The 50 hours of testimony and exhibits of Apple v. Samsung — which will have ramifications as significant as United States v. Microsoft — wrapped up yesterday with closing arguments from both sides moving the case to jury for deliberation.
As Apple’s lawyer, Harold McElhinny, argued in his closing statements, the case’s genesis is in Samsung’s “crisis of design” — a second tier smartphone manufacturer deciding it was easier to imitate than innovate. Pointing to internal Samsung documents that offered an in-depth comparison the first Galaxy phone to the iPhone, Mr. McElhinny argued that Samsung was able to spend a mere three months copying Apple’s 4-year investment.
“They sat with the iPhone and went feature by feature, copying it to the smallest detail. In those three months, Samsung was able to copy Apple’s 4-year investment in the iPhone, without taking any of the risks because they were copying the world’s most successful product,” Mr. McElhinny argued before the jury.
“Samsung was the iPhone’s biggest fan,” he continued in his address to jurors. “They knew a good thing when they saw one.”
For Samsung, the case was not about accusations of making a phone that looked like the iPhone — because the company called all similarities responding to market trends — but rather a ‘David vs. Goliath’ case of a company using litigation to game the marketplace instead of competing fairly.
Samsung argued that lawsuits haven’t emerged from competitors following the market trend sent by the leader, citing the emergence of full featured QWERTY phones on the market when Blackberry was the smartphone hegemon.
“Rather than compete in the marketplace, Apple is seeking a competitive edge through the courtroom,” said Samsung’s lead lawyer Charles Verhoeven. “It’s seeking to block its biggest and most serious competitor from even attending the game.”
Mr. Verhoeven warned jurors that the outcome of this case “could change the way competition works in this country” if Apple wins.
During Apple’s closing rebuttal, the company’s lawyers mocked and refuted Mr. Veroeven’s closing statements.
“If you find for Apple in this case, you will have re-affirmed the American patent system,” said Mr. McElhinny. “People in this valley will continue to invest because they know their investment will be protected.”
Bill Lee, Apple second lawyer who handed some witness testimony and cross examination concluded Apple’s rebuttal with one final address to the jury that was largely directed at Apple.
“Make your own designs, make your own phones, and compete on your own innovations.”
Tags: Apple v Samsung