Apple and Samsung continue to duke it out in federal court over copyright infringement relating to products like the iPad, left, and the Galaxy Tab, right. Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired 
SAN JOSE, California — Apple attorney Harold McElhinny took to the podium Tuesday to deliver Apple’s closing arguments in the landmark Apple v. Samsung patent trial. At turns passionate and professorial, McElhinny repeatedly hammered in one main point to jurors: Samsung willfully copied Apple.
“We have demonstrated that Samsung has violated each and every one of our intellectual property rights,” McElhinny said.
Samsung was set to present its closing arguments later in the day.
The first portion of Apple’s closing argument was geared toward keeping jurors focused on three main areas: the documents that have been shown during the trial; the chronology of events; and Apple’s contention that Samsung’s defense rested largely on attorney argument, rather than a direct defense from Samsung.
McElhinny showed a string of Samsung internal documents revealing that Samsung knowingly made changes to incorporate iPhone design and UI elements, “written honestly by people who, when they were writing them, never dreamed a jury would be looking at them two to three years later,” he said.
Apple also pointed to testimony from one of Samsung’s designers on how they worked grueling hours, night and day, to develop the Galaxy S’s design. Apple said it spent four years, from 2003 to 2007, developing and honing the iPhone’s design. The design period for the Galaxy S was three months.
“In those three months, Samsung was able to copy and incorporate Apple’s four-year investment in handwork and ingenuity without taking any of the risks because they were copying the world’s most successful product,” McElhinny told jurors.
Apple dedicated a significant portion of its closing argument to addressing Samsung’s alleged violations of trade-dress violations. Trade dress is nonfunctional visual detail of a product, “the look of the design that tells you who made or who sells a product,” McElhinny said. He pointed to several instances that he said showed how Samsung’s products caused dilutions of Apple’s trade dress when they entered the market, such as a survey that found over half of consumers who saw an ad for a Galaxy Tab thought the ad was for Apple, not Samsung.
McElhinny also took time to go over the damages Apple is seeking in the case. “The damages should be large because infringement has been massive,” he explained, offering slides showing specific breakdowns to justify dollar amounts Apple is asking for in compensation.
Jurors will likely begin deliberations on Wednesday as they work their way through a lengthy 22 page-long verdict form to relay their final decisions to the court.
Source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/08/apple-closing-statements/
TECHNITROL TAKETWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE SYNTEL SYNTAXBRILLIAN SYNOPSYS
No comments:
Post a Comment