical data. Apple may try to put in a straightforward and concise case.  Samsung on the other hand may try to confuse the issues by submitting a mountain of testimony, documents, and data.  Keep in mind the jury is not a group of patent experts.  I know there was quite a bit of discovery exchanged between the litigants.  After a verdict the loser could try to tie up the case with appeals for a number of years.  The prevailing party may not see a nickel for a long time.  The remedy that could bring a settlement is a ban on sales of an offending product.  This would force the other side to cut losses and pay up. 

    So how long?  It depends; which is a great legal answer.

    Great explaination here describing the case to the jury.  This stands out to me:

    ?Trade dress is the non-functional physical detail and design of a product, which identifies the product?s source and distinguishes it from the products of others. Trade dress is the product?s total image and overall appearance, and may include features such as size, shape, color, color combinations, texture, or graphics. In other words, trade dress is the form in which a person presents a product or service to the market, its manner of display.

    ?A trade dress is non-functional if, taken as a whole, the collection of trade dress elements is not essential to the product?s use or purpose or does not affect the total cost or quality of the product even though certain particular elements of the trade dress may be functional. Trade dress concerns the overall visual impression created in the consumer?s mind when viewing the non-functional aspects of the product and not from the utilitarian or useful aspects of the product. In considering the impact of these non-functional aspects, which are often a complex combination of many features, you must consider the appearance of features together, rather than separately.

    ?A person acquires the right to exclude others from using a trade dress by being the first to use it in the marketplace, or by using it before the alleged infringer. The owner of a valid trade dress has the right to prevent others from ?diluting? or ?infringing? it. ?Dilution? refers to reducing the capacity of a famous trade dress to identify and distinguish products or services. ?Infringement? refers to another company?s use similar to the owner?s trade dress that is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace. Rights in a trade dress are obtained only through commercial use of the trade dress.

    Sorry about this in the intraday.  Could be stock moving though so maybe this is the right place for it.

    Signature

    “Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.”
    - Jimi Hendrix

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 03:39 PM #8

    AAPL done—now Samsung beginning their arguments:

    Samsung argues the whole industry was moving toward large-screen touch phones; it’s not about copying Apple

    Samsung lawyer: “Being inspired by a good product"is not copying or infringement, it’s competition

    Signature

    Keep Calm and Carry On

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 31 July 2012 04:58 PM #9

    Grover - 31 July 2012 07:12 PM
    Phoebear611 - 31 July 2012 06:39 PM

    AAPL done—now Samsung beginning their arguments:

    Samsung argues the whole industry was moving toward large-screen touch phones; it’s not about copying Apple

    Samsung lawyer: “Being inspired by a good product"is not copying or infringement, it’s competition

    Tim Cook wants Samsung to get “inspired” through development of their own products.

    Good one!

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 05:46 PM #10

    “McElhinny showed jurors an internal Samsung product analysis which said the iPhone’s hardware was “easy to copy.” Another document prepared by a Samsung executive said the company was in a “crisis of design” due to the iPhone.”

    little snippet from Yahoo Finance article…interesting

    Signature

    Keep Calm and Carry On

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 06:09 PM #11

    Ok last post—a snippet from WSJ:

    Mr. McElhinny also told the jurors about Samsung and Apple?s business relationship. He noted that Apple bought billions of dollars in components from Samsung, with which it met regularly.

    Mr. Verhoeven turned the point back at Apple, by arguing that Apple and Samsung?s relationship shows how reliant Apple is on Samsung for innovation. He stated that Samsung products comprise 26% of the component cost of the iPhone, including its flash memory and main memory.

    ?Who is the real innovator? Ask yourself that question when you hear the evidence,? he said.

    Now you can gag!

    [ Edited: 31 July 2012 06:20 PM by Phoebear611 ]

    Signature

    Keep Calm and Carry On

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 08:23 PM #12

    Wait -wait - I know I said I wouldn’t put any further info on the trial but you need to see this tweet - I love it:

    “Apple designer says he doesn’t know “off the top of his head” who makes the Playbook! That says it all. “

    FYI: Phil Schiller is being called to the stand right now!

    [ Edited: 31 July 2012 08:30 PM by Phoebear611 ]

    Signature

    Keep Calm and Carry On

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 08:26 PM #13

    So not being allowed to present evidence in court, Samsung has “released it into the public”.

    ‘Denied the opportunity to make the argument in court that the design of the original iPhone was derived from Sony concepts, Samsung has decided to make it in the court of public opinion. Moments ago, the company released two batches of evidence excluded from the trial currently occuring in San Jose, Calif., along with the following statement:

    The Judge?s exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone. The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.

    Ahead of opening arguments on Monday, Samsung lawyer John Quinn asked the court to hear further arguments and allow evidence showing that Samsung designs for what became the P700 predate the iPhone. Judge Koh denied the request, saying that she had already heard three motions to reconsider the point.

    Quinn persisted, saying he was begging the court to hear more discussion, something he said he hadn?t done in his 30-plus years of law.

    ?You?ve made your record for appeal,? Koh said. ?Don?t make me sanction you, please.?”

    John Paczkowski’s article can be accessed here.

    Dan Levine who is covering the case for Reuters tweeted:

    Yikes Koh just threatened to sanction @jbqlaw for continuing to argue over trial exhibits. Very heated.

    Howard Mintz who is covering the case for San Jose Mercury news also followed up with:

    “25 years covering courts, and haven’t seen big name law firm partner eviscerated in court like that….i think i see an intestine on the…”

    Signature

    .

         
  • Posted: 31 July 2012 09:14 PM #14

    New update from Dan Levine:

    Whoa @jbqlaw is in trouble with Koh over Samsung press release. Apple says was effort at jury contamination. He must submit declaration

    Signature

    .

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 31 July 2012 09:30 PM #15

    http://allthingsd.com/20120731/samsung-goes-public-with-excluded-evidence-to-undercut-apples-design-claims/

    This is all kinds of idiotic.  Defying the judge?!  Keep it up Samsung! :D

    Signature

    The Summer of AAPL is here.  Enjoy it (responsibly) while it lasts.
    AFB Night Owl Teamâ„¢
    Thanks, Steve.