“The iPhone, like all of Apple’s products is about creating a unique and special user experience. An experience that is so seamless and intuitive that it just feels right. It doesn’t come easy,” Mr. McElhinny said to the court. “Apple’s competitors immediately recognized the impact of this new device. These competitors included, as I mentioned, Samsung Electronics.”
“As we all know it’s easier to copy than to innovate,” he continued.
Mr. McElhinny displayed before the jury internal Samsung documents where Samsung executives discussed the strengths of the iPhone. He also displayed before the jury a series of images that contrasted Samsung’s smartphone designs to Apple’s, purporting that Samsung was continually a few steps behind Apple — modifying its designs when Apple updated its own.
Apple’s lawyer argued that Samsung had “failed to take reasonable steps” to prevent the infringement of Apple’s intellectual property. He called the first phone in the Galaxy line — the Si9000 — a “complete iPhone clone” and the 22 million phones sold, “profit that they made using [Apple’s] intellectual property.”
“You will hear that Apple did not sit quietly by when Samsung started infringing Apple products,” Mr. McElhinny told the jury. “Apple met with Samsung to point out that Samsung was acting illegally and demand that Samsung come up with its own designs and user interface.”
With that Mr. McElhinny concluded his address to the court and another Apple lawyer, Bill Lee, took the stand to address the allegations (that began as a countersuit) by Samsung that Apple was infringing upon a buffet of its 3G radio patents.
Mr. Lee argued that Samsung’s demands of compensation of $12 per phone are unreasonable, as each 3G baseband chip in question costs Apple $10.
Mr. Lee also asked why everyone but Apple was exempt from paying for these patents.
“Has anyone paid for these patents before?” Mr. Lee asked the jurors, semi-rhetorically. “No one has. No one has paid a penny for these patents.”
When Samsung’s lawyer took the stand, he dismissed allegations that Samsung took anything more than inspiration from Apple and argued that Apple’s iPhone patents were invalid.
“Samsung is a major technology company that develops its own innovations,” Samsung’s lawyer Charles Verhoeven told the jurors.”Samsung is not some copyist, some Johnny come lately doing knockoffs.”
“Being inspired by a good product and seeking to make even better products is called competition,” Mr. Verhoeven said, referring to admission by Apple that it first looked to Sony for inspiration for its iPhone. “It’s not copying and it’s not infringing. Everybody does it in the commercial marketplace.”
“Apple has no right to claim a monopoly on a rectangle with a large screen,” he said.
The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Apple Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, No. 11-1846.
Tags: Apple v Samsung