The copyright-infringement case between Apple and Samsung is now with the jury.
SAN JOSE, California — Apple and Samsung presented closing arguments on Tuesday in their landmark lawsuit. Attorneys for Apple spent two hours going over their assertions that Samsung knowingly copied Apple designs and infringed upon its iPhone and iPad trade dress, which, they said, caused confusion in the marketplace. Samsung hit back that its products are notably different from Apple’s and suggested that consumers aren’t so easily confused.
“Samsung was the iPhone’s biggest fan,” Apple attorney Harold McElhinny told jurors. “They knew a good thing when they saw one.”
McElhinny spent a great deal of his two-hour closing argument pointing out how the “overall visual impression” of Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones and tablets are substantially similar to Apple’s, as are the user interface elements, and that this is what jurors should focus their attention on as they evaluate the case.
Internal documents showed that Samsung heavily compared the Galaxy S user experience, design, and UI to that of the iPhone, and, according to Apple, ended up making its products more iPhone-like as a result. McElhinny also pointed to an internal Samsung memo that said the company was in the midst of a “crisis of design” over the iPhone.
Samsung attorney Charles Verhoeven denied Apple’s accusations and suggested that the lawsuit was more about gaining competitive advantages than defending its products.
“The real reason Apple is bringing this case is, rather than competing in the marketplace, Apple is seeking a competitive edge through the courtroom,” Verhoeven told jurors, adding that if Apple wins, “it could change the way competition works in this country.”
“[Apple is] attempting to block its most serious competitor from even playing the game,” Verhoeven said.
He argued that form follows function, citing the QWERTY keyboards of the once-dominant BlackBerry phones. “Everyone came out with full keyboard mobile phones,” Verhoeven said. Were they copying? “No. They were just following the technology.” The same goes for the large-screen, rounded rectangular smartphones we’re seeing now, he argued. Those are simply things that consumers want and expect.
As for design, Verhoeven countered Apple’s big-picture view by instructing jurors that when patents are visually similar to prior art designs (preexisting smartphones or patents, in this case), small differences may be important. He brought up Samsung smartphones that are markedly different from the iPhone, such as the Infuse 4G and Galaxy S 4G, and said Apple’s timeline of Samsung products through the years was “an intentional attempt to mislead the jury”.
As for the internal documents that Apple suggested proved intentional copying of its designs, Verhoven said they revealed benchmarking, rather than copying. “Every major tech company does it,” he said. “You adjust to be competitive.” He concluded by reminding jurors of Samsung’s allegations that Apple has violated patents the South Korean company holds regarding 3G standards.
“We think the damages are ridiculous,” Verhoeven said of Apple’s requested $2.5 billion. “We don’t think we’re liable.”
In Apple’s rebuttal, attorney Bill Lee told Samsung to “compete on your own innovations,” adding that patents exist in order to protect inventors’ investments. “Apple wants to compete fairly and squarely with innovation, invention, and products,” Lee said. “Taking someone else’s intellectual property is not fair and square.”
It’s now up to the jury to decide.
The day got off to a sleepy start, as judge Lucy Koh read through roughly 100 pages of jury instructions. “I need everyone to stay conscious as I’m reading [this], including myself,” Koh said, before calling in jurors to the courtroom.
Koh reminded jurors that they are to judge based solely on the facts presented in the case, and that what the lawyers have said throughout the trial, including their closing arguments, is not evidence. The jurors will have access to phones and tablets during their deliberations, to evaluate the respective user experiences, but will not be allowed to update the devices or download apps, music, or photos.
Samsung and Apple have been embroiled in a multi-pronged intellectual property battle in courtrooms across the globe since mid-2011. Apple claims Samsung is infringing on intellectual property covering the iPhone and iPad designs, as well as utility patents covering UI features like the “bounce-back” effect when users reach the end of a page. Samsung is claiming Apple is in violation of its essential 3G transmission patents.
The nine-member jury could decide case by the end of the week.
Source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/08/apple-v-samsung-closing/
No comments:
Post a Comment