The trial between Apple and Samsung in a court in San Jose, California (USA) has entered into the second day. US technology companies forced to wait ruled Samsung to pay them $ 40 per handset copyright infringement sold. "The amount of damage is high because the seriousness of the violation of Samsung's enormous," Harold McElhinny, Apple's lawyer, explained.
Meanwhile, lawyer John Quinn side of Samsung told the judge Lucy Koh that "Apple is exaggerated and insulting to her understanding." Florian Mueller, an expert on copyright, also said that the demands of Apple is "ridiculous". With 5 patents were illegally used Apple claims $ 2 billion, while Samsung only demanded $ 7 million for two patents on video remote transmission of digital photos they Apple is believed to be in violation.
Details 5 patents Apple
Lawyers two sides are expected to still make the same argument at the hearing in January 8/2012. Although several of the patents and equipment were mentioned, as well as the trial opened for the first time when Harold McElhinny asked the jury: "The day he was somewhere on 9/1/2007?". He introduced a video projector iPhone Macworld Expo event in 2007 with outstanding features: slide to unlock to prevent accidental click to the machine known as the pocket.
 |
Harold McElhinny promotional video from 2007 with the iPhone slide to unlock feature.
|
"As soon as the iPhone is sold, Samsung immediately realized two things: First, the iPhone is causing global storm, consumers love it, and later the iPad iPhone constantly sold out on the shelves. Deputy two is the Samsung simply can not get a competitive product so ", McElhinny said.
Apple's accusations are based on Samsung's internal documents, which the Korean company's engineers often refer to when discussing iPhone features will be available on their new phone. In a documentary about development roadmap UI, Samsung seems to have "cut - paste" a graphic from the Apple website to build systems to identify telephone numbers, e-mail and provide contextual menu.
Samsung's lawyer also knows of some of Apple's confidential documents, such as e-mail from 2010 by Steve Jobs mentioned "jihad" (2011 Holy War) against Android, which lists the components that Apple Android surpassed as being connected to the computer device, data synchronization based on cloud computing ... "Apple is in danger of stuck in the old world for so long," Jobs wrote.
Therefore, John Quinn said that this trial took place only because Android so successful and Apple feel threatened. Some features have been widely used on many Android phones, Apple's victory (if it happens) will cause Android to change and become the springboard for the Apple implementation of subsequent litigation.
For Apple, the case is not simply because of money. They reached nearly $ 200 billion in annual revenue and is tens of billions of dollars in cash.They do not need to spend that much time and effort to go to court demanding $ 2 billion. What they need is a recognition that their engineers have invented the smartphone.
 |
Apple's market share significantly affected after the success of Android and Samsung.
|
Steve Jobs, Apple's late CEO, believes that Google and its partners have copied most of the above features and styling of the iPhone iOS, so he vowed to go to war against Android and Google. Samsung is the Android phone maker's largest with more than 50% market share to "selected" became the center of the case because if the removal is Samsung, Android ecosystem will be significantly weakened.
Last week, Apple allows engineers Greg Christie, one of the authors of the patent Slide to Unlock, openly talks about the work pressures and their meticulous to give birth to these features meet the very strict standards of Steve Jobs. Apple wants to convey the message: They obviously have invented such technologies.
From another perspective, some technology experts believe that the US copyright system is no problem. No fewer patents being granted in recent years are too general or too obvious, then the patent holder being misused to prevent competitors entering the market.
