You are here: Home → Forum Home → The Mac Observer Forums → Apple Finance Board → Thread
Apple-Samsung Trial
-
Biggest takeaway from their cross examinations yesterday? How much each expert witness got paid. I think the witnesses should have asked how much the lawyers were making.
When I practiced, since we knew that the opposing counsel was always going to ask how much we paid our expert witnesses, we always asked the question ourselves during direct. I’m surprised that Apple is not binging the matter up first. By letting it be done on cross, it allows opposing counsel to make it seem like they are unearthing a dirty secret.
Of course, when the Samsung experts testify, you can be very sure that Apple will ask the same question of their experts. It’s standard operating procedure.
-
One of the more subtle things I noticed about the slides was the quote “Strong impression that the iPhone’s icon concept was copied.” I know it’s a translation but assuming it translated correctly, this is huge because it shows that Samsung themselves attribute the icon concept to Apple. A large part of their defense is that nobody owns the concept of icons or apps, and Apple doesn’t “own” any part of their design, yet they kind of said it themselves…
I hope Apple lawyers can pick up on this and pound it home, although there is plenty of stuff in those slides that they need to choose very carefully what to pick apart in the interest of time.
-
Samsung. Think Slightly Different.
http://teamcoco.com/video/samsung-denies-apples-charges-copying
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
-
Biggest takeaway from their cross examinations yesterday? How much each expert witness got paid. I think the witnesses should have asked how much the lawyers were making.
When I practiced, since we knew that the opposing counsel was always going to ask how much we paid our expert witnesses, we always asked the question ourselves during direct. I’m surprised that Apple is not binging the matter up first. By letting it be done on cross, it allows opposing counsel to make it seem like they are unearthing a dirty secret.
Of course, when the Samsung experts testify, you can be very sure that Apple will ask the same question of their experts. It’s standard operating procedure.
Each team has time allocated. Why waste your own time?
-
Gregg Thurman
- [ Ignore ]
Samsung. Think Slightly Different.
http://teamcoco.com/video/samsung-denies-apples-charges-copying
Samsung. Think Alike.
Signature
You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.
-
Biggest takeaway from their cross examinations yesterday? How much each expert witness got paid. I think the witnesses should have asked how much the lawyers were making.
When I practiced, since we knew that the opposing counsel was always going to ask how much we paid our expert witnesses, we always asked the question ourselves during direct. I’m surprised that Apple is not binging the matter up first. By letting it be done on cross, it allows opposing counsel to make it seem like they are unearthing a dirty secret.
Of course, when the Samsung experts testify, you can be very sure that Apple will ask the same question of their experts. It’s standard operating procedure.
Each team has time allocated. Why waste your own time?
It’s a good point, libranca. However, it only takes 20 seconds and, in my opinion, it changes the impression made on the jury. Better to bring it up yourself rather than have the opposition do it.
-
The case could be over sooner than we think. Samsung are heading for a fall
http://www.inquisitr.com/295857/internal-memo-could-spell-the-end-of-samsungs-case-against-apple/
-
The case could be over sooner than we think. Samsung are heading for a fall
http://www.inquisitr.com/295857/internal-memo-could-spell-the-end-of-samsungs-case-against-apple/
In the name of page views, I think these guys are overstating the impact of of this memo. This shows that Samsung recognized the UI challenge faced by the iPhone. Of course they understood that a response was necessary to deal with Apple’s disruption. But the memo does not say HOW they intended to respond. There is nothing wrong with Samsung recognizing that the iPhone was the new gold standard that demanded a response, which is about all this memo says. It needs to be coupled with something more to make this thing a fait d’accompli.
-
The case could be over sooner than we think. Samsung are heading for a fall
http://www.inquisitr.com/295857/internal-memo-could-spell-the-end-of-samsungs-case-against-apple/
Welcome “Who Dares”!
I’m going to disagree with your conclusion. Remember, Apple is currently putting on their case. Samsung has not yet had an opportunity to reply. Apple’s case should look strong during the first part of the trial. The jury will have to weigh all the evidence, not just Apple’s, before making a decision.
-
The case could be over sooner than we think. Samsung are heading for a fall
http://www.inquisitr.com/295857/internal-memo-could-spell-the-end-of-samsungs-case-against-apple/
In the name of page views, I think these guys are overstating the impact of of this memo. This shows that Samsung recognized the UI challenge faced by the iPhone. Of course they understood that a response was necessary to deal with Apple’s disruption. But the memo does not say HOW they intended to respond.
I’m going to disagree with your conclusion too, Lstream. The document in question actually DOES state how Samsung was supposed to respond.
At the bottom of each slide there are detailed suggestions as to how Samsung can mirror what the corresponding iPhone slide was doing/depicting. The slides don’t explicitly say that Samsung should copy Apple, but they explicitly state that Samsung should emulate every Apple feature that is missing from their phones. That’s much the same thing.
-
Half of the TV audience mistook Samsung Galaxy Tab for iPad in ads
-
The case could be over sooner than we think. Samsung are heading for a fall
http://www.inquisitr.com/295857/internal-memo-could-spell-the-end-of-samsungs-case-against-apple/
Looking at the evidence from the outside with all the extra commentary, it is easy to say that things may be over soon. But you never know how things look to the jury who won’t be seeing all this extra stuff that is written about the evidence. I am just remembering the Casey Anthony trial and how what the public was seeing was not what the jury was seeing. From our point of view, no way she was not guilty but she is free today.
That being said, to me it seems that the evidence from Samsung saying that the iPhone was disruptive and Samsung’s argument that they were coming up with similar type of phone don’t jive. Either the iPhone was disruptive and it needed a big response or you were in the process of coming up with a similar phone on your own. To me, it doesn’t make sense that you can have it both ways.
But maybe Samsung can obfuscate things enough to get the jury to see things their way. In Apple’s favor, it is easy to see the before and after the iPhone pictures where it looks like things are copied.
It will be interesting to see how this gets decided.
-
The case could be over sooner than we think. Samsung are heading for a fall
http://www.inquisitr.com/295857/internal-memo-could-spell-the-end-of-samsungs-case-against-apple/
Looking at the evidence from the outside with all the extra commentary, it is easy to say that things may be over soon. But you never know how things look to the jury who won’t be seeing all this extra stuff that is written about the evidence. I am just remembering the Casey Anthony trial and how what the public was seeing was not what the jury was seeing. From our point of view, no way she was not guilty but she is free today.
That being said, to me it seems that the evidence from Samsung saying that the iPhone was disruptive and Samsung’s argument that they were coming up with similar type of phone don’t jive. Either the iPhone was disruptive and it needed a big response or you were in the process of coming up with a similar phone on your own. To me, it doesn’t make sense that you can have it both ways.
But maybe Samsung can obfuscate things enough to get the jury to see things their way. In Apple’s favor, it is easy to see the before and after the iPhone pictures where it looks like things are copied.
It will be interesting to see how this gets decided.
It is true, and I say it regularly to my students, “who knows what a jury will do?”, whenever they ask for black and white answers in a grey profession. But our criminal system is set up a lot differently than our civil one. The reasonable doubt standard gives juries a very big out to give a defense verdict. Essentially, any reasonable alternative theory the defense presents.
But that is not the standard in a civil case. Far from it. If they believe Apple 51% and Samsung 49%, Apple wins. Preponderance of the evidence - i.e., the scales tip ever so slightly in the plaintiff’s favor - is much less a burden of proof than in a criminal case.
Again, as others have pointed out here, we have yet to hear the defense’s case.
Signature
We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them. — Steve Jobs, 2007
-
Looking at the evidence
Some of Samsung’s is “missing”, of course.
Hopefully the jury will give that a lot of weight when it’s time to roll the dice…er, decide the case. 
Signature
The Summer of AAPL is here. Enjoy it (responsibly) while it lasts.
AFB Night Owl Team™
Thanks, Steve. -
I was wondering when we were going to get some real Samsung sales figures from this trial, and these could be interesting:
Any chance Horace could work his magic on these figures and compare Samsung’s actual US sales versus the previously released estimates? I’d be very interested to see that.
