“Samsung Electronics Co. began its attack on patents Apple Inc. has asserted in a $2 billion case by trying to convince jurors that the iPhone maker exaggerated claims about inventions allegedly copied by the Galaxy maker,” Joel Rosenblatt reports for Bloomberg.
“Samsung, trying to avoid a repeat of two years ago when jurors found infringement and awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, is calling on witnesses with smartphone technology expertise, including engineers from Google Inc., to argue that some of Apple’s technology is so obvious it shouldn’t have been patented,” Rosenblatt reports. “Apple claims that 10 Samsung products, including the Galaxy S3, infringe five patents covering a range of user-interface designs for the iOS software that powers iPhones and iPads, including features like the slide-to-unlock function and automatic spelling corrections. Apple seeks about $2.2 billion in damages.”
“Apple faces a bigger challenge this time because, unlike the 2012 trial that focused mostly on claims about the look and feel of its devices, the current case ‘requires the jury to dig into the nitty-gritty details of software that Samsung received’ from Google as the developer of the Android operating system, said Brian Love, a professor at Santa Clara University law school,” Rosenblatt reports. “‘Google’s involvement in the case seriously undermines Apple’s narrative that Samsung is a blatant copyist,’ Love said. ‘The Google brand is very strong and, more importantly, is associated with forward-looking innovation, not piracy.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: For smart people, the Google brand is most closely associated with the U.S. NSA, not to mention hair-raising creepiness.
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
Neither is today’s biased and corrupt judicial system.
Stocks up this morning. Well, almost all of them.
Except for AAPL. There is contradiction about Apple earnings ahead next week which is bullish on APPLE ($600) but have seen AAPL drops every morning, don’t know where to believe.
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2014/04/15/apple-baird-forecasts-fyq2-miss-but-iphone-demand-holding-firm/?mod=barrons_blog_email
And why is Guugle seen as “innovative” by the masses?
Because the propaganda media catapults the BS and rarely questions anything Guugle does.
The GOOG is up nicely this morning. Stop your whining.
Frankly, Google is coached by Wall Street behind the scenes, Google knows how to please Wall Street. It is as simple as that.
Coached? Apparently you’ve never done much investing. Please stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
And apparently neither have you.
Very large, public companies typically work very closely with the large Wall Street financial institutions, listen to their advice and sometimes work “hand in glove” with them to further the financial standings of both the company and the Wall Street firms. The Wall Street firms think this is a two way street (with them controlling the traffic). Companies like Apple that don’t cater to the large Wall Street firm’s wishes do so at their own peril.
on MDN’s take: yepp, Google is NSA’s commercial branch.
If the iPhone UI was so obvious why was Google working on a Java button phone? If Samsuck took Android as is they would have a greater foundation for their argument – Apple should be suing Google. They knew stock Andriod could not compete with the iPhone UI so they created Touch wiz to make their version of Android look like an iPhone.
Yes!
And where are the e-mails from Google to Samsung asking them to stop copying Apple so closely that we have seen as evidence before?
The link doesn’t work! I’m surprised no one here has said anything. I suspect most read the headline and then MDNs take and make the appropriate comment…
How is one expected to read MDN’s excerpts in their proper context if the link is a fail?
Apple should have called 3rd party UI experts of their own. I think Microsoft phone OS designers would have an easy time explaining that their designs are unique and didn’t need to blatantly copy Apple. It would easily illustrate that Apple design elements are only “obvious” to those who start from a position of “what can we copy” rather than “what can we design on our own”.