Apple v. Samsung 2 is Now in the Jury’s Hands

| News

We are in the home stretch of Apple v. Samsung, as closing arguments have been presented and the case sent off to the jury for deliberation. Electronista has an interesting recap of the closing arguments, which seem to be a microcosm of the trial itself.

At long last, it's now all up to the jury.

It was negotiated that Apple would give their closing arguments first, then Samsung got their turn to present and Apple received rebuttal time. This came out to two hours for each side to summarize and make their last efforts at convincing the jury.

Lead attorney for Apple Harold McElhinny, led the closing just as he’d lead the opening: with a reminder of the moment Steve Jobs unveiled the original iPhone, and how it was worlds away from anything else in the market at the time. He also pointed out that not just Samsung, but the entire mobile industry undertook a change in direction after the iPhone announcement. Using their own words, he also reminded the jury that Samsung referred to itself as a “fast follower” of trends.

Mr. McElhinny went on to remind the jury that not a single Korean executive-level employee of Samsung appeared in court; Apple claims that is where the decision to infringe was made. He also noted that Google was not the defendant, even though they offered to cover some costs if Samsung is found to have infringed on Apple’s patents.

There were some objections from Samsung during closing arguments, mostly when Mr. McElhinny pointed out it wasn’t important if Apple was actually using all these patents, if Apple holds patents they shouldn’t be copied. More objections came as the point was stressed that Samsung’s lawyers were being paid by Samsung AND Google, which Samsung failed to mention when asked at the start of the trial, in effect lying under oath. He brought it home by pointing out Apple didn’t even want to be in court, they tried to negotiate with Samsung a year before the first case and Samsung refused.

Samsung’s closing argument involved four lawyers, the first being Bill Price. He started by saying you can’t copy iPhone features if they aren’t in the iPhone, then tried to spin the crisis of design memo as just a relay of what carriers wanted, and tried to paint Samsung as the underdog, saving the world from an iPhone monopoly. Mr. Price went on to address the “holy war” comments, claiming Samsung’s success is based on hardware, not “Apple-style” features in software.

Next up was David Nelson, who explained to the jury that the US Patent and Trademark Office is fallible and sometimes makes mistakes, so it is the jury’s duty to question that office in times like, oh, let’s say now.

Moving on to Samsung’s infringement charges against Apple, attorney Kevin Johnson said there was nothing unusual about claiming infringement on patents purchased from another company, and reminded the jury that Apple didn’t have anyone testify against Samsung’s claims. He ended his portion by saying that just because one of the patents expired doesn’t mean Apple gets out of paying damages.

Samsung’s home stretch was presented by John Quinn, who felt the time crunch and delivered with a speed somewhere between John Moschitta and an auctioneer. He claimed Apple doesn’t own everything, and that Samsung doesn’t owe Apple. He mocked Apple’s expert witness study about the value of specific features to consumers before skipping parts of his closing. His wrap up was that any amount awarded to Apple would be seen as a victory, Samsung would never give in to these sorts of demands, and Apple should lay off the lawsuits and "get back to work on that iWatch we've been hearing about.”

Bill Lee gave Apple’s rebuttal, spending his half hour pointing out Samsung paid US $5 million for experts to sue for only $6 million in patent infringements, and stated the patents in question were purchased after the first court case. This brought more objections from Samsung. Then Mr. Lee wrapped up saying Apple hopes the jury can recognize the difference between fair and unfair competition.

Now the case is off to the jury, who will deliberate from 9:30 until 4:30 daily.

The Mac Observer Spin The Mac Observer Spin is how we show you what our authors think about a news story at quick glance. Read More →

Apple v. Samsung 2: The Legend of Curly's Gold is a trial I don't follow that closely, mostly because the intricacies of patent law are lost on me. As a casual observer of technology and Person My Family Calls For Tech Advice And Help, I can tell you regular folks see iPhones and Samsung phones and get confused. I think that's the strongest evidence here, even though it's probably not admissible in court. Reading the recap of closing arguments, it seemed like the Apple legal team's approach was measured and polished, while Samsung's was confusing and rushed. Which is honestly my impression of both companies themselves.

Even before phones came in a "smart" flavor, when I would look at mobile phones there was a Motorola model, maybe two, perhaps Audiovox or Nokia, and then nine different Samsung phones. What features do they have so I can compare them? I would ask, and even the people in the stores didn't know how to tell one from another. It seems this approach is serving Samsung well so there's no reason to change, but as a consumer it was super frustrating to sort them out. I totally understand how people could just point at the cheapest or the nicest color and be done with it, and for longtime mobile customers, this is probably a habit that has gotten them through a decade or more of hardware. It wasn't until I got my iPhone 3G that I was happy with a phone even after my contract was up. I know a number of people with an iPhone 4 or 4S who have seen no reason to upgrade, what they have is more than capable. I don't think I've ever met a Samsung owner who felt that way. Samsung's right, their hardware is nice, but what good are specs if you can't do anything useful with them? I'd rather have a nice phone in my hand than a nice phone on paper.



” I know a number of people with an iPhone 4 or 4S who have seen no reason to upgrade, what they have is more than capable. I don’t think I’ve ever met a Samsung owner who felt that way.”

Seriously? That’s your bench mark? On whether your friends are content with a 2 to 3 year old phone? Hey, my mom was perfectly fine with a flip with a grey scale screen from Virgin Mobile for 5 years, she was “content.” She now has an iPhone 5s, but if we’re going by years of contentment and no reason to upgrade, it’s got it’s work cut out for itself.


Don’t mind daemon, Kelly.  He gets a bit uptight about things…

Nice write-up.  I appreciate it.

John Dingler, artist

The sheer power of a short, concise The Mac Observer Spin overwhelms me.

Unsnarkwise, however, I believe that the greatest of Samsung’s IP thefts is the iPhone’s over all look and feel. The corporatist Rightwing publisher of MacDaily News loves to show the before iPhone and after iPhone images of Samsung’s phones. The befores look so 1980s music in style while the afters resemble iPhone’s elegant modernity.

My wish for a decisive defeat of Samsung is not to be and, heck, Samsung is even thriving off of the slow court system.


You can’t patent “look and feel”, heck you can’t even patent an “idea”, but you can patent HOW you render and execute that idea. Samsung has ways of doing things on their phones that might seem like copying - like a swiping motion to flip pages - Apple has that feature but it doesn’t work like Samsung’s where you don’t actually have to touch the screen hence no infringement there.  Most people just don’t care, the only people getting fat out of this are the lawyers. Apple will pass the cost of litigation on to the customers; Samsung will raise the price of their Apple components by a fraction of a cent to cover their costs. Both companies copy and cheat - just look it up, and they both get caught and pay - it’s the corporate way.

John Dingler, artist

Hi CudaBoy,
You bring up good points in the latter part of your reply.

Trade dress refers to the look and feel of a consumer item and/or how it’s packaged, and the way that they are interpreted, as a unique thing, to consumers. This is the sort of IP that I was talking about that Samsung stole as evidenced by Samsung’s iPhone-like designs before Apple introduced the iPhone and after.

You have to admit that Samsung’s phones before iPhone have a particular look that compliments the style of music popular in the middle 1980s.

Kevin Donovan

It seems that there are leaked photos of S5 NEO

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account