x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Apple vs Samsung closing arguments: "It took you three months to copy what we've been developing for five years"

Apple vs Samsung closing arguments: "It took you three months to copy what we've been developing for five years"

Posted: , posted by Daniel P.

Tags :

Apple vs Samsung closing arguments:
The Apple and Samsung legal teams took the stage yesterday for their closing speeches, giving them one last shot to convince the ragtag jury crew, before they enter the final deliberations stage today, and come up with a verdict.

Most of the closing statements were a rehash of every argument and counter-argument we've heard so far for the trial's duration, but there are some quotations and dramatic gestures that deserve your attention. Apart from Apple's lawyer McElhinny taking out a Nokia Lumia and an Xperia arc to substantiate his argument that there can be innovation in phone design without copying Apple, a lot of attention was paid to the way the jury has to look at the evidence.

Apple basically claimed that the so-called "trade dress" is the design and software as a whole that brings the exquisite look and feel, whereas Samsung was trying to point out subtle differences that according to its legal team make their phones and tablets apart enough from Apple's. Here is Cupertino's fiery take on the matter, as presented by various members of its legal team - they were first in line at the closing arguments, with rebuttal times for both companies:

First, is that documents are the most valuable key in the truth-finding function. Witnesses can be incorrect. Historical documents are almost always where the truth lies.Steve Jobs started the iPhone development project in 2003. Steve Jobs shocked the world. It was perhaps the most famous product in the world...

This is a historical document. This is what Samsung was thinking in 2008. It calls the iPhone a revolution. [Google demanded] that Samsung change the designs of the Galaxy S phones and the tablets they were working on because Google recognized Samsung was copying... 

[Galaxy S design took two to three months, Samsung icon designer says.] I literally almost fell out of my chair. In those three months Samsung was able to copy and emulate Apple's designs without taking any risks. Because it was copying the world's most successful product... [Samsung wa] bound and determined to cash in on the iPhone's success. Samsung got what it wanted. [Its sales] took off after the first iPhone-derived product was added to the mix. No Samsung executives were willing to come here from Korea... Instead of witnesses, they brought you lawyers...

They say our patents are invalid because they are functional, and because they are obvious... Samsung's defense is a word game... It should be clear to you why no real designer would come to this trial to testify... Samsung was the iPhone's biggest fan. They knew a good thing when they saw it. They tried to compete with it, and when they couldn't, they copied it....

It's the look of the design that tells you who made or who sells the product. Apple has asserted four trade dresses in this case. All the testimony here went to elements. Color, a corner. But trade dress is viewed as a whole... You cannot help but reach the conclusion that these products are so similar... that Apple's products wil be viewed as less than unique in the marketplace. They have spent a billion dollars mimicking our designs and holding it out to the world so the Apple design is no longer seen as unique...

[Rebuttal]Compete on your own innovations. We've going to have them to protect our investment in innovations. Because if we don't, we won't have people like Apple spending five years in a room coming up with a phone that revolutionizes the world. They copied our product, but what they're saying to you is we don't want to pay...

If Samsung had all of this, as they just told you, why was there a crisis in design? Why was there a difference between heaven and earth?... They wanted to fly below the radar so they could ambush their partner with a knock-off phone and that's what they did. This is 100 pages of side-by-side comparison where they say 'we're going to copy the iPhone. What they didn't do is ask their own inventors, 'can you help us out here?' Because they couldn't... You're going to have to decide who lived by the rules and who didn't live by the rules. And those who didn't live by the rules were Samsung.

Here are Samsung's arguments, presented by Charles Verhoeven:

Apple is asking you to award it over $2 billion for them. You'd think that if Apple is going to come in here and ask for over $2 bilion in damages they might have used all the money to have an expert come in here and say people were deceived. But they didn't... Apple is seeking a competitive edge through the courtroom, and attempting to block its most serious competitor from even playing the game.

[The jury verdict] can change the way competition works in this country. Think about Silicon Valley, the way it used to be, back in the day... now there's tens of thousands of tech jobs. That's because of free competition. Consumers deserve a choice. Competition is what's built this country...

Just think about walking into a Best Buy store. You go into the TV section. All of the TVs look the same. They're all boxes. They're all flatscreens. They're all minimalist designs...

[Apple has no] monopoly on a rounded rectangle with a touchscreen. Is anyone really deceived by Samsung's devices that they were buying Apple devices? The fact is consumers make choices, not mistakes... there's no deception, there's no confusion, and Apple has no credible evidence of it...

The Galaxy S 4G, as you can plainly see does not have a bezel of uniform thickness, unlike the iPhone. It's a totally different design style... There's only two icons that Dr. Kare says were similar. The phone and clock... I would submit that the vast majority of the icons are substantially different. And let's not pretend you can patent a colorful row, a colorful matrix of icons...

[Damages] We hope you don't get there, but if you do, you've got to use your common sense. Let's have Samsung compete freely in the marketplace instead of Apple trying to stop it in the courtroom.

In the end, it will all come up to a certain amount of money exchanging hands, say Wall Street Journal legal experts, and the jury has to decide how much. Of course, if they find Samsung infringing and trying to sincerely copy Apple's ideas since the Galaxy S, there will be the moral victory for Cupertino, which is likely what they are aiming at, since the monetary damage, if any, is likely to be much less than the up to $2.75 billion Apple is asking

Just for the trade dress violation, Apple's attorney argued it is owed a minimum of $519 million, and a maximum of $1.396, if Samsung's indirect costs calculation is overlooked by the jury, yet both figures are not exactly of significance for the $100+ billion in cash Apple has anyway, as well as Samsung, which made $5 billion last quarter alone. We can't wait for the verdict, so we can move on towards what's in store for the holiday season from both companies this year, and the goodies they will be prepping the next.

source: TheVerge & WSJ

  • Options

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 09:05 39

1. jaoowolabi (Posts: 201; Member since: 07 Jun 2012)

i hope i never have to go to court for something as stupid as this....

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 09:21 12

5. pokharkarsaga (Posts: 426; Member since: 23 Feb 2012)

The 2nd picture complete says that Samsung copied apple because the design of Samsung devices suddenly changed after launch of apple on Jan 2007.

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 09:56 35

25. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)

Picture 16 says otherwise.

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 17:16 3

127. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)

none of the phones in picture 16 made samsung super profitable… they had to copy the iphone with the galaxy line to become the major player they are today

posted on 23 Aug 2012, 00:47 1

139. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)

so a patent should be given to who sold it? how old are you?

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 10:07 24

33. mikiemon (Posts: 13; Member since: 01 Feb 2012)

And the 16th photo shows they were using that shape for phones a year before the Iphone came out. Like a true Ifan you see want you want see and not the truth. Apple has never done anything truly inventive on the iphone only copy and steal /buy from others. I take that back they were the first to go with a super high res screen, but then they had to because their display is so damn small.

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 11:47 15

74. tedkord (Posts: 14734; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)

That, plus the fact that we now know Sony were also working on these types of designs prior to the iPhone, and the LG Prada design was released prior to the iPhone (and in fact won an award for that design), makes it pretty clear that the design was the natural evolution of smartphones, and not a unique idea from Apple.

Now, add in the fact that the iPad is a direct copy of the Fidler tablet, and it was shown that Apple was shown the tablet a decade prior to the iPad, and it becomes clear that Apple does exactly what they claim others do -copy.

Things that existed in phones prior to the iPhone:

Rectangles with rounded corners
Grids of icons
Bottom row of fixed icons
Green phone icon for...wait for it...the phone
Swipe to unlock
And many more...

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 14:20 3

117. structureman116 (Posts: 141; Member since: 14 Sep 2010)

And they had to buy this super high res screen from someone else because they lack the capabilities to manufacture it themselves! Aren't they buying screens for their new gadgets from Sharp and LG?

posted on 23 Aug 2012, 03:26

144. Kalevro (Posts: 56; Member since: 11 Sep 2011)

Yes but you don't get the point. If Apple starts building their own screens it would be a pain in the ass. Therefore they use existing factories with a license and permition. It is wayyy more cheap and usefull.

posted on 23 Aug 2012, 03:27 1

145. Kalevro (Posts: 56; Member since: 11 Sep 2011)

And the technology of the screen is totally Apple LG just manufactures them. You give the product and they just copy-paste for mass production, understand. The screen isn't of any other branding than Apple

posted on 23 Aug 2012, 10:44

147. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

you couldnt be more wrong if you tried.

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 10:21 3

39. SGSatlantis (Posts: 226; Member since: 20 Jul 2011)

The blackjack looks like galaxy s predecesor with qwerty.

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 12:26 8

92. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

look at the entire line up, not 3 randomly chosen phones by apple to make it look like there is a copy. Samsung was using prior samsung design evolution. The shapes didnt change that much between 2006 and 2007. And like others have stated, LG was already using an award winning design in the Prada before the iphone launched that looks incredibly similar.

You have to ignore A LOT of easily found evidence to think that samsung changed their whole look just to look like a black rectangle. what shape were they before? orange circle? green star?

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 13:06 4

101. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)

Samsung's design evolution is going to be the hardest hurdle for Apple to overcome with the jury.

Which is why I have been forecasting a split decision. Apple ain't gonna get no $2.75 Billion out of this.

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 13:25 4

111. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

yea, i think its gonna be a near wash. if apple does not loose a patent or 2 id be surprised. I dont think samsung is gonna get much either. Samsung did a pretty good job within their court restricted constraints to prove they were not massive copy artists and that apple doesnt deserve patents for most of that junk. I still dont get how they can claim they lost 2 billion in profit from sales when they couldnt even keep up with their own demand. lol.

Best result, apple patents invalidated, maybe a MINOR fine to samsung at best, everyone goes home. Apple's lawsuits will be pretty much dead if the patents are invalidated.

Either way, we will see an appeal.

posted on 23 Aug 2012, 00:43 2

138. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)

" I still dont get how they can claim they lost 2 billion in profit from sales when they couldnt even keep up with their own demand."

Jurors are going to have a hard time wrapping their heads around that concept as well. It would be one thing if Apple had $2 billion in unsold handsets sitting in warehouses that the jury could see and touch. But selling every phone you could make (and in the process managing to kill workers in an explosion at the factory due to pressure to make more phones) equals a $2 billion loss?

Bush 41 had a term for that kind of math - Voodoo economics....

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 19:19

130. Santi_Santi (unregistered)

Maybe im wrong but in the same picture n.2 i can see an iPhone at the left and a lot of phones who says Samsung on the right... and also says that the iPhone was released on 2007 and the suddenly changes on Samsung phones were in 2010... i dont think i can be confused for a Samsung or an iPhone, also dont believe the "suddenly" changes youre saying because they were made 3 years after...

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 20:09 1

131. flamencoguy (Posts: 107; Member since: 04 Aug 2012)

Do you think designs are going to stay the same with each new model? It is called convergence. Over time don't all laptops look pretty much alike. Get real. This is childishly simple design.

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 09:32 24

11. structureman116 (Posts: 141; Member since: 14 Sep 2010)

I hope the US Patent office gets their heads out of their a$$es and stops issuing patents for shapes and colors that have been in existence since long before Apple was a thought in anyones mind!

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 12:11 3

89. Vinayakn73 (Posts: 197; Member since: 05 Oct 2011)

instead of i will recommend they must keep their hands on their a$$ keeping busy themselves. so that they can't issue those stupid patents.

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 16:28 3

122. The_Godfather (Posts: 196; Member since: 26 Apr 2012)

I love how Sammy made them speechless with their statements.

SAMMY --------> The beast electronics Company in the world and whatever they said it really makes sense.

Apple-----------> Sir Issac Newton said (in his Apple theory)

"Things which go up come down one day" so your days are coming to end very soon. Learn from your mistakes and respect Samsung who supplies you all the chips for your devices.

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 09:38 18

15. -box- (Posts: 3991; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)


I love how apple's claims are all based on prior art, and that the closing arguments reinforce that.
Selectable field on a document? Looks and feels like Microsoft Excel, or any other spreadsheet program.
Flat device with rounded corners? DVD cases, clipboards, appliances, furniture, etc etc etc
Colorful icons? We've had that on computers for decades.
Icons in a grid? See above.

Apple was taking a shot in the dark with the design of its devices, as evidenced by all the prototypes that were shown in court. How many different variations of size, shape, and ratios were there? Yeesh

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 09:42 7

16. Ooooo (Posts: 3; Member since: 21 Aug 2012)

Don't be stubborn, the evidences are there. You just seeing what you don't want to see

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 10:23 11

43. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)

What evidence? I see three companies -- two from Korea and one America that were working on touchscreen phones around the same time. I see evidence from both companies confirming this. I don't see a clone of any device.

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 09:45 11

20. mandkeee (Posts: 82; Member since: 27 Feb 2009)


THAT IS 100% TRUE...

but this website....there are too many android fans here....

samsung is one of really stupid and dirty copycat company....

how i know?

cause my brother used work in samsung development department in korea...

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 09:51 9

22. ProLife85 (Posts: 3; Member since: 22 Aug 2012)

True, you will see loads of thumbs down comments regarding iOS/Windows' good news. Truly a Fandroid nest here. Pity.

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 10:03 2

29. ProLife85 (Posts: 3; Member since: 22 Aug 2012)

Oh hi there

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 10:25 5

44. Nookie4u (Posts: 133; Member since: 13 Aug 2012)

didn't you know?? PA stands for Paranoid Androids

posted on 22 Aug 2012, 20:25 3

133. flamencoguy (Posts: 107; Member since: 04 Aug 2012)

Android may not be better! But it represents the resistance to Apple's monopolistic and selfish ways. I would rather buy something lesser than support these bogus patents which are only meant to thwart the competition.
. Did you know that PT stands for Patent Troll. !!

posted on 24 Aug 2012, 07:08

152. RationalThinker (Posts: 3; Member since: 24 Aug 2012)

IMO, Google is the bigger evil of all!

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories