On Friday, Samsung called NYU professor Tulin Erdem to the stand, and his testimony was that Apple was relying on a flawed analysis by John Hauser that inflated the amount of the damages that Apple is seeking from its rival. The professor says that the study includes features that most consumers aren't even aware of. These features do not drive demand, according to Erdem. Hauser's study, which Apple presented earlier in the trial, claimed that these consumers are willing to pay $32 to $102 for the features covered by Apple's patents. "You are elevating artificially the importance, the value of these things," the professor said. "They are not even in the radar screen of consumers. These are very granular...and they wouldn't drive demand."
Erdem testified that she used eye-tracking studies to determine which phones people would buy. She discovered that people won't select a particular smartphone based on minor things. "It was the major things that drive demand," she said. On cross-examination, Apple tried to discredit Erdem's testimony by saying that her study failed to include such features as the processor, on-screen QWERTY and GPS. But another Samsung expert earlier on Friday, criticized Hauser's study for Apple, for failing to include the same exact things.
The Samsung expert who shot down Hauser's study was David Reibstein, professor of marketing at Wharton, who said that the study also did not take the brand of phone into consideration. Reibstein said that there are several factors that drive a consumer to buy a particular phone and none of them relate to the patents that Apple claims were infringed on by Samsung.
Closing arguments are expected on April 28th. After instructions from Judge Lucy Koh, the trial will be turned over to the jury.
source: Recode, CNET via AppleInsider