July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Just over a month after winning the right to see details of Apple’s licensing deal with HTC, Samsung must reveal some of its private data to Apple. Justice Lucy Koh has denied the Korean company’s bid to keep detailed sales data private, according to Bloomberg.

Samsung wanted to know more about how HTC is licensing key patents from Apple to cover its Android phones. Apple wants to know exactly how many models of its many smartphones Samsung has sold in the U.S., which would of course have financial repercussions in the billion-dollar judgment that Apple won against Samsung almost half a year ago, and that Apple has been trying to increase ever since.

Koh’s judgment means that Apple will get data on model sales, but it will not see exact channel pricing or profit margin details. Interestingly, in October last year, Koh had granted Samsung to not only get data on model sales, but also the right to see key iPhone profitability data.

This latest round just adds to the complexity of the relationship between the two largest smartphone manufacturers in the world. Apple and Samsung are enemies and partners, as Apple still sources some key components from the massive multinational manufacturer — such as the iPhone 5′s central processing unit and screens for some of its phones.

Since late last year, Samsung has alternately played hardball and softball, first saying that it would not pay Apple royalties and then unilaterally dropping patent injunctions against Apple in Europe.

With these two latest private data reveals, this is turning into a unwilling corporate equivalent of an adolescent show-me-yours-I’ll-show-you-mine. Meanwhile, the rest of the industry wishes Samsung and Apple would just get a room.

Which is precisely what Koh called for in December, telling the two warring companies that “it’s time for global peace.”

Photo: Nan Palmer/Flickr

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

The U.S. Patent and Trademark office has invalidated the “pinch to zoom” patent that was at the heart of a dispute between Apple and Samsung last summer.

The patent, held by Apple, concerns the use of a “pinching” gesture to zoom in and out of an image, map view, or other display on a touchscreen. While widely cited, that patent may not have been as ironclad as Apple wanted you to think. The Wall Street Journal reports that the USPTO has invalidated the patent, although its source is rather indirect: The news comes via a Samsung court filing.

Neither Samsung nor Apple have responded to our inquiries yet, and we don’t expect to hear anything enlightening from them.

Many commentators, including VentureBeat contributor Vivek Wadhwa, have pointed out the obviousness of this relatively minor patent. However, it played a key role in this year’s legal battle between Apple and Samsung. Other patents at stake in that dispute included the rubber band-like “bounce back” effect when scrolling to the end of a list and the “trade dress” of the iPhone.

Apple won an overwhelming victory in the courts, with a $1 billion judgement against Samsung, but that victory has been somewhat tempered in recent weeks.

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Months after a San Jose jury awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages in its case against Samsung, the trial’s judge, Lucy Koh, is now aiming to settle the issues between the two companies.

“I think it’s time for global peace,” Judge Koh told Apple and Samsung’s lawyers at yesterday’s hearing, according to the AP. Specifically, she’s referring to a calming of the patent wars prevalent in the technology world over the past decade, and which the Apple v. Samsung case is a poster child.

While one analyst predicted that Apple would be the overall winner in yesterday’s hearing, it appears that Judge Koh isn’t leaning towards either company. Samsung is aiming to cut its massive fines in the trial and is calling for a new trial, while Apple is pushing to increase the fines and potentially ban the sales of certain Samsung phones. Koh didn’t seem to favor either of those outcomes.

Samsung’s $1.05 billion fee may end up being reduced as Judge Koh looks at the line items of the jury’s damage calculation. For example, the jurors noted Samsung owed Apple almost $58 million for using Apple’s “tap and zoom” feature in the Samsung Prevail smartphone, but Koh noted that figure was too high. Instead, Apple could end up collecting $8 million over that infringement.

This latest round of hearings won’t be the end of the Apple v. Samsung trial. It’s expected to hit the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., and it could potentially reach the Supreme Court, according to the AP.

Let’s kick the weekend off with a discussion on patent litigation! (All parties jump into the air, freeze frame.)

But seriously, the above video explains in a well-illustrated nutshell how the recent Apple v. Samsung case sets the stage for a battle of even more epic proportions with Google. Or a long and winding road to licensing agreements. Or both.

Google’s Android operating system has already been through the wringer with the Oracle lawsuit, which was ultimately a mixed-bag victory for the Android maker. Apple, however, is going after Google’s many hardware manufacturer partners rather than Google itself, for now at least.

Still, Google has acquired Motorola (and its patents) and has said that move will assist in the defense of other Android-using manufacturers as lawsuits continue to pop up around the globe.

That said, I hope that Apple loses if Samsung appeals — as they are expected to do.

Here’s why: I am worried about the future of innovation — not only in Silicon Valley, but also at Apple. Another Apple victory will escalate the patent wars and cause more innovative startups to get trampled while tech-industry titans battle each other. Another patent victory could also cause Apple to become complacent – just as Microsoft was at the height of its Windows monopoly. Innovation requires a thriving ecosystem – one in which companies build on each other’s ideas and where they are forced to continually reinvent themselves.

I have previously written about how patents have become a destructive force in the technology sector. Fledgling startups have to constantly worry about big companies such as Apple or Samsung — or worst of all — a patent troll, bankrupting them with a frivolous lawsuit. Research has shown between 1990 and 2010, patent lawsuits have caused a loss of half-a-trillion dollars in wealth and forced U.S. companies to divert substantial resources from production to litigation support.

The only way to protect ideas in the tech industry is to move fast and keep innovating. If you stagnate, others duplicate your ideas and put you out of business. That is why Apple is the most valuable company in the world — it keeps innovating. It has to. It can’t rest on its laurels like Microsoft did. Unlike the personal computer , mobile is evolving rapidly, and, as a result, companies can’t stagnate.

Industry observers are already speculating about how the Apple victory is going to cause companies such as Nokia, RIM, and Microsoft, which are laggards in the mobile technology race, and even Apple itself, to file more lawsuits. These companies have hoards of patents. Why innovate when you can more cheaply litigate?

Some are saying, however, that the ruling will have a positive effect because Apple’s competitors will be forced to innovate, creating new designs. That may be true, but with the tens of thousands of patents out there, technology companies can’t be sure how these relate to their inventions. These patents are very technical and most people can’t make heads or tails of what they cover. The innovator could get caught in a frivolous lawsuit by a patent troll trying to extort money or a big player wanting to slow down its potential competition. If expert technologists can’t figure out what these patents cover, how can juries?

Consider how Apple won. It won on minor technicalities such as the ability to enlarge an image or text by tapping a screen, a “bounce back” feature when scrolling beyond the edge of a page, the effect of single-touch and multi-touch gestures such as“pinch-to-zoom”, the shape of the iPhone, and the rounded square icons on its interface. These are hardly breakthroughs in technology that are worthy of protection. Some of Apple’s patents are incredibly arcane even to technology experts.

Apple became successful because it didn’t hesitate to cannibalize its own technologies. It didn’t worry that the iPad would hurt the sales of its laptops, or that its laptops would cause its desktop products to become obsolete, or that the music player in the iPhone would eliminate the need to buy an iPod. The company moved foward quickly while competitors copied its designs. If you squint, you’ll notice a number of similarities between the Windows 3 user interface, for example, and that of the Macintosh.

Let’s not forget that Apple also got its start by building on technology developed by others. The graphical user interface and mouse that the Macintosh popularized and the tablet computer were in different stages of development at institutions such as Stanford Research Institute and Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). Steve Jobs built on these innovations. If he was embroiled in lawsuits or had to pay hefty fees to patent trolls, the Macintosh computer, iPhone, iPad, and iPod would very likely not have existed.

So let’s have Samsung and everyone else copy the iPhone and iPad, while Apple wows us with a new generation of technologies that are so far ahead that the competitors look out of date. I’ll eagerly line up at the Apple Store to purchase its next big innovation — whatever it might be.

Vivek Wadhwa is a fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University and is affiliated with several other universities. Read more about Vivek Wadhwa’s affiliations. You can also follow him on Twitter — @wadhwa.

[Editor's note: This story previously appeared on WashingtonPost.com]

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Apple’s request to ban eight Samsung smartphones from sale in the U.S. will have to wait until a Dec. 6 hearing, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said in a court filing tonight.

Koh initially scheduled a hearing for Sept. 20 to hear injunction requests from Apple, following the iPhone maker’s massive win over Samsung on Friday. Now that hearing will be reserved for Samsung’s request to kill the preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, which was granted to Apple back in June.

Koh said the following in today’s court filing: “Having considered the scope of Apple’s preliminary injunction request, the additional post-trial motions that the parties have already filed and will file, and the substantial overlap between the analysis required for Apple’s preliminary injunction motion and the parties’ various other post-trial motions, the Court believes consolidation of the briefing and hearing on the post-trial motions is appropriate.”

Clearly, Koh doesn’t want to rush through Apple’s injunction request (especially after the jury in the trial has caught flack for arguably rushing through their deliberations). The delay gives Samsung a bit more time to figure out how it can stop Apple’s injunction request, though it also means Apple’s lawyers will have time to sharpen their case as well. For now, you don’t have to worry about the Galaxy S II’s availability before December.

Via The Verge

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Apple has made it through the bruising hand-to-hand combat of its latest patent trial, and it’s defeated all the lawyers that Samsung could throw at it. Now it’s got to face the big boss at the end: Google.

The jury last week handed a decisive victory to Apple, declaring that Samsung had infringed on nearly every patent under consideration. In the countersuit, the jury found that Apple hadn’t infringed on any of Samsung’s patents. It was a remarkably one-sided decision that could wind up costing Samsung more than $1 billion, if the jury’s decision and its award of damages survive the appeals that are no doubt coming. Actually, it could cost Samsung over $3 billion, if the judge decides that its willful patent infringement demands a payment of triple damages. Google has to decide how to respond before doubt about Android’s future throws more consumers into Microsoft’s arms.

But what’s Apple going to do next?

If I were Tim Cook, I’d keep the legal pressure on Google in order to force it to continue differentiating Android from iOS as much as possible, a process that’s already begun. Google, for instance, has already removed “bounceback” from the Android OS, a feature covered by one of the Apple patents that Samsung was found to be infringing. The latest versions of Android, Ice Cream Sandwich and Jellybean, continue their evolution away from the operating system’s early, imitative roots, with different methods for unlocking the screen, an increased use of widgets, and an approach to notifications that started out quite different from Apple’s and has only become more differentiated over time.

But Apple doesn’t have a lot to win by going after Android directly. Google gives away the OS and makes money from it only indirectly, as it encourages more people to use the company’s ad-supported services, such as Gmail and search. That’s why the most likely outcome is for Apple and Google to reach some kind of negotiated settlement.

Negotiation would have been impossible while Steve Jobs was alive, by the way. He was furious at the ways in which he perceived Google to be imitating the iPhone and vowed to “go to thermonuclear war” with the search giant to make it stop. Jobs wouldn’t have rested until Apple extracted some kind of painful concessions from Google.

Cook, however, is a more practical, approachable man: a relentless competitor, yes, but willing to negotiate when negotiation promises a better outcome at a lower cost. Rather than transform the landscape of Silicon Valley into a smoking legal wasteland, Cook will probably take the route most companies with huge patent portfolios follow: detente. Google has its own suite of mobile patents, thanks to its recently complete acquisition of Motorola, and is seeking to use them to stop the import of iPhones and iPads into the U.S. In return for calling off that threat, Cook is likely to offer Google CEO Larry Page a compromise: Don’t sue us, and don’t copy us too directly, and we won’t sue you.

A peace between Google and Apple has a chance of working, because the two companies’ fundamental businesses are so different. Apple makes its money from selling hardware and software (and to a certain extent media); Google makes its money from selling ads.

Meanwhile, expect Apple to aggressively pursue handset and tablet manufacturers whose devices — or particular implementations of Android — hew too closely to Apple’s model. These hardware makers’ revenue streams are simply too close to Apple’s to allow any sort of compromise. For Samsung, HTC, and Nokia: no mercy.

Photoshop work by Tom Cheredar/VentureBeat

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Samsung isn’t letting Apple halt sales of its phones in the U.S. without a fight.

In response to the eight devices Apple asked to have banned in the U.S. yesterday, Samsung issued a short statement in South Korea earlier this morning, the Wall Street Journal reports.

“We will take all necessary measures to ensure the availability of our products in the U.S. market,” Samsung said.

Those measures include filing to stop the injunction, appealing to judge Lucy Koh, or changing its devices, a Samsung rep told the WSJ. Given Samsung’s performance in court so far, I have a feeling the company’s best bet is to drastically change the affected phones (and perhaps rush a few off the market). Samsung has also begun discussing the removal of features from its phones, sources tell the WSJ.

On Friday the jury in the Apple v. Samsung trial ruled that Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple’s patents, and it ordered Samsung to pay more than $1 billion in damages.

Judge Koh has scheduled an injunction hearing for September 20 to determine which Samsung devices will be banned in the U.S. Samsung also has time to issue its own response to Apple’s request before the hearing.

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

The foreman of the jury in the Apple-Samsung trial spoke out Monday about how his own patents informed his take on the trial.

Velvin Hogan appeared on Bloomberg Television today for an interview with Emily Chang that covered the decision-making process, the Apple and Samsung lawyers’ approaches, on the damages, and on his own experience with patent law.

“For me, it was always interesting because of my technology background,” Hogan said of the trial. “We were inundated with evidence and people trying to bias our opinion on both sides. But when we went into the jury room, we were determined to set all that aside and focused right on the evidence.”

Hogan led the jury that decided overwhelmingly in favor of Apple on August 24, in a hotly contested patent battle that pitted two electronics giants against each other. Apple claimed that numerous Samsung devices violated seven of its own patents relating to the iPhone and iPad, while Samsung claimed that Apple was violating five of Samsung’s patents relating to wireless technologies and other aspects of cellphone functionality.

After considering the patents carefully, Hogan said he had an “a ha” moment when he realized that the so-called 460 patent was, in his opinion, defensible. “I decided that I could defend this, if it was my patent,” he said. He explained his thinking to the rest of the jury, and from that point on, their decision-making went relatively quickly.

Confusingly, the 460 patent is Samsung‘s patent on a “method of transmitting emails, with and without embedded images, from mobile phone with built-in camera.” Apple did not convince the jury that this patent, along with Samsung’s other patents, were invalid, but it did find that Apple had not infringed those patents.

Interestingly, Hogan himself owns no Apple products — and no one on the jury was an iPhone user. So don’t go accusing him of being an Apple fanboy, because he’s just about the opposite of that.

“In fact, I own no Apple equipment, and intentionally not for a number of years. I am a PC person,” Hogan said. He later added, “my wife has a Samsung phone, but it is not a smart phone.”

See below for the 10-minute video, courtesy of Bloomberg.

Source: Bloomberg News

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

It’s time for Samsung to retreat after an epic loss to Apple’s prosecutors. It will make way for an even bigger opponent, one who might actually give the iPhone maker a run for its billions: Google.

Last week, Samsung lost an epic patent battle with Apple and is now facing the prospect of paying over $1 billion in damages, along with having to pull eight of its devices from the U.S. market completely. (Appeals could change either outcome, of course, and mean that the battle won’t truly be finished for some time yet.)

Still, Samsung won’t be Apple’s biggest challenge. That role belongs to Google. It’s as if Apple has collected a big pile of gold coins but now must face Bowser.

“Android is about 60 percent of the market. Its biggest user was Samsung,” said intellectual property lawyer Bill C. Panagos of Butzel Long, in an interview with VentureBeat. “If injunctions come out that force the removal of all Samsung products … then I think you’ll see that Google will be associated — by consumers — with being the supplier to products that may not last in the market.”

In other words, Samsung’s loss might hurt Android’s reputation.

In a reaction to the verdict, Google released a statement saying the majority of the claims brought against Samsung are not directly related to the “core” of its Android operating system. Instead, the claims reference a skin, or modification, that Samsung used to compete with Apple.

The Apple patents included the bounce-back patent and operating-system technology that makes a rubber band-like motion when the users has scrolled to the bottom of a list. It also included a number of trade dress issues, nonfunctional design elements that brand a device.

Panagos believes that biggest winner here might not be Apple at all. It could instead by Microsoft, who has been waiting in the smartphone shadows of iOS and Android.

“If Samsung loses [an appeal] and if the market perceives [Android] to be associated with products that won’t be around, then you’ll see Microsoft come out of its third or fourth place…and actually become a real player,” he said.

Should Google lose favor with consumers, Microsoft has an opportunity to come in and push its mobile operating system to third-party manufacturers in the same way Google does, touting itself as a more reliable brand. It also puts the onus on Microsoft to make sure it pays for the license on anything externally created in its operating system.

In order to avoid ultimate defeat, Panagos suggests Google release the next version of its Android OS immediately, with “new and exciting” features that will keep Android uses entertained and loyal.

In terms of Google launching its own lawsuits against Apple, Panagos says we’re entering “mutual assured destruction.” In other words, there are thousands of patents out there. If one company sues, the other can turn around and sue it right back — until they realize it’s an endless battle, or until the world is reduced to a smoking wasteland, populated only by zombies and hungry-eyed patent lawyers.

This is true even for Samsung, he says. “It’s not over yet. They still have a bite at the Apple.”

Android image via Tsahi Levent-Levi/Flickr

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Following its decisive victory over Samsung on Friday, Apple today filed a notice (PDF link) with the Federal District Court in San Jose, Calif. detailing the Samsung devices it wants banned from sale in the U.S.

Apple is only focusing on eight Samsung for the injunction, according to the notice, even though the trial jury found that most of Samsung’s 28 devices presented in the case infringed on Apple’s patents. In particular, Samsung’s Galaxy S2 is being targeted.

Here are all the Samsung devices Apple is seeking an injunction for:

• Galaxy S 4G
• Galaxy S2 (AT&T)
• Galaxy S2 Skyrocket
• Galaxy S2 (T-Mobile)
• Galaxy S2 Epic 4g (Sprint)
• Galaxy S Showcase
• Droid Charge
• Galaxy Prevail

Many of the Samsung devices shown in court are no longer on sale in the U.S. anyway, so it wouldn’t have made sense for Apple to bring them up for its injunction request.

Judge Lucy Koh has scheduled the injunction hearing for the Apple v. Samsung trial for September 20. Samsung will have a chance to respond to Apple’s injunction request some time before then.

As you can see in the chart below, Apple has broken down exactly how each of these devices infringes on its patents or trade dress design. The Galaxy S 4G is the worst culprit, infringing on Apple’s D’677 and D’305 design patents (which cover the front of the iPhone and its icon grid), utility patents, and trade dress (which refers to the look and feel of Apple’s iPhone).

Even though this injunction request won’t affect Samsung’s flagship Galaxy S III smartphone if it’s approved, it could still be a pain for Samsung, as the Galaxy S II remains a good deal for bargain hunters. Boost Mobile recently announced the Galaxy S II for its prepaid network, and it could end up being the ideal prepaid phone for other carriers as well if Apple doesn’t get its wish.

Via The Verge

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Google hinted today that it will likely be unaffected by Samsung’s court loss to Apple over patents related to the iPhone’s design. Samsung’s stock has taken a hit today, as it will have to pay $1.05 billion for violating Apple’s patents based on a jury ruling on Friday. Google supplies the core Android operating system for Samsung’s smartphones and tablets.

Google said that the claims involved in the patent case don’t relate to the core software. But if Samsung is forced to stop selling its smartphones and tablets in the U.S., as Apple is expected to request, the number of Android shipments could suffer.

Google said, “The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the U.S. Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don’t want anything to limit that.”

[Image credit: VentureBeat]

We’ve heard from Microsoft execs, Tim Cook, and even industry watcher Robert Scoble about Friday’s overwhelming win for Apple in court over Samsung. Now, one of the trial’s jurors is speaking out.

Juror Manuel Ilagan said that he and the other members of the Apple v. Samsung jury believed Samsung had infringed on Apple’s patents since the first day of deliberations, according to an interview with CNet this morning. But he added that the jury also carefully deliberated over the evidence presented during the trial.

In a decision that took less than 21 hours of deliberation (under three work days), the jury found that Samsung willfully infringed on Apple’s patents and ordered the Korean company to pay more than $1 billion in damages.

When asked for some specifics on compelling evidence from the trial, Ilagan said:

“Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also on the last day they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea, I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn’t answer one of them. They didn’t help their cause. “

Ilagan also added that the jury didn’t buy Samsung’s arguments that Apple infringed on its wireless 3G patents. Apple showed during the trial that it bought the chips from Intel, which had already struck a licensing accord with Samsung. That meant Samsung had no grounds to sue Apple for patent infringement.

With his background in mechanical engineering, Ilagan said he spoke up about technical issues during deliberations. Jury foreperson Velvin Hogan also held patents himself and directed the jury through his experience with the patent process, Ilagan said.

At the very least, it sounds like the jury was plenty informed about the technical and patent aspects of the case. That should satisfy some industry watchers who thought the complexities of the case may have been too much for a jury of technology neophytes.

Update: Jury foreperson Velvin Hogan also had some comments on the trial: “We didn’t want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else’s intellectual property,” he told Reuters in an interview today.

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Following Apple’s mammoth victory over Samsung in court Friday, both companies have issued fairly predictable statements to the media. Microsoft employees, meanwhile, haven’t been afraid to shout from the peanut gallery.

Samsung, which now owes more than $1 billion to Apple (unless it appeals successfully), said that the verdict is “a loss for the American consumer.” The Korean phone maker argues that Apple’s legal victory could lead to fewer phone choices, higher prices, and potentially even less innovation in the mobile industry.

Apple, playing it cool, said that the suits between the companies were about more than just money or the value of patents, “they were about values.” The company sees the win as a clear sign that Samsung copied its designs “even deeper than we know,” and, perhaps as a warning to other phone makers, a “message that stealing isn’t right.”

Some notable Microsoft employees have been reveling in the Samsung smackdown. Bill Cox, the senior director of Windows Phone market, tweeted shortly after the verdict, “Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now.” And Microsoft communications head Frank Shaw also got a dig in, tweeting this afternoon, “Using Bing Local Scout on my Windows Phone to look for a place to drink a pint. Love that U.I. Fresh. Unique. Different. That is all.”

Check out the full text of Apple and Samsung’s statements below:

 Samsung

Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.

Apple

We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.

Via The New York Times, The Verge; Photo: Devindra Hardawar/VentureBeat

Updated 6:16pm PT with new damages awarded to Apple.

After just 21 hours of deliberation, the jury has reached a verdict in the Apple-Samsung patent trial, a landmark case that is set to change the way we look at competition in the mobile market.

It’s a decisive win for Apple, with the jury awarding damages of $1,049,343,540 to Apple, after the jury re-deliberated on two points, changing the total from the original $1,051,855,000.

The jury found Samsung infringed many of Apple’s utility and design patents, particularly with regard to the nearly 20 phones that Apple had called into question. In addition, the jury found that in most cases, Samsung’s patent infringements were knowing and willful. It also found that Apple’s patents were valid.

Samsung did get one win, however, in the D’889 patent, which covers the look of the iPad’s design, including the edge-to-edge glass, thin bezel, and rounded corners. In this case, the jury found that the Galaxy Tab did not infringe Apple’s patents.

In terms of trade dress, or the nonfunctional design elements of the device, the jury found that Samsung copied from the iPhone 3G but not the iPad. This is an interesting finding, as Samsung argued that it Galaxy Tab 10.1 didn’t infringe upon the iPad due to piece of extra material on the back of the tablet.

Apple, on the other hand, was found to not infringe on any of Samsung’s patents, although the jury found that those patents were valid. As a result, the jury awarded no damages to Samsung.

We will continue updating this post as the details come in.

Apple and Samsung originally locked horns in 2010 when Apple approached the Korean manufacturer about a number of devices it felt copied the iPhone and iPad. When nothing could be resolved in the talks, Apple filed an official lawsuit in 2011. In it, Apple said Samsung infringed on seven of its patents pertaining to the design of its devices as well as different functions within its operating system. Over 20 of Samsung devices were called into question, which is more than likely one of the reasons it took the jury two days to deliberate. Apple is seeking $2.5 billion in damages.

Samsung countersued Apple, saying that it had infringed on some of its own telecommunications-related patents and others relating to the way a camera functions in a smartphone. It called for nearly $400 million in damages.

Both sides were given 25 hours to make their case, plus extra time for opening and closing arguments.

The case hasn’t been without hiccups. At the beginning, Samsung released rejected evidence to the press that it felt should have been considered by the jury.  Apple called on the court to sanction Samsung and give a summary judgement in favor of Apple. The iPhone creator didn’t get what it wanted, but U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh called Samsung’s lawyers out in court, saying she wouldn’t have any more “sideshows” distracting them from the matter at hand.

Judge Koh turned out to be the surprising entertainer throughout the trial, taking a no-nonsense attitude toward bad behavior in her courtroom and showing little patience for the mountains of paperwork both sides filed into the night. When one Apple lawyer tried to add more witnesses with only a few hours remaining for testimony, Koh said, “ Unless you’re smoking crack, you know these witnesses aren’t going to be called.”

Koh also urged Apple and Samsung’s chief executives to speak one more time in hopes that they’d come to a settlement, two years after they first met in 2010. Of course, they were unable to make an agreement.

Update: Judge Koh has scheduled the injunction hearing for the trial for September 20th, the Verge reports. This will be where the court decides if certain Samsung devices will have to be banned from the U.S. Apple has to file its requests by August 27th, and Samsung will have two weeks to respond.

Photo credit: Devindra Hardawar/VentureBeat. Homepage photo: Kai Hendry/Flickr

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

While we’re still waiting on the jury’s response to the Apple v. Samsung case in San Jose, a South Korean court has issued its own verdict, which finds that both companies infringed on the other’s patents.

The court granted small damages to both Apple and Samsung, and it also ordered them to stop sales of the infringing devices, the Wall Street Journal reports. Luckily for both companies, the sales ban only affects older products: the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 for Apple, and the Galaxy S (I and II), Galaxy Nexus, and Galaxy Tab (both the original and 10.1 model) for Samsung.

Notably, the court ruled against one of the most prominent arguments in the U.S. Apple v. Samsung case: It found that there was “no possibility” that consumers would confuse smartphones from the companies. Additionally, the three-judge panel said Samsung’s icons don’t infringe on Apple’s design patents, but they did say Samsung infringed on Apple’s “bounce back” technology, which occurs when a user reaches the end of a mobile screen.

As with the other court cases happening worldwide, Apple was arguing that Samsung copied its designs, while Samsung was arguing that Apple is infringing on its wireless technology. The particular case was started by Samsung in June 2012 to counter Apple’s lawsuits in other countries, which led Apple to countersue in South Korea.

While both Apple and Samsung were seeking damages of 100 million won (around $90,000), the court ordered Apple to pay up 20 million won (around $17,650) for each patent it violated. Samsung has to pay 25 million won (around $22,000) per infringed patent.

The judges ordered Apple to pay 20 million won, or $17,650 in damages, for each violated patent. Samsung was ordered to pay 25 million won, or $22,000. Both companies had sought damages of 100 million won, or about $90,000, from the other.

Apple and Samsung can appeal the decision, but thanks to the complexities of South Korean courts, that would an involve a rehearing of the entire case, according to the WSJ. While the damages weren’t too significant in this case, both companies will likely fight back to be able to sell their older products (the iPad 2 is still a great bargain for tablet buyers, and the Galaxy Nexus remains one of the best Android devices).

Photo: Devindra Hardawar/VentureBeat

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Whichever way the verdict breaks, the Apple-Samsung patent trial will have wide implications throughout the technology industry.

Lawyers for the two sides wrapped up their closing arguments yesterday. Today, the jury deliberates and fills out a stack of paperwork. A verdict could come as soon as tomorrow.

“It’s a very important decision you have to make,” Samsung laywer Charles Verhoeven told the jury yesterday, according to SFGate. The decision “could change the way competition works in this country.”

At the heart of the issue is Apple’s claim that Samsung’s phones and tablet devices infringe seven of Apple’s patents, ripping off the iPhone and iPad’s design. Samsung, naturally, disputes this claim, and it has also filed a countersuit claiming that Apple infringed five of its own patents relating to wireless technologies. The jury will decide the outcome of both the suit and the countersuit in this trial.

Apple ended its closing remarks asking for the jury to consider damages of $2.5 billion, the assumed profit Samsung made off of the phones, if they find the accused products infringing. If Apple prevails, it has also asked the court to prohibit Samsung from importing the infringing products into the U.S. Samsung claims Apple did not take into account operational costs that Samsung put into those phones, and that it actually owes Apple just $22 million. In addition, the countersuit claims that Apple owes Samsung $422 million.

But the implications are far wider than monetary damages and import restrictions for these two companies.

“At stake is whether patents are a competitive tool for use to control market share,” said Cheryl Milone, the founder and chief executive officer of Article One Partners, a community of patent researchers, in an email to VentureBeat. While patents can and have been used for competitive purposes, Milone points out that this trial turns on a less-tested arena: The patentability of a device’s design and usability, or “trade dress” in the terminology of patent law.

“The outcome of this trial will govern the development of an industry where consumer marketing is the key driver, whether its breakthrough designs or consumer usability such as easy texting or photo sharing,” Milone said.

Apart from the impact on tech companies, this trial’s outcome will affect what the smartphone market looks like and how varied it is.

“If Apple succeeds in keeping Samsung at bay, industry designs will diverge and strengthen Apple’s market advantage,” Milone said. In other words, any company making tablets and phones will need to go back to the drawing board and look for ways of differentiating their designs — not an easy challenge when consumers seem to favor devices that are primarily large, flat touchscreens.

On the other hand, Milone said, “If Apple’s damages case falls short, designs will become more uniform in the smartphone market.” If you thought today’s phones looked like copycats of each other, just you wait.

If Samsung wins, “expect to see an awful lot of Apple knockoffs without fear of retribution,” said Michael Gartenberg, an analyst at market research firm Gartner, told the New York Times recently.

That’s especially critical for Apple, which has seen a tremendous amount of competition in the five years since it launched the iPhone as manufacturer after manufacturer jumped on the touchscreen phone trend. A similar thing happened after the launch of the iPad in 2008: A previously moribund tablet computer market came back to life, as manufacturers like Samsung, HTC, Toshiba, and others all released touchscreen tablets.

Pages: 1 2

SAN JOSE, Calif. — Apple and Samsung delivered their closing statements today in a case that has been building since 2010, when Apple accused Samsung of outright copying its iPhone and iPad designs.

Apple counsel Harold McElhinny addressed the jury, saying they should look at the evidence, the “historical documents,” to find Samsung’s alleged infringement. He showed a series of Samsung’s documents that we’ve seen many times throughout the course of this case that show research the Korean company did on the iPhone. In these documents, Samsung puts the iPhone next to its own phones and makes suggestions for improvements based on features on the iPhone, such as lighting on the icons.

“There are the three big picture points,” said McElhinny during his closing statements. “Trust the documents, find the truth in the chronology, and recognize that if you are going to insist on evidence, rather than attorney argument, you heard no defense from Samsung.”

But, as if you’d expect anything else, Samsung disagrees. Samsung lawyer Charles Verhoeven (with the firm Quinn Emanuel) argued in his closing statements that Apple is simply attempting to stifle competition. He noted that all companies look at competitors, that all companies check out what other products are in the market — including Apple. He recalled an internal Apple email that said employees retrieved competitor phones, including Samsung’s for its own research.

“Apple here is asking for what it’s not entitled to,” said Verhoeven, “Consumers deserve a choice. Sure, Apple has great products. We don’t deny that. But consumers deserve a choice between a lot of great products. Competition is what built this country.”

According to Apple, however, Samsung saw a product that was taking off and wanted in on. McElhinny noted that Steve Jobs started the work on the iPhone in 2003, and when it officially launched, it received a huge amount of press. Indeed, he brought up another Samsung research document that said only six months after its debut, the iPhone raked in over 11,000 print articles and over 69 million search results on Google.

The iPhone was undoubtedly famous, and Samsung couldn’t ignore it.

“They knew a good thing when they saw it,” said McElhinny. “They tried to compete with it, and when they couldn’t, they copied it.”

McElhinny also discussed trade dress, or the nonfunctional, completely design elements of the smartphone. Apple argues that Samsung’s products look so much like the iPhone that consumers could be confused into thinking Samsung’s advertising is Apple’s, or even go so far as to purchase a Samsung product thinking it was Apple’s.

“Is anyone really deceived by Samsung devices? Consumers make choices, not mistakes,” rebutted Verhoeven.

In order to prove his point, he turned on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, which Apple filed an injunction against at the beginning of this trial. He turned it on to show a Samsung boot-up screen, an ad for Verizon, and finally the home screen. It’s important to note that Apple does not believe the home screen infringes on its patents, but rather the app display screen does. In order to get to this screen, the customer must first find the button for it, which lives at the upper right hand of the home screen.

This is a full four steps before the consumer gets to the “confusing” screen.

You have to assume here, however, that the consumer isn’t already confused by the exterior of the device, and that the phone is not set to the app screen, which it often is in retail stores.

He then asked the jury to imagine a Best Buy store. He explained that the television department used to look different when TVs still had buttons and were not flat screens. Now, however, the TV aisle is filled with products that look all the same. He took on the mantra “form follows function,” arguing that televisions all started looking alike to accommodate for remote controls and flat screens.

Verhoeven then mentioned RIM’s Blackberry and the success of the QWERTY keyboard. Following the release of the Blackberry, many phones adopted the full keyboard, making it easier to type out email. He says the same is happening with the touchscreen and that, because “form follows function,” the smartphone aisle at Best Buy is bound to look homogenous as well.

Apple ended its closing remarks asking for the jury to consider damages of $2.5 billion, the assumed profit Samsung made off of the phones, if they find the accused products infringing. Samsung claims Apple did not take into account operational costs that Samsung put into those phones, and that it actually owes Apple just $22 million. In addition, a Samsung countersuit claims that Apple infringed some of Samsung’s patents, and that Apple owes it $422 million.

Image via Samsung

Apple and Samsung issue their closing statements today in a weeks-long trial that could change the way Silicon Valley looks at the idea of “copying” technology.

“If they start deliberating on the verdict today, we’d be lucky,” U.S. Judge Lucy Koh said during the trial.

The drama is almost over. Both Apple and Samsung have put in long nights, mountains of objections, paperwork, and bickering that has proved to be entertaining, if not drawn-out. Apple seeks monetary damages from three of Samsung’s branches and claims that one of these branches coerced the others to also infringe on Apple’s patents. The iPhone and iPad creator says that Samsung blatantly copied its smartphone and tablet technologies, though Samsung argues that Apple actually infringed on Samsung’s intellectual property.

We’re here at the courthouse listening to the closing arguments and perhaps, more importantly, listening for more awesome quotes from Judge Koh. Last week she called for the chief executives of the two companies to talk, try to reach a settlement, and make “peace.” Last night, however, it became apparent that neither settlement nor peace was possible.

But the case has the opportunity to make us look at “copying” through a new lens. It could clarify what is IP and what is just generic technology that’s part of the smartphone “norm.” It could also change the way we look at competition and when “being competitive” meets “stealing.”

Check back with VentureBeat to find out more about the closing statements today. For now, we’ll listen to the jury instructions, which even Koh is worried about staying awake through:

“We’re going to periodically stand up just to make sure we’re still alive.”

Angry Apple image via Shutterstock

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

On the eve of their patent trial’s closing arguments, the chief executives of Apple and Samsung spoke with one another — as the judge ordered them to — but failed to come to an agreement.

Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Kwon Oh Hyun met one final time last week. It was all for naught.

“The CEOs did speak … [but] there was no resolution,” according to Samsung lawyer Kevin Johnson, as reported by CNet today.

The two companies are currently locked in a highly-publicized legal battle over intellectual properties related to mobile devices. Basically, Apple claims that Samsung’s Galaxy Tabs/phones (and other devices) are ripping off the iPad/iPhone. Samsung naturally denies those claims and argues that Apple is actually ripping off some of its own wireless technology patents. Aside from unleashing numerous prototypes, the trial has amounted to both sides arguing over what’s different about each other’s rectangle-screened devices.

Judge Lucy Koh, the presiding judge in the Apple-Samsung patent trial, had asked the two sides to speak with one another in a last-minute effort to avoid the potentially unpredictable outcome of the jury trial.

“I don’t mean to waste their time,” Koh said last week, referring to the jury.

Then, Koh said later, “It’s time for peace. If you could have your CEOs have one last conversation, I’d appreciate it.”

In other words: You kids, solve your own problems!

Koh has proven to be one of the most entertainingly direct jurists we’ve had the pleasure of reporting on in a long time. As this trial has gone on, it seems clear her patience with the two warring factions has been wearing thin. We’ve collected some of Koh’s best quotes, so check those out.

Closing arguments in the trial are scheduled for tomorrow. VentureBeat will be reporting live from the San Jose courthouse.

Via CNet

I’ve got news, guys. Sometimes patent cases are boring (don’t worry, I was shocked to find this out, too). In the Apple versus Samsung patent case, however, there’s been one shining, albeit unexpected, entertainer: the judge.

U.S. Judge Lucy Koh doesn’t have time for your bickering, lawyerfolk, and she’s happy to tell you. Samsung and Apple are at each others’ throats in Koh’s San Jose, Calif., courtroom over patents pertaining to the companies’ smartphones and tablets. Apple goes so far as to say Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone and iPad in its designs, notably the Galaxy line.

Closing arguments are this week, however, bringing a months-long, objections-filled, paperwork-mounding argument to an end. Before the jury (there’s a jury!) decides who is at fault, we thought it was only appropriate to take a look back at five of our favorite Koh smackdowns:

• “I want papers. I don’t trust what any lawyer tells me in this courtroom,” Koh said after an Intel lawyer showed up in court to say one of Samsung’s witnesses was legally not allowed to testify. “I want to see actual papers.”
• “I will not let any theatrics or any sideshow distract us from what we are here to do,” we overheard Koh saying after Samsung released rejected evidence to the press. Koh said this created “real and possible danger” since the trial is to be decided by jury.
• “If all you wanted was to raise awareness that you have IP, message delivered,” she said according to Forbes, “In many respects, mission accomplished. It’s time for peace. If you could have your CEOs have one last conversation, I’d appreciate it.”
• “I am not going to be running around trying to get 75 pages of briefings for people who are not going to be testifying,” CNET recorded her saying when Apple attempted to squeeze in just a few more witnesses. “I mean, come on. Seventy-five pages? Seventy-five pages? You want me to do an order on 75 pages? Unless you’re smoking crack, you know these witnesses aren’t going to be called.“
• “You’ve made your record for appeal,” Koh said to one of Samsung’s lawyers from Quinn Emmanuel after he pressed her on why she dismissed some of Samsung’s evidence, according to All Things D. “Don’t make me sanction you, please.”

That’s right: This judge is in charge, and don’t you forget it.

Got more favorite Koh quotes? Let us know in the comments.

Lucy Koh image via Cult of Mac, Meme via Meghan Kelly/VentureBeat

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

The Apple v. Samsung trial has been one of the highlights of the summer, with the two technology giants duking it out in the courtroom and an increasingly testy judge rapidly losing patience with the two.

“You copied me!”

“You copied somebody else first!“

“Did not!”

“Did too!”

Judge: “You two, solve your problems! Don’t make me stop this car!”

Closing arguments in the trial start Tuesday, after which a jury of 12 randomly-selected people will convene to decide the fate of one of the most important patent issues to face the nation since Apple and Microsoft came to legal blows over the “look and feel” of the Windows graphical user interface.

Can’t make up your own mind? Use this entertainingly useful Verdict-o-matic from the Joy of Tech. Then let us know how you think the trial will turn out.

Source: Joy of Tech, via Gizmodo and Cult of Mac

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

The latest from the big Apple vs. Samsung intellectual property legal fight is that the case isn’t ready to be judged by a group of peers.

The two companies are currently locked into a highly publicized legal battle over intellectual properties related to mobile devices. Basically, Apple claims that Samsung’s Galaxy Tabs/phones (and other devices) are ripping off the iPad/iPhone, which Samsung naturally denies. Aside from unleashing numerous prototypes, the trial has amounted to both sides arguing over what’s different about each others rectangle-screened devices.

Today, judge Lucy Koh is asking the CEOs of both companies to meet one final time before the case gets sent to a jury for deliberation.

“I don’t mean to waste their time,” Koh said, adding that it’s in the best interests of both sides to trim down their arguments and reduce the number of claims.

Apple and Samsung have agreed to meet, but given the 90-minute opening statements from the companies when the trial began, I’m not sure how much will actually get accomplished.

Via The Verge

Image credit: Losevsky Photo and Video / Shutterstock.com

Intel showed up at the Apple v. Samsung trial to quash a Samsung witness’ testimony today. The chip manufacturing giant said witness Tim Williams was under a nondisclosure agreement and could not discuss certain topics to be brought up in the trial.

A lawyer for Intel came to court today, according to CNET, and asked Judge Lucy Koh not allow Samsung to examine Williams. The lawyer explained that Williams was under a number of NDAs that barred him from talking about Intel’s source code, which Samsung planned on discussing. Intel previously reached out to Samsung but heard nothing back about his testimony. The issue was raised again in court, hours before his scheduled time on the stand.

Judge Koh asked both Apple and Intel to file papers on the matter.

“I want papers. I don’t trust what any lawyer tells me in this courtroom,” Koh said during the trial. “I want to see actual papers.”

Koh also said Williams will not be able to answer questions in court until the matter is sorted out between the three companies. Intel said it would file sanctions against Samsung but would no longer fight against Williams’ presence in court.

For months now, Apple has accused Samsung of outright copying its iPhone and iPad designs in a number of the Korean manufacturer’s smartphones and tablets. This includes the well-known Galaxy line of products. Indeed, before the case, Apple won two injunctions against the Galaxy Nexus smartphone and the Galaxy Tab 10.1. That is, Samsung has been barred from selling these two items for the duration of the trial. Apple had to post  a $95.6 million bond for the Galaxy Nexus and a $2.6 million bond for the Galaxy Tab.

via CNET; Courtroom image via Shutterstock

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

What’s Samsung’s best-selling phone in the US? Hint: It’s not one of the company’s flagship Galaxy S smartphones.

The Apple v. Samsung trial continues to reveal juicy details about both companies, with the latest public court filing breaking down just how many phones they sold over the past two years, AllThingsD first reported.

The biggest surprise? Samsung’s most popular phone in America has been the Galaxy Prevail, a mid-level phone on prepaid provider Boost Mobile. Samsung sold 2.25 million units of the Galaxy Prevail out of a total 21.21 million phones sold between June 2010 and June 2012, the filing shows.

In second place for Samsung was the Epic 4G on Sprint, which sold 1.89 million units and was also its biggest revenue generator, bringing in $855 million. The company sold 4.1 million of its Galaxy S II models in total.

The Galaxy Prevail’s success shouldn’t be that surprising: It’s Samsung’s cheapest mid-range smartphone, and since it’s on the prepaid carrier Boost Mobile, it doesn’t come with the same hefty monthly fees as contracted smartphones. The Prevail may be unsexy, but it’s a damn good deal for consumers.

The same documents also bring up questions about Samsung’s reported table sales, Fortune’s Philip Elmer-Dewitt points out. While Samsung boasted that it sold more than 2 million Galaxy Tabs in early 2011, the filing shows that the company sold only 262,000 tablets in the U.S. during the fourth quarter of 2010 and 77,000 during the first quarter of 2011. Those numbers don’t include overseas sales, but even counting those, Samsung’s numbers seem a bit inflated.

The filing unfortunately doesn’t break down Apple’s device sales beyond iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. Apple sold 85 million iPhones during the period (worth $50 billion in revenue) and 34 million iPads ($19 billion in revenue). The iPod Touch is no slouch either, with 46 million units sold earning $1o.3 billion.

Check out the court filing below (via CNet):

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Apple should get down on its knees and thank God for whatever corporate traitor gave it Samsung’s internal iPhone vs Galaxy S1 comparison document.

I’m sure that you have seen some of the stories floating around about Samsung’s internal document detailing basically how the iPhone rocks and the Galaxy Samsung S1 sucks. I’ve read the entire document, and I’m almost literally speechless.

(I said almost.)

Let me offer a blinding flash of the obvious and mention I’m not a lawyer.

But I think it spells hellish legal agony for Samsung if the jury takes even a cursory glance at just a few pages. And an expert did tell VentureBeat just a few days ago that juries in “look and feel” patent cases will sometimes just simply eyeball the competing products to make a call.

Here’s your chance to play jury, without the hassles of showing up in court for $20 a day. I’ve included some screenshots below — okay, a lot of screenshots below — but they are all basically variations on one unchanging and massively damning theme:

GALAXY SUCKS, MAKE IT LIKE THE IPHONE.

Don’t believe me? Think I’m overreacting? Take a look for yourself:

I’ve managed products selling tens of millions in annual sales, and I have been in product development meetings where we’ve been late to market on an innovation and needed to catch up. And we did exactly what Samsung did: Study the market leaders, identify their strengths, and remedy our weaknesses.

But two things were different.

First, no product is perfect. And that includes the iPhone (anyone who wants a quick way to turn battery-sucking Bluetooth on or off on a non-jailbroken iPhone knows this). So in any product comparison, teams I participated in always found a few places even in the best products that were suspect or weak where we could take advantage.

Second, even very good is not the best. The iPhone is very, very good … but it could use some improvement. Apple does so with every iOS release. And the job of a competitor is to stand on the shoulders of whatever giants it can find … and move the sticks forward. To make progress.

In this document at least, Samsung makes zero attempt to do either. Page after page says: Do it the way iPhone does it.

And that kinda plays right into Apple’s point about “slavish” copying.

[ update ]

After reading some of the comments below, I went through the Samsung document again, picking out instructions that specifically mention iPhone or iTunes:

Page 73: “provide a diverse user guide manual like iTunes.”

Page 79: “support toggle method like iPhone.”

Page 81: “the concept has to change to be like iPhone.”

Page 95: “enable registration/editing of lyrics like iTunes”

Page 98: “enable one button access like the iPhone.”

Image credit: Complot/ShutterStock

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Apple and Steve Jobs’ strategy of obtaining intellectual property protection for every and anything possible may be about to pay big dividends in the “patent trial of the century” that is currently taking place in a federal courtroom in San Jose, California. Apple is seeking over $2 billion in damages (which can be trebled if Samsung’s infringement is found to have been willful) and an injunction barring the sale of certain Samsung smartphones and computer tablets in the United States.

Most patent trials can be tedious and boring affairs involving complex technologies and the construction of difficult to understand utility patents. However, by protecting its well-known products using all types of intellectual property, including design patents, Apple has been able to turn what could have been a month-long patent litigation trial involving a number of highly technical patents into what it hopes is a simple referendum on whether Samsung copied the appearance and graphic user interface of the iPhone and iPad. Considering the similarity of Apple and Samsung products, Samsung may have a difficult time convincing the jury that there is more than meets the eye and that Samsung should not be held liable for infringement.

There are two general categories of patents that can be obtained from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, utility patents and design patents. Utility patents are the most common type of patents and generally involve the way an invention is used and works and may be granted to anyone who invents a new and useful method, process, machine, device, or any new and useful improvement of the same. In this case, Apple is asserting that Samsung infringed three Apple technical utility patents involving features of a multi-touch user interface.

While design patents are litigated far less frequently than utility patents, and many companies do not even seek design patent protection, infringement of a design patent may be far easier for a jury to understand. A design patent protects only the ornamental appearance of an invention, not its utilitarian features. The general test for infringement for a design patent is relatively simple: Does the alleged infringer’s product design appear substantially the same as the patentee’s design? While a patentee can buttress its evidence of the similarity of designs through the testimony, for example, of industry observers, consumers, and business partners, jurors can use their own eyes for a side by side comparison and decide for themselves if the products look substantially the same. It certainly does not depend on understanding highly complex technical matters.

In addition to the utility patent infringement claims, Apple has accused Samsung of infringing a tablet design patent and graphical user interface patent for the iPhone. Thus, instead of having to convince the jury through highly technical evidence that Samsung infringed a number of utility patents, Apple can argue to the jury that the products are so physically similar that Samsung must have copied the designs from Apple and that the jury can make this determination with its own eyes.

In comparison to the relatively easy-to-understand Apple design patents, Samsung’s counterclaims against Apple involve Samsung’s patents covering the inner workings of cellphones. Such claims are technologically complex, and two of Samsung’s patents are “standards-essential patents,” which protect inventions that are incorporated into broader technology that an entire industry has agreed to use. Samsung alleges that it offered to license two standard-essential patents to Apple on fair terms, as legally required but that Apple refused and used the technology for its iPhones anyway.

While the law in this area is unclear, a recent decision by an influential jurist suggested that remedies for claims of infringement of a standard essential patent are limited.

The Apple-Samsung trial is expected to take a month. Both sides are expected to offer evidence supporting their claims and defenses from a variety of sources. Much of the evidence will be highly technical, and despite the best efforts of the attorneys on both sides to make the technical details comprehensible to a jury, the outcome may come down to simply whether the jury believes with its own eyes that Samsung copied the appearance of the iPhone and iPad.

Peter Toren is an intellectual property litigator and computer crimes expert with Weisbrod Matteis & Copley in Washington, DC.

[Image credits: Apple, Samsung]

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Apple’s senior vice president of Internet software and services Eddy Cue said, in an email revealed today, that he believes there will be a market for 7-inch tablets. What’s more, the late Apple chief executive Steve Jobs agreed with him.

The email was revealed during a patent infringement case between Apple and Samsung in San Jose, Calif. today. Apple is suing Samsung over allegedly copying the iPhone and iPad in a number of its smartphones and tablets, particularly the Galaxy line of devices. While discussing tablets, Samsung counsel called up the internal Apple e-mail from Cue, which reads:

“I believe there will be a 7-inch market and we should do one. I expressed this to Steve [Jobs] several times since Thanksgiving and he seemed very receptive the last time. I found email, books, Facebook and video very compelling on a 7-inch. Web browsing is definitely the weakest point, but still useable.”

There has been much speculation regarding a 7-inch tablet from Apple, though nothing has been confirmed. The company will have a lot of competition in the 7-inch market, particularly from e-reader type tablets, such as the Kindle Fire. Most recently the mini-iPad was rumored to be released during a fall Apple event that may also introduce the latest iPhone.

Apple was denied its request for a summary judgement in its infringement case against Samsung today, after the Korean company released rejected evidence, which Apple says could sway the jury.

U.S. Judge Lucy Koh called the release by Samsung a “real and possible danger,” as the jury had already been chosen and that discarded evidence could make them biased.

“I will not let any theatrics or any sideshows distract us from what we are here to do,” said Koh during the trial.

She then questioned the nine jurors individually to see if they were still able to make a judgement fairly. All but one of the jurors denied having seen any articles on the event. The one who did, “Juror number 7,” said he had only read headlines and could still fairly decide the outcome based only on evidence included in the courtroom.

Samsung released the rejected evidence to press Tuesday with a statement saying that “the excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.”

The evidence included a number of documents that tried to prove Apple’s iPhone was inspired by Sony phone designs.

After the release, Apple asked Judge Koh to deliver a summary judgement. It released this statement, asking for more than just a rap over the knuckles for Samsung:

“The proper remedy for Samsung’s misconduct is judgment that Apple’s asserted phone design patents are valid and infringed. Through its extraordinary actions yesterday, Samsung sought to sway the jury on the design patent issues, and the proper remedy is to enter judgment against Samsung on those same patents. It would be, to be sure, a significant sanction. But serious misconduct can only be cured through a serious sanction — and here, Samsung’s continuing and escalating misconduct merits a severe penalty that will establish that Samsung is not above the law.”

Angry Apple image via Shutterstock

Steve Jobs proudly boasted that Apple doesn’t do any market research, but court documents in the company’s ongoing trial against Samsung say otherwise.

Now Apple VP of product marketing Greg Joswiak is working hard to keep the company’s research activities secret, reports Network World’s Yoni Heisler. But in the process, Joswiak is giving us even more detail about just how Apple learns from its users.

In a declaration submitted to the court on Monday, Joswiak wrote, “The surveys reveal, country-by-country, what is driving our customers to buy Apple’s iPhone products versus other products such as the Android products that Samsung sells, what features they most use, our customers’ demographics, and their level of satisfaction with different aspects of iPhone.”

Samsung is planning to use these surveys (which also include iPad usage data) as trial exhibits in court. Joswiak, not surprisingly, is fighting to keep this information from leaving the courtroom and reaching the public.

While these research revelations seem to counter Steve Jobs’ claims about Apple’s avoidance of market research, it’s important to note that Apple is only conducting these surveys to learn more about how consumers use its products. Apple isn’t conducting focus groups to ask consumers about new features or what they want to see in future devices — which is what really seemed to annoy Jobs. Instead, this research helps Apple better coordinate marketing to its target demographic.

One question in Apple’s research asks customers in different countries about what led them to buy an iPhone over an Android phone, the Wall Street Journal reports. 54 percent of consumers in the U.S. and China cited “Trust Apple Brand” as their primary reason, while 67 percent of Chinese customers surveyed said they liked the design.

Intriguingly, Joswiak also claims that only a handful of executives see these research reports. That means typical designers and engineers aren’t influenced by the survey findings. “No iPhone-related surveys or iPad-related surveys are allowed to be distributed to anyone outside this group without my personal express permission, which I regularly refuse,” Joswiak wrote. “When I do approve further distribution, it is almost always on a survey-question-by-survey-question basis, and even then distribution is limited to individuals  who have a demonstrated need to know.”

Photo: Sean Ludwig/VentureBeat