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

dgstorm

Editor in Chief
Staff member
Premium Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
10,992
Reaction score
3,966
Location
Austin, TX
apple_samsung_scales.png

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?)
 

B0B0

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2012
Messages
117
Reaction score
5
Location
I travel
wow. she did a 180 from last week of hating on samsung.

Why can't she stay consistent?
 

welsalex

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
559
Reaction score
11
Location
Austin, TX
Just so happens Apples corporate crack cocaine budget is over by 2.5 billion hence the numbers they came up with.
 

cybertec69

Silver Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
267
Location
Staten Island, NY
So they payed someone almost two million $'s to come up with that ludicrous #, of course if someone payed you 2 million $'s you better come up with something real good, in Apples case, a real good # in the "we lost boat loads of $ department", WOW, just WOW, looks like some people get payed ridiculous sums of money just by playing with numbers. No wonder this economy is going down the drain, the people who actually do the REAL work get payed crap, or have no job at all.
 

Xplorer4x4

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
4
Location
Evansville,IN
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.
I think this last sentence could force Apple to admit that they create an exaggerated demand by means of under supplying retailers. Look at how many awesome devices are put up for sale every day and it seems that every year or so Apple is the only company that continues to suffer from a lack of supply for retailers even though they have a very powerful influence on there part suppliers. Not only that but you expect me to believe that Apple can not predict the over whelming demand for there products on launch date? Let's not forget the demands they placed on Foxcon when they decided to make changes to the screen and/or bezel forcing Foxcon workers to be woken up in the middle of the night and thrown on an assembly line so Apple could meet the previously set launch date. The bottom line here is that if Apple is set to disprove this statement this means providing numbers that would prove the false demand theory to be correct. However, if they provide numbers that prove that to be false, it would also likely hurt the credibility of Apple's witness more then the pay off has.
 

jasonwuzthere

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
The judge is doing her job, IMO. I don't necessarily like that she threw out Sammy's prototypes, but I can see a point where Sammy could have easily forged document and photos. Samsung's best evidence is still in Steve Job's own "Great artitsts steal" quote if you ask me. lol
 

MissionImprobable

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,040
Reaction score
142
Sounds like things are going a little better. Interesting that Apple essentially bribed this CPA to crunch numbers in their favor. Of course Oracle was paying off journalists, so nothing new.
 

zomnomnombie

Active Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
788
Reaction score
36
B0B0 said:
wow. she did a 180 from last week of hating on samsung.

Why can't she stay consistent?

If a judge appears biased to both sides they're probably doing their job correctly.
 

jseah

Active Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
977
Reaction score
25
Sounds like things are going a little better. Interesting that Apple essentially bribed this CPA to crunch numbers in their favor. Of course Oracle was paying off journalists, so nothing new.

Of course the guy that Apple paid would crunch the numbers in their favor. Why would the company pay someone an exorbitant amount of money and bring them into court as an expert witness, if his findings were not in their favor?
 

MissionImprobable

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,040
Reaction score
142
Of course the guy that Apple paid would crunch the numbers in their favor. Why would the company pay someone an exorbitant amount of money and bring them into court as an expert witness, if his findings were not in their favor?
My point is that Apple ended up having to disclose in court how much they paid him for the findings and Samsung's expert witness ended up debunking pretty much everything he said.
 

B0B0

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2012
Messages
117
Reaction score
5
Location
I travel
annnd sammy lost. =-\

iApple better sue every other company that uses round corners on ANYTHING.
 
Top