Apple is demanding total
damages of up to $2.75bn from Samsung for what it alleges is wilful
infringement of its design patents and so-called "trade dress" rights
for the iPhone and iPad in the US.
Samsung, which
countersued over Apple's alleged use of its wireless transmission
patents and other underlying mobile-phone technology, is looking for
$422m from its rival in compensation.
Two additional courtrooms
were provided to accommodate the large number of reporters and
observers who came to the San Jose courthouse for Tuesday's closing
arguments, the biggest crowd yet seen in the case.
Addressing the nine
jurors, Harold McElhinny of Morrison Foerster, Apple's lead counsel,
compared a romantic portrayal of Apple's design process to what he
characterised as Samsung's rapid "knock-off" of the iPhone.
"Everyone, even Samsung,
thought that the iPhone changed the world," Mr McElhinny said. "Samsung
was the iPhone's biggest fan ... They tried to compete with it and when
they couldn't, they copied it."
In turn, outlining its
closing argument, Samsung sought to portray Apple as a would-be
monopolist that wanted to extract punitive damages for what its counsel
suggested was a natural evolution of technology.
Mr McElhinny suggested
that "every smartphone does not have to look like an iPhone", showing
pictures of other devices including Nokia's Lumia and a Casio phone.
Mr McElhinny alleged that
Samsung had "disrespected" the legal process by refusing to bring its
most senior executives over from South Korea, a position he contrasted
with appearances from Apple's Scott Forstall and Phil Schiller, its
software and marketing chiefs respectively. "They were willing to face
cross examination," he said. "No Samsung executive was prepared to come
here from Korea and answer questions under oath. Instead of witnesses,
they sent you lawyers."
Mr McElhinny's summing
up focused on Samsung internal documents that referenced the Korean
firm's "crisis of design" in the face of the iPhone. He pointed to
warnings from Google that Samsung should not copy Apple's device too
closely, which he alleged Samsung ignored in a three-month design
process.
"In those critical three
months, Samsung was able to copy and incorporate the results of Apple's
four-year investment in hard work and ingenuity without taking any of
the risks, because they were copying the world's most successful
product," he said.
The subsequent boost to Samsung's smartphone sales prompted "a whole series of iPhone knock-offs," Mr McElhinny alleged.
"If you render judgment
for Apple in this case, you will have reaffirmed the American patent
system," Mr McElhinny concluded. "People in this valley will continue to
invest -- they will hire people -- because they know those investments
will be protected."
For Samsung, referencing
the huge press attention on the case, Charles Verhoeven, a partner at
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, told the jury: "Your decision ...
could change the way competition works in this country ... Is this
country going to have vigorous competition between competitors? Or giant
competitors armed with patent arsenals that block competition?"
Despite representing a
Korean firm against a local Californian company, Mr Verhoeven played on
the innovation that the area around San Jose is famous for.
"Competition is what has
changed this country. We can see it ourselves in Silicon Valley," he
said. "The real reason Apple's bringing this case is that rather than
competing in the marketplace, Apple is seeking a competitive edge
through the courtroom ... Apple says it's entitled to have a monopoly on
a rectangle with rounded corners on a large screen."
Mr Verhoeven also pointed to what he said were examples of "prior art" that invalidated Apple's design patents.
The closing arguments
came after a four-week hearing that has tested the technical
understanding of the nine-person jury and the patience of Judge Lucy
Koh, who has frequently clashed with Apple and Samsung's counsel as they
squabbled daily over the evidence, procedure and presentation of the
case.
Last Thursday, Judge
Koh, herself a former patent attorney, said that Apple's lawyer must be
"smoking crack" if he expected to call a large number of witnesses in
the two hours of court time remaining. Last-ditch attempts by the judge
to encourage a settlement between the two companies did not succeed
despite Samsung and Apple chief executives again discussing the case in
recent days.
But Judge Koh has also tried to be sympathetic to the jury as it grapples with a complex set of legal and technological issues.
"I need everybody to
stay conscious ... including me," she said before beginning to read out
84 instructions to the jury for how they should decide the case and
calculate any award of damages. People in the courtroom were encouraged
to stand up occasionally "to make sure the blood's still flowing".
Jurors must wade through
a 20-page verdict form designed to guide them through their decision,
which must be unanimous. A verdict could take several days.
Retweet this story
No comments:
Post a Comment