Apple v Samsung Trial Updates; Judge Suggests Apple Lawyer 'Smoking Crack' & More


Editor in Chief
Staff member
Jan 5, 2011

Another week has gone by, and the Apple versus Samsung legal suit has been raging ahead with more drama ensuing. Here's a quick summary of the highlights culled from multiple soources around the web this week:

First, Apple rested its case on Monday, which meant it was time for Samsung to present theirs. Apple's case appeared strong. In fact, Samsung filed a motion to dismiss the case entirely, claiming that Apple failed to prove its case, but Judge Koh was having none of it. She apparently felt there was strong enough evidence that a jury might rule against Samsung. When it was Samsung's turn, rather than try to completely refute that they stole Apple's designs, instead they lead by presenting the argument that Apple's patents should be considered invalid because of "prior art."

They were referring to Apple's "pinch-to-zoom" patent, and used technology called the Diamond Touch. It was designed by a Mitsubishi engineer, Adam Bogue, in 2003. Mr. Bogue testified that he showed the device to Apple in 2003. The device is basically a giant table that had multi-touch and pinch-to-zoom like functionality. Samsung argued that they basically stole these ideas from this meeting and that because of this, their patent is invalid.

Second, Judge Koh removed three (out of 20) devices from the trial that Apple included in their list of infringing devices. They were the international international Galaxy S, Galaxy SII, and Galaxy Ace. Samsung successfully argued to the judge that Apple "Apple hadn't provided a reason why the three devices should be included. After all, Samsung noted, the three products were not available for direct sale in the US by Samsung, and since the current trial is exclusively concerned with devices sold in the US, Apple had the burden of proof in arguing why the devices should be considered in the first place." ~ Quoted directly from AndroidPolice

Third, Apple previously introduced documents from Samsung showing that Google tried to warn Samsung that the Galaxy Tab resembled the iPad too much, and asked them to redesign it. Apple made the argument that Samsung proceeded anyway, knowing that they might be infringing.

Fourth, Apple previously claimed that they lost 2 Million device sales because of Samsung's alleged infringement, and that this amounted to $2.5 Billion dollars in damages because of those alleged lost sales. Apple used CPA Terry Musika to come up with these estimates, and he admitted in trial that he was paid $1.75 Million for his "services." Samsung countered with their own expert witness, Michael Wagner, a former partner at PriceWaterhouse who has 36 years experience in calculating corporate damages. He indicated that Apple's calculations were way off, and that if there was infringement it would likely amount to about $519 million. He pointed out that “[Apple's] total calculation of total profits did not include the total cost to figure out the profits.” Additionally, Wagner also disputed the 2 Million devices figure itself. He pointed out that the number seems unrealistic because, at that time, demand for the iPhone was more than Apple's supply.

Fifth, Judge Lucy Koh lobbed a verbal roundhouse at an Apple lawyer. Apple named 22 people they wanted to call as rebuttal witness, with only four hours left on their maximum number of 25 hours needed to make their case. They presented a 75 page document to the Judge, detailing the witnesses. Judge Koh responded with the following colorful statement, "unless you're smoking crack you know these witnesses aren't going to be called!" It appeared that Judge Koh is tired and frustrated, and is making sure that the trial stays on schedule. (Editor's comment: perhaps she has better things to do?)