In the latest drama in the contentious Apple-Samsung patent trial, Samsung accused Apple of trying to extend the range of authorship of its patent holdings through sales figures of global products not covered by U.S. law.
Lawyers for Samsung explained that three phones that have been repeatedly used as examples of exact replication by Apple are not, in fact, sold in the US and have been trying to throw them out of evidence. Their argument is that if the phones are not really sold in the U.S., and there are no significant marketing attempts to help sell them, then there is no reason they should be admitted in a U.S. court where they don’t have any effect on Samsung’s or Apple’s sales.
The three phones are the Galaxy S i9000, the Ace, and the SII i9100. Samsung wants to make the distinction between international products and those that are sold exclusively in the US. Basic logic and knowledge of the product market would suggest that there is not much difference between international products and products sold in the US, especially in the global economy.
But because this is legal procedure, the judge accepted the request to banish any judgement based on these three phones specifically. So in case Apple wins the trial, the jury cannot provide financial rewards based on the sales figures of those phones. They need to find infringement based on other evidence. Samsung lawyers made a request to extend this ruling to more of the evidence, but Judge Koh blocked that one. .
With that discussion, Apple’s turn ended and we’ll be treated to Samsung’s side of the case from now on.
Accusations of impropriety have flown around the courtroom on the seventh day of the trial. Major portions of the day have concentrated on attempts by each counsel to block witnesses and on very specific analysis by an Apple witness about the potential financial loss Apple has suffered through Samsung’s similar products.
Earlier in the day, witnesses discussed licensing agreements defined by Apple that at first glance appear contradictory to their patent copying complaints. Apple patent license manager Boris Tekler testified that Apple previously licensed related technology to Microsoft without making available its most important UI patents to them. Samsung also noted that Apple also offered them a potential licensing agreement, but that it was not in good faith. Tekler noted Apple’s previous licensing agreements, including that with Microsoft, always made sure to include provisions against exact replications of the products, to protect their patents and that the company, buoyed by said patents, was within its right to decide how much to give out.
Around midday, Apple witness Terry Musika, an accountant, noted that Samsung should at least pay Apple in excess of $2.7 Billion for its patent infringements, based on the fact Samsung has mode more than $8 Billion on its line of phones since they started appearing very similar to Apple’s products.
Another interesting development saw the judge disallow Samsung phone designer Hyon Shin Park from testifying because she believed Park had an obvious prejudice towards Samsung.
Benjamin Boris Bederson, professor at Maryland and major UI innovator, was the first witness for Samsung’s case. He discussed his LaunchTime application and innovations on touch-screen technology. The LaunchTime software is considered by experts to be a precursor to the iPhone iOS and Samsung apparently is going to use that fact as an entryway into their argument that Samsung’s OS was operating from historical developments in touch technology and not by copying Apple outright.