“After its first real break, court is back in session later today in the case between Apple and Samsung,” Josh Lowensohn reports for CNET.
“The trial is currently in its testimony phase, as both sides break out a string of witnesses. So far that’s included testimony from Apple’s Christopher Stringer, one of the designers of the iPhone, the iPad, and numerous other Apple products. And just before the break it was Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller, who is slated to the stand once again this morning,” Lowensohn reports. “There are six others testifying after Schiller, though you might not know all of them.”
Apple’s next 7 witnesses:
1. Phil Schiller: Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide marketing
2. Scott Forstall: Senior vice president of iOS software
3. Justin Denison: Samsung’s chief strategy officer
4. Wookyun Kho: Engineer at Samsung
5. Peter Bressler: Former president of the Industrial Designers Society of America
6. Susan Kare: Famed UI and graphics designer
7. Ravin Balakrishnan: University of Toronto computer science professor
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Lynn Weiler” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Judge Koh on Samsung’s quest to use ’2001: A Space Odyssey’ as ‘evidence’ against Apple: Nope – August 2, 2012
German court rejects Samsung’s ’2001: A Space Odyssey’ defense of Galaxy Tab – September 17, 2011
Samsung’s 2001 Stanley Kubrick defense debunked – August 24, 2011
Samsung cites Stanley Kubrick’s ’2001: A Space Odyssey’ movie as prior art against iPad design patent – August 23, 2011
Apple asks Judge Koh to rule in its favor after Samsung’s excluded evidence leak – August 2, 2012
Apple says it will seek sanctions over Samsung’s press release of excluded evidence – August 2, 2012
The 125-year-old U.S. patent law that could cost Samsung $2 billion for slavishly copying Apple’s designs – August 1, 2012
Samsung defends decision to share excluded evidence with media – August 1, 2012
Apple says jury should learn that Samsung destroyed evidence – August 1, 2012
Samsung, after ‘begging’ to get Sony into Apple patent trial, flouts judge and releases ‘excluded evidence’ anyway – July 31, 2012
Apple v. Samsung Live Blog: Trial opens with one juror gone, Samsung begging – July 31, 2012
Apple attorney: Instead of innovating, Samsung chose to copy iPhone and iPad – July 31, 2012
Apple aims for total war, salted earth in Samsung patent infringement fight – July 31, 2012
Apple-Samsung jury picked to decide U.S. patent trial; Google engineer fails to make final cut – July 30, 2012
Not trying to be a suck or anything, but I reckon Apple should get Steve Jack as a witness. I’d LOVE to hear him speak about Samesung in court!
Just admit it: you ARE trying to be a suckup.
Thankfully Apple isn’t risking the outcome of a multi-billion dollar and years-long strategy shaping lawsuit on the opinions of a biased blog pundit.
Newsflash, NewsFlash: [Groans, rolls eyes…] I’m not trying to be a suck, you dickhead; I just think it’d be funny.
Still, I think it is an important question as to why the emphasis is on the Apple design process. I am not sure why they don’t focus on the before and after pictures that are being shown by MDN.
They already have. What more do you want said about them?
y – One of Samsung’s defenses is that the design of the iPhone is obvious and the only way to have a phone that is just a screen and a button. Apple is showing how it’s not obvious and spent a lot of work and a good deal of thought and research to get to the iPhone design patents.
Then the fact that Samsung’s phone so exactly copied Apples design patents, and they continued to do so after Apple informed them of that fact, shows that not only it was copied but the copying was willful. Copying is the $2 billion question and willfulness automatically multiples that times 3. So, it is a bit worth it to show willfulness in the copying.
That being said, the lawyers that Samsung are using as so good that they convinced and judge and jury to allow Google to ‘steal’ Java, change it, and use it as a basis of Android and the defense they used was basically, ‘yea, we took it. So what’ and they got away with it (for now)
So, even though Samsung doesn’t have a leg to stand on, Apple has to be very careful in proving their case to the jury. Samsung’s lawyers are using the same ‘confuse the jury’ techniques they used in the Java case but hopefully it won’t come to the same conclusion.