Closing arguments in Apple-Samsung trial to take place tomorrow; jury deliberations to start Tuesday
Originally, the closing arguments were supposed to have been held today, but as we told you this past weekend, a separate appeals court ruling in a case involving Apple and Motorola had implications for this trial, and forced each side to add another hour each of testimony.
Apple recalled Carnegie Mellon professor Todd Mowry to the stand today, to say that even with a different definition of analyzer server as determined by the appeals court, Samsung still is guilty of infringing on Apple's patents. Samsung had Kevin Jeffay, professor of computer science at the University of North Carolina, testify about his definition of analyzer server. But saying that he never had a firm definition, Judge Koh struck his answer from the record. Jeffay did get to testify that Samsung did not infringe on Apple's patents.
Tomorrow, both sides will wrap things up with their closing arguments and after a longer than normal lunch break (hey, those noontime lines at Chipotle are long!) Judge Koh will read the instructions to the jury at around 1pm PDT. After that, the jury begins its deliberations. Apple is seeking $2.2 billion from Samsung, while in a cross-claim, Samsung is asking for $6 million from Apple.
You can read the entire 53 pages of jury instructions below.
source: Scribd via CNET
1. 0xFFFF (Posts: 2972; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
Ah, the US court system. All the Kohruption money can buy.
4. oboboy14 (Posts: 45; Member since: 27 Mar 2014)
What corruption have you detected in this case, 0xFFFF esquire?
13. 0xFFFF (Posts: 2972; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
"Its obvious this judge has been bought and paid for by Apple. There should be an investigation, and she should be more than impeached. This type of blatant bias should not be allowed in a court room."
"That judge worked for years in the law firm representing Apple : how can such a huge conflict of interest be allowed ?"
"I don't want innovation to be stifled and that is exactly what this judge is doing, regardless of the company, these patents should not have been granted."
These quotes are from the petition that was originally aimed at impeaching Koh for pro-Apple bias. If you Google the topic, you will find widespread belief that Koh and the US courts are biased against Samsung.
The bigger issue is of course that the US patent system is completely broken, but Koh is not the cause of that.
17. networkdood (Posts: 6267; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
I believe it was her husband that worked as a lawyer for APPLE, not her...
21. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5745; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
That would be bordering on undue influence. It really comes down to a decision by the judge as to whether they perceived a conflict of interest. But there is the matter of optics.
26. Ashoaib (Posts: 1974; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
Her husband? Then she should not be a judge in this case bcoz for sure she will favour her husband's client(apple)
19. oboboy14 (Posts: 45; Member since: 27 Mar 2014)
Agreed that the patent system is in need of some revision, but I don't think its completely broken, but this one case is hardly sufficient evidence to make a claim about the entire judicial system. It isn't perfect, but no other country's system is, nor will it ever be. And by the way, the trial isn't about whether or not the patents should have been granted, but whether samsung infringed on them. Patents and property rights encourage innovation by guaranteeing a return on the large investment needed for such innovation. I don't like apple, but not liking a company isn't grounds for disregarding the law.
23. tedkord (Posts: 4729; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Part of the trial is determining if the patents are invalid due to prior art, so yes, it is about whether or not the patents should have been granted.
6. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6429; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
you mean all the icoruption can buy and the ijury know they will fine samsung guilty and all hell with break loose
9. networkdood (Posts: 6267; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
Corruption, indeed. A recent Supreme Court ruling allows unlimited spending in political campaigns, allowing for additional corruption in that arena. If I were running for President I would limit it to 100.00/person/year, and no corporate political campaign money would be allowed.
22. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5745; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
And you wouldn't be elected POTUS because you would be spent into the ground. Sorry, but welcome to life in a plutocracy.
2. Ashoaib (Posts: 1974; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
Odds will favour apple, lets see if any miracle... samsung not gonna win on apple's land
8. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
You mean like this:
"President fails to use veto; some older model Samsung devices are now impacted by import ban"
"President Obama vetoes the ban on sales of some Apple products"
10. networkdood (Posts: 6267; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
I wonder if the ban was on an S4 or S5, if Obama would use his veto...hmmmmm - who knows...
27. Ashoaib (Posts: 1974; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
Exactly! You are good in explaining things in detail
3. ajac09 (Posts: 1367; Member since: 30 Sep 2009)
It always goes to the home team. Such a biased court system. Samsung has been making phones and tables since the 80's but hey who ares apple makes them now and that means according to people who know nothing of the industry that apple invented them. Just like apple can patent shapes. They are only mad that samsung is a serious threat now. If they werent they wouldn't be suing them. Notice they are not suing HTC LG and other companies. Samsung needs to hurt them where it would hurt the most.. component manufacturing.
11. networkdood (Posts: 6267; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
Samsung lost to Apple in Korea, once...lol...crazy, huh?
24. express77 (unregistered)
Korean court didn't support trolling by samsung but US court is supporting trolling by apple. Apple has been given patents for shapes and slide to unlock and many others which shouldnt have been granted and even if it is granted, it is no way more than 50 million$s but it is total BS that apple is getting 2.2 billion $s. And I am not saying US justice system is worst. It is better than most countries but these stupid systems should end.
5. PBXtech (Posts: 976; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
I kinda wonder if Samsung low balled their amount in order to make Apple's demands stand out more as being ludicrous. It's so lopsided, it begs to be investigated on value alone.
7. mturby (Posts: 241; Member since: 09 Jan 2013)
im starting to hate this woman, and i already dont like samsung too much (nothing to do with her ethnicity),
12. qxavierus (Posts: 25; Member since: 20 Mar 2012)
In my opinion patent infringement fine should be based on the number of patents used in a phone. Say if a phone is covered by 10000 patents, and 3 are violated, the manufacturer will have to pay 0.0003% of each phone to the patent holder. Or if the phone price is $600, this means that $0.18 from each phone goes to the patent owner.
Ok, double the fine if the patent is too important, but come on... a phone could still be built
even without these 3 patents..
14. 0xFFFF (Posts: 2972; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
This is better than what we have, but the best thing to do for everyone except a few giant US corporations and their lawyers would be to completely get rid of software, design, and "idea" patents.
16. dontneedtoknow (Posts: 147; Member since: 17 Feb 2014)
No it's not! It is helpful to small companies!
18. 0xFFFF (Posts: 2972; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
This is not true. The fact is that most small businesses cannot even afford all the costs associated with filing for a patent. There are tons of articles and studies showing how harmful patents are for small companies. One excerpt:
"The author noted that the common theme of the survey responses was that startup companies are disproportionately disadvantaged by the current patent system because patent litigation is slow and expensive, and large companies and NPEs are using this to their anti-competitive advantage. Slow and expensive are anathema to startups. I’ll let you judge the anti-competitive intent of big companies."
15. garyII (Posts: 160; Member since: 26 Feb 2014)
somehow there isn't much story regarding the court when it is the time to attack on Apple's infringement when compared to the attack on sammy....
20. Doakie (Posts: 1250; Member since: 06 May 2009)
Who really cares anymore? We all know Apple is going to win because the system is broken. Just fast forward to the bad news on how much Samsung owes this time....
25. express77 (unregistered)
After this is over, apple will ask for 60$s per phone and will be granted.