Apple vs Samsung Day 2: Opening Statements And Evidence Battle
Michael Harper for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online
The jury has officially been picked, and now the real fun begins: opening statements from Apple and Samsung’s legal beagles.
No day 2 of any patent lawsuit would not be complete, of course, without a fun and educational video explaining what patents are and how companies get them, topped off with a stubborn Samsung throwing a bit of a tantrum before they started their opening statements. All in all, it sounds like it was a fun day two.
Samsung has been sticking to their guns on the Sony Style issue, insisting the San Jose court include this evidence in the trial. As a recap, Samsung wants to have an interview and some drawings included as evidence, not to prove that Samsung stole designs from Apple, but that Apple may have borrowed inspiration as well.
Judge Koh denied Samsung the opportunity to include this evidence on Monday, but began court Tuesday with a slightly different ruling: Samsung could include testimony from the designer who drew up the Sony Style iPhone, saying “That will be admitted solely for functionality and no other purpose.”
Samsung’s lawyer, John Quinn, then asked Judge Koh once more if they could include drawings of older Samsung designs which predate the first iPhone as evidence. This isn’t the first time Samsung has asked Judge Koh to consider these drawings as evidence, and today she once more denied the request. Much to her chagrin, Quinn decided to press the matter, saying he was — for the first time in his 30 years of courtroom experience — begging that this evidence be included.
“You’ve made your record for appeal,” said the judge. “Don’t make me sanction you, please.”
After the 18-minute info-tational video about patent law, Apple kicked off opening statements, taking great care to point out that Samsung once had many different-looking phones. When the iPhone was released, Samsung’s phones mysteriously all took on a similar design.
“As we all know, it’s easier to copy than to innovate,” said Apple’s lead attorney, Harold McElhinny. He then went on to briefly discuss the history of Apple and the story behind the first iPhone.
McElhinny then showed the jury documents which detail how Samsung’s top brass admired the iPhone and envied the way customers lusted after the devices. He then told the jury that, while Samsung would have their designers say they never copied the iPhone, these documents tell another story.
Then McElhinny began to discuss each of the design patents which Apple believes Samsung has infringed upon, such as the bounce animation and double-tap to zoom, as well as trade dress infringement, such as metallic bezels around clear, flat surfaces and four, rounded corners. According to Apple’s testimony, when customers look at a product which matches this description, they’re looking at an Apple product.
Samsung, on the other hand, began their opening statements saying Apple didn’t invent the rectangle, pointing to the 2006 LG Prada luxury phone as an example of iPhone-like designs which predate the iPhone.
Samsung’s Attorney, Charles Verhoeven, then went on to say his company didn’t closely watch the iPhone to copy it, only to compete with it, saying the entire industry watches one another in an effort to stay competitive. Verhoeven also made the point that regular, everyday people are able to distinguish the difference between an iPad tablet and a Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet. However, as pointed out by All Things D’s John Paczkowski, Samsung’s own lawyers had trouble determining the difference between the two tablets during an October 2011 hearing in Judge Koh’s court.
Verhoeven then went on to address each of the patents Samsung is accusing Apple of infringing upon, including data transmission patents and patents relating to the camera and music players.
The juiciest bit of news from yesterday’s proceedings, however, is what Samsung did with the evidence Judge Koh once more denied at the beginning of today’s session.
Shortly after Judge Koh denied Quinn his request to include Samsung drawings from before the iPhone, Samsung released the evidence in question to the public along with a statement which reads: “The Judge’s exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone. The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.”
As you might expect, Apple didn’t take too kindly to Samsung’s schoolyard tactics, nor did Judge Koh.
“Tell Mr. Quinn I’d like to see him today,” said Koh, according to All Things D’s Ina Fried.
“I want to know who drafted the press release, who authorized it from the legal team.”
What will happen today? Check back with redOrbit for more.