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:
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:


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


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

FEATURED VIDEO

154 Comments

1. jaoowolabi

Posts: 201; Member since: Jun 07, 2012

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

5. pokharkarsaga

Posts: 545; Member since: Feb 23, 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.

25. phitch

Posts: 214; Member since: Mar 06, 2012

Picture 16 says otherwise.

127. Lucas777

Posts: 2137; Member since: Jan 06, 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

139. anywherehome

Posts: 971; Member since: Dec 13, 2011

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

33. mikiemon

Posts: 13; Member since: Feb 01, 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.

74. tedkord

Posts: 17076; Member since: Jun 17, 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...

117. structureman116

Posts: 142; Member since: Sep 14, 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?

144. Kalevro

Posts: 56; Member since: Sep 11, 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.

145. Kalevro

Posts: 56; Member since: Sep 11, 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

147. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

you couldnt be more wrong if you tried.

39. SGSatlantis

Posts: 227; Member since: Jul 20, 2011

The blackjack looks like galaxy s predecesor with qwerty.

92. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 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?

101. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 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.

111. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 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.

138. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 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....

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...

131. flamencoguy

Posts: 107; Member since: Aug 04, 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.

11. structureman116

Posts: 142; Member since: Sep 14, 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!

89. Vinayakn73

Posts: 207; Member since: Oct 05, 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.

122. The_Godfather

Posts: 196; Member since: Apr 26, 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.

15. -box-

Posts: 3991; Member since: Jan 04, 2012

Agreed. 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

16. Ooooo

Posts: 3; Member since: Aug 21, 2012

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

43. phitch

Posts: 214; Member since: Mar 06, 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.

20. mandkeee

Posts: 82; Member since: Feb 27, 2009

SAMSUNG COPIED APPLE.... 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...

22. ProLife85

Posts: 3; Member since: Aug 22, 2012

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

29. ProLife85

Posts: 3; Member since: Aug 22, 2012

Oh hi there

44. Nookie4u

Posts: 133; Member since: Aug 13, 2012

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

133. flamencoguy

Posts: 107; Member since: Aug 04, 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. !!

152. RationalThinker

Posts: 3; Member since: Aug 24, 2012

IMO, Google is the bigger evil of all!

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.