At the end of a long trial day, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh, who’s been the presiding justice over the course of both pre-trial and actual trial, urged that Apple and Samsung speak together to try and resolve their differences out of court before the jury comes back to deliberate on the evidence that has been presented by both sides this week and last.
“It’s time for peace,” Koh said, adding, “I see risks here for both sides.”
Patent analyst Stephen Gray is the next and final witness of the day from Samsung. He’s expected to talk about the limitations of the Apple patent at issue, as well as the same prior art touch screen applications that Van Dam talked about a few minutes ago.
San Jose, CA — The Samsung vs. Apple trial continues in the afternoon with testimony from Dr. Andries van Dam, a pioneer in computing graphics and a long-time professor at Brown University. He is here in the Federal courthouse to invalidate the ‘381 Apple patent of “snap-back” touch screen functionality by identifying “prior art” design of gadgets before the iPhone and iPad innovations.
Samsung continues its defense in the San Jose patent trial today against Apple, with more witnesses declaring Apple is the original copycat in the touch-screen mobile business.
We dig back in as one of the Samsung’s top executives, Industrial Designer Jin-Soo Kim, testifies about his role in the product development business.
After two weeks of Apple laying down their evidence that Samsung has violated their patents and completely ripped-off the iPhone and iPad, Samsung is now going on the defensive in the Apple vs Samsung trial. So far, Samsung’s biggest strategic defense has been to flip the trial around and claim that Apple has infringed on their standard essential patents.
To help their case, Samsung has listed two expert witnesses to justify their claims that Apple should pay up to 2.5% in royalties. One of the experts – David J. Teece, a professor at the University of California, Berkley, was recently used by Motorola in their case against Microsoft related to H.264 patents.
Judge Lucy Koh has once again made a plea of Apple and Samsung to make peace in their patent dispute before a verdict is handed down. Not doing so, the federal judge warns, could be a danger to both Apple and Samsung.
Apple rested its case yesterday late in the afternoon but its work proving its patents were seriously infringed upon is just getting started. Today marks the first full day of Samsung witnesses and we expect to hear testimony tailored to break down patent claims related to touch screen technology, UI design, and maybe even hardware manufacturing.
Rumors surrounding Apple’s next iPhone have reached a fever pitch in the weeks leading up to the expected announcement date, September 12th. With pre-orders rumored to begin on the same day, Apple is expected to see record sales this holiday season. Anticipation for the next iPhone is higher than it’s ever been, and smartphone sales from the past quarter reflect that fact.
Gartner’s results for Q2 show slowed iPhone growth, with Apple sitting behind Samsung and Nokia in worldwide smartphone sales.
Apple claims that its internal research shows that the main reason US smartphone consumers purchased an Android phone instead of an iPhone was in order to stay with their current carrier. The study only covers the US smartphone marked and was brought up by Samsung today as court evidence in the patent infringement trial between the two companies in Northern California.
The study was published at Apple in January of 2011, and shows that 48 percent of those surveyed said that they had went with an Android phone because they “wanted to stay with current wireless provider.”
36 percent said that they “trusted the Google brand,” while 30 percent just like bigger screens. Sometimes, bigger *is* better, according to these folks.
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.