Apple vs Samsung: Closing Arguments

Apple and Samsung legal teams have wrapped thing up in court yesterday with their closing arguments. The case has now been handed over for the Jury to decide. The Verge as always, has provided a brilliant live blog of the proceedings.

I’ve put together highlights from both teams closing arguments below:

Apple – Harold McElhinny (direct quotes)

Samsung – 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, he says.

• It’s attempting to block its most serious competitor from even playing the game. The jury’s decision 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. The same is true with phones, he says. All black rectangles with touch screens.

• Apple thinks they entitled to have a 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. Samsung’s business model is all kinds of different phones for all kinds of different people. What does the evidence show? On the accused phones they are not demonstrably flat across the front surface. You can see that they’re not flat… Details matter when you’re talking about design.

• Apple had pointed to a document with Wang’s name on it — that had references to the iPhone in it — as proof that she had copied. The reason this document existed was that Apple sued Samsung,” and needed to collect documents, Verhoeven says. “That doesn’t show copying. It’s a company trying to figure out what’s going on. As for the semiconductor group at Samsung that had an iPhone study? That was a study of the device’s impact on its component business. They’re mixing and matching… they’re taking a document from a completely different part of the company… and saying that’s proof” that Samsung copied.

• We’re a good corporate citizen. We just want to build products consumers want. All this copying nonsense is hand-waving from Apple. They know just like I know, just like you know, that no one is going to be confused when buying a smartphone” with a carrier contract.

• All Apple’s witnesses did was take one product, and then flash video on the screen. They haven’t met their burden. It’s not enough to say, well okay, on this one it bounces, therefore it infringes. Verhoeven stepped ahead past several other slides. Seems like they may be running low on time. On to the DiamondTouch Table and Tablecloth. Unlike what Apple did with its infringement claims, we went through”and showed you how the application met the elements. If the Patent Office had known about Tablecloth running on the DiamondTouch it would not — it would not — have issued the ‘381 patent. I don’t have time to show you now… but it does render the patent invalid.

Apple’s – Rebuttal:

• Make no mistake about it: Apple wants to compete… Apple wants to compete fairly and squarely with inventions and innovations and products. Taking someone’s intellectual property is not fair and square. We al know that when someone is caught doing something they shouldn’t, some people respond by tossing accusations at others. Blaming others. That’s what’s happened here. Don’t let someone get a get out of jail free card.

• It’s not individual icons… It’s what the overall impression looks like. If you find Samsung infringed,  You will have reaffirmed the American patent system. You will have upended Samsung’s cynical gameplan… The way that you copy other people’s stuff. You will have taken the profit away from them.

• There are two ways that Samsung can win this case. You can come back and say Apple was wrong, or you can come back and compromise on damages. They will not change their way of operating if you slap them on the wrist.

Samsung’s Rebuttal:

• We don’t think we’re liable.

• So what do we have? We have Apple’s audited statements, Samsung’s audited statements, the reports by Musika and Samsung expert Wagner Musika did not deduct costs of sales, advertising costs, R&D costs, or allocated operating costs from his report  — but all three other documents do.

• He was wrong to do so. You need to use your common sense, alright?” “We hope you don’t get there, but if you do, you’ve got to use your common sense.

Source: The Verge