To support his case, Lee showed a memo from J. Shin, then leader of Samsung's mobile division, who called the arrival of the iPhone "a crisis of design. Two utility patents, which govern technology and how features work, also are at issue. At a patent infringement damages trial, Greg Joswiak, Apple's vice president of product marketing, answers questions from Apple attorney Bill Lee about Apple's history of product design.
Samsung's Quinn tried to get the jury to focus on elements of Samsung and Apple phones and see the patents as covering only narrow aspects of design, what he called "minor design details. This is a complex device with many different components," Quinn said. He argued that components such as bezels and screen glass are complete articles of manufacture, something that's made on its own and can be purchased on its own.
Apple even has entire teams that tear down rival products to scrutinize each element, he said. And disputing Apple's assertion that Samsung's phone sales surged only after it started copying the iPhone, he argued that people bought other phones for many reasons. First published May 15 at a. Updates at p. Along with different patents and different devices, this trial has some interesting new facets.
One is that most Samsung features that Apple says infringe are items that are a part of Android, Google's mobile operating system that powers Samsung's devices. All patents except one, called "slide to unlock," are built into Android.
Suing Google wouldn't get Apple anywhere since Google doesn't make its own phones or tablets. Instead, Apple has sued companies that sell physical devices using Android, a rival to Apple's iOS mobile operating system. In particular, Apple believes Samsung has followed a strategy to copy its products and then undercut Apple's pricing. While Apple isn't suing Google, it expects that Google will make changes to its software if Samsung is found to infringe on patents through Samsung's Android devices.
Samsung, however, will argue that Google had invented those features before Apple patented them. It plans on calling Google engineers to the stand to back up its assertion. There are seven patents at issue -- five held by Apple and two by Samsung.
Both companies wanted to include more patents in their suits, but Judge Koh limited the number. Apple has accused Samsung of infringing US patents Nos. Patents are often referred to by their last three digits, so Apple's patents typically will be called the ', ', ', ', and ' patents. The ' patent covers "quick links," which do things like automatically detect data in messages that can be clicked. The ' patent covers universal search, such as what Apple uses in Siri.
Patent No. The ' patent covers slide-to-unlock, the motion used to unlock the home screen. And ' covers predictive text. Overall, Apple will argue that the patents enable ease of use and make a user interface more engaging. Samsung, meanwhile, has accused Apple of infringing US patents Nos.
The ' patent, which Samsung purchased from Hitachi, involves camera and folder organization functionality. The ' patent, which Samsung also acquired, covers video transmission functionality and could have implications for Apple's use of FaceTime. Unlike the previous infringement suit, this one covers gadgets that are actually still in the market and have sold in high numbers. Apple has included Samsung's Galaxy Note 2 and Galaxy S3 on its list of infringing devices, while Samsung has accused the iPhone 5, iPad Mini, and many other devices of infringement.
Admire: ', ', ', ', ' Galaxy Nexus: ', ', ', ', ' Galaxy Note: ', ', ', ' Galaxy Note II: ', ', ' Trial Try full digital access and see why over 1 million readers subscribe to the FT. For 4 weeks receive unlimited Premium digital access to the FT's trusted, award-winning business news.
Digital Be informed with the essential news and opinion. Delivery to your home or office Monday to Saturday FT Weekend paper — a stimulating blend of news and lifestyle features ePaper access — the digital replica of the printed newspaper. Team or Enterprise Premium FT. Pay based on use. After just 3 days of deliberation, the U. In December, the U. In June, the U. The ruling by ITC was soon vetoed in August, just two days before it went into effect.
Once the ruling from the first U. After 3 years of appeals, retrials, and litigation, the two tech giants finally reach an agreement.
0コメント