Apple says slavish copying at root of $2 billion patent infringement case against Samsung

“Apple Inc.’s lawyer told a jury at a $2 billion trial that Samsung Electronics Co. made itself a dominant player in the smartphone industry only by copying the iPhone maker on ‘feature after feature’ over several years,” Joel Rosenblatt reports for Bloomberg.

“In 2007, when Apple introduced the iPhone, Samsung had only 5 percent of the U.S. mobile handset market and didn’t even offer a touch smartphone, attorney Harold McElhinny said,” Rosenblatt reports. “Now, having elected to methodically ‘copy feature after feature after feature of the iPhone’ in its own devices, Samsung is the world’s leading seller of smartphones powered by Google Inc.’s Android operating system, Apple’s lawyer said.”

“Bill Price, a lawyer for Samsung, began today by telling jurors that McElhinny used the word ‘copy’ frequently to ‘get you angry,'” Rosenblatt reports. “‘Samsung didn’t copy it, Google didn’t copy it,’ Price said. ‘You can’t copy it if it isn’t there.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone


    1. Oh how I wish these guys get full punishment. I’m sick of iHaters justifying Samsung and Google for their actions. These fools completely beleive Apple innovated nothing at all but copied everyone else for the iPhone.

  1. Freaking Samsung.

    ‘Can’t Copy’

    “You can’t copy something from the iPhone if it’s not in the iPhone,” Price said. While a company may be entitled to damages if it proves infringement of patents it doesn’t practice, that’s not the case with the iPhone, he argued.

    “Samsung didn’t copy it, Google didn’t copy it,” Price said. “You can’t copy it if it isn’t there.”

    1. If Apple owns a patent and doesn’t use it in the iPhone, Samesung would still be guilty of patent infringement and should have to license it or stop using it. Proving damages would be problematical however. Samsung should either pay up or recall the infringing devices. There are many companies that own patents that the do no use, yet try to shake down Apple and others. No reason Apple should not be entitled also. I hope the jury is smart enough to see through the Samesung smokescreen.

    2. The issue here goes directly back to what Koh allowed in opening arguments.

      Samsung was allowed by Koh to present that Apple’s iPhone does not utilized implementations exactly like those described in the patents in question. (Samsung went further and improperly said the Apple did not truly implement the patents in question at all, something Apple wanted to protest after the fact yet Koh refused to acknowledge that protest or let the jury hear that Samsung’s lawyers lied.) Samsung was also allowed to present the position that there are many other possible non infringing implementations possible for what the patents describe.

      Thus, Samsung has put forth the case that the patents are irrelevant. Samsung says Apple didn’t implement the patents and neither did Samsung. Therefore Samsung could not have infringed on the patents.

      This is why Samsung is saying you can’t copy what isn’t there. (If the exact implementations weren’t in the iPhone, how could Samsung copy it? It wasn’t there to copy!)

      Hopefully Apple’s lawyers can show (and have shown) that this is 100% BS. Unfortunately, I don’t have that much faith in Apple’s lawyers.

      We’ll just have to wait and see.

  2. I’m sure Samsung has their own Phil Schiller, who, at the next Samsung Worldwide Developer’s Convention (not “Conference”, that would be slavish imitation!), will casually and off-script say something like:

    “Can’t copy my ASS!!!”

    Thank you, I’m here all week…


  3. These American lawyers are the stupid ones who hurt apple, they have no shame when they defend a crook like Samsung. Lets not forget American google without whom Samsung smart phones be nothing as Samsung cannot do a decent operating system

  4. Scumbags!

    How can he say you can’t copy what isn’t there when it’s blindingly obvious the features were there, patented and in the iPhone first.

    This is an open and shut case – if te jurors can’t see this then the whole legal systems is flawed.

    Either that o their on shitscums payroll.

  5. SameScum lawyers and company truly believe that if they tell a lie enough times it becomes reality! Also everyone in the company has cotton balls in there ear canals only taken out when the chairman speaks.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.