Hasta La Gadget!

Last night we reported on the testimony of perhaps the most important witness to the trial of Apple vs Samsung here in the USA so far, industrial designer peter Bressler – now we’re hearing how much it cost Apple to have him testify. It’s important to note that the entirety of the $75,000 USD payed to Bressler by Apple thus far is entirely legal as our US court system does indeed allow for an expert witness to be paid for their help on a trial, and that Bressler does advertise himself as an “expert witness” on a broken-down website pointed out by Samsung in the case. It’s also worth mentioning that there’s a much nicer representation of the man up at BresslerGroup.com, another site and company that Bressler is a part of.

The reason Samsung brings up the point that Apple has indeed payed Bressler to come to the witness stand is not to point out the possible flaw in the court system, but to accuse Apple of unfairly angling the jury using a witness with high credentials. We’re all human, Samsung is essentially saying, and even though this man has 70 design patents that he’s co-authored and has been an expert witness on several other trials, he might not be trustworthy. Of course Samsung would never come out and say such a thing, leaving such deliberation to the jury.

Now we must ask you, readers, what you think of the situation. Does it make sense for a man to be payed for doing research that he then brings to the witness stand in a trial like this? Does Samsung have the right to suggest that Apple should not be allowed to bring a paid witness to the stand?

Samsung’s representation Charles Verhoeven asked Bressler: “How much has Apple paid you so far?” Bressler replied: “So far? In this case, $75,000″.

Do you expect that Samsung wont be bringing in their own expert witnesses that are also being payed by them? I think you know the answer to that question, if none of the above. Now we’ve only to wait to see what kind of effect pointing out Bressler’s completely legal $75,000 USD and growing paycheck is going to have on the jury as they move through this weeks-long trial.

Have a peek at our timeline below on the trial to see what’s been happening over the past week and a half!

[via TechCrunch]

Apple’s Expert Witness cost them $75k “so far” is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

In the Apple vs Samsung court case going on this month it appears that the iPhone company has struck a heavy blow with expert witness Peter Bressler. This man is a former President of the Industrial Designers Society of America and a current fellow of that group, a co-author of over 60 design and utility patents, and an active faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania where he teaches integrated product design classes. Because of this list of achievements and accolades, Bressler’s words as witness in this court case will certainly ring true to the jury. In this case, Apple calling Bressler to the stand to testify is very, very bad news for Samsung.

What Bressler has been asked is whether the devices Apple is presenting are similar enough to the patents they own that they’d could be considered infringing. Some of the devices brought up in the questioning are the following – each of these device names are linked back to our reviews of said devices so you can get a closer look if you’d like:

• the original iPhone
• Samsung Galaxy S 4G
• Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE
• Samsung Infuse 4G
• iPad 1 and 2

You can also see some comparisons between the original Samsung Galaxy S and the iPhone 4 here: iPhone 4 hands-on Review as well as here: white iPhone 4 hands-on.

When questioned by Apple, Bressler “walked the jury through” three iOS device patents and described the patents in detail to the jury according to The Verge. One patent showed off the iPad’s flat face, rounded corners, and black border under the tablet’s front glass panel. Another of the three patents described the flat front face of the iPhone, while a third described the rounded corners and bezel that existed in the first iPhone released to the market.

Bressler’s testimony compared the iPhone patents to the Samsung Galaxy S 4G. Bressler made it clear that he felt Samsung’s design to be not so fabulous when it comes to originality when it comes to being viewed by “regular consumers.” Bressler noted specifically:

“It’s my opinion that this phone, the design of this phone would be considered substantially the same” – Bressler

Similar connections were made when Bressler continued while Apple’s representation showed their iPad patent set side-by-side with the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE specifically. Bressler pointed out a number of “alternative designs” for tablets (a collection of tablets that we’re trying to get a list of now – hold tight), showing how each of them were “clearly different” from Apple’s iPad and each of the patents that surround it.

Samsung was allowed to cross-examine Bressler, showing the industrial design expert at least four different examples of “prior art” that they felt were similar to the iPhone’s front face. Bressler did not agree with Samsung’s line of questioning, saying Samsung’s comparison was an “improper analysis.” Bressler noted that these comparisons (we must assume they looked something like this) could not be taken with only one single, straight-on image as Samsung appeared to be relying on.

Samsung then spoke (represented by Charles Verhoeven in this case, by the way), about the flat, flush glass face of the iPhone as well as the original iPhone’s unique bezel. He showed the jury two devices at the same time as questioning Bressler about them: the Infuse 4G and the Galaxy S 4G.

For the Infuse 4G, Samsung showed that the glass face is not completely flush as each iPhone has been since the first (as seen above.) For the Galaxy S 4G, Samsung contended that the device’s bezel “flares” when viewed from the bottom or the top of the phone.

Bressler was having none of it, saying that the patents at hand did not work in the way Samsung was suggesting. Instead, Bressler said, they had to take into account the “ordinary observer” – aka the “regular consumer” as well as the “overall impression” the devices presented.

Stay tuned as the Apple vs Samsung case continues and millions (if not billions) of dollars are held up in the air, ready to drop into the wallet of the winning manufacturer of lovely smart devices. Check the timeline to see several stories leading up to this point in time as well – don’t miss a thing!

Apple’s expert witness says the magic words: “substantially the same” is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

The senior vice president worldwide marketing at Apple, Phil Schiller, took the stand in the Samsung case this morning to convince the jury that the iPhone‘s design and Apple’s approach with it and the iPad were wholly unique. In doing so, Schiller (and Apple) hope to make it clear that there are elements that Samsung latched on to for their own smartphone and tablet lines in a way that damaged Apple’s prospective sales in the process. Schiller’s questioning in the case thus far has ranged from the development of the iPhone (and the iPad at the same time) to the company’s advertising strategies from start to present.

Apple counsel Harold McIllhenny questioned Schiller first, asking him about how the iPhone was created. One of the publications present at the trial is Bryan Bishop from The Verge, who recounts that Schiller began his set of answers with the following statement:

“We started to look at whether you could put entertainment content on cellphones…. We realized at the time that some phones weren’t any good as entertainment devices. … The iPhone was a brand-new concept. A new generation of smartphone. The way we ended up helping people understand it’s capabilities was to break it up into three uses.” – Schiller

If you’ll remember back to 2007 when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone, he did indeed call it a revolutionary project made up of three elements: “Three things: a widescreen iPod with touch controls, a revolutionary mobile phone, and a breakthrough internet communications device. An iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator. An iPod, a Phone – do you get it? These are not three separate devices. This is one device. And we are calling it iPhone. Today Apple is going to reinvent the phone.”

Schiller continued in the case (fast forward again to 2012, of course) saying that the reaction to the device being revealed was everything from “over-the-top positive reactions” to “doubt that Apple could succeed with it.” Schiller let it be known, though, that sales were “extremely good” and that, “each new generation sold approximately equal to all previous generations combined.”

Speaking about the iPad then, Schiller recounted how Apple at the time considered the device as a risk to their image. The iPad was “a dead category” at the time, he noted, and “it was a big gamble to introduce the iPad for a number of reasons. First, this was a new category of devices.” Apple’s legal defense showed an image of each of the four distinctive iPhone models that have been on the market thus far, noting that according to Apple, “something we’re known for” is the dots on the bottom of the display as well as the icons and display itself.

Schiller made sure to note that “consistency” and “beautiful, colorful icons,” have been paramount in keeping the iPad successful. Advertising is another element mentioned, with “product as hero” being Apple’s product-first advertising strategy in a nutshell.

As far as the surveys mentioned earlier today before the trial began, Schiller noted that Apple did indeed do web surveys as well as phone surveys on items on the docket such as how important the look and design was for purchasers of the iPhone 3GS and 4. The answers for this set of questions were an astounding 85 percent in the “important” or “very important” categories for a customer’s purchase of a device. This bit of information of course will be used by Apple to push for the idea that Samsung’s supposed theft of their look and design ended up damaging the company in the long run.

Stick around as Apple continues to face off against Samsung in the trial that’ll one way or another take a big swipe out of one of the two companies before its all said and done. Check out the timeline below to stay up to date on all of the proceedings as well.

Apple’s Phil Schiller reintroduces the iPhone in Samsung case is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

From 2001: A Space Odyssey to “Sony Style Designs”, Samsung is having some fairly bad luck, it seems, with finding designs that Apple may have been inspired by for their iPhone and iPad devices. This is all part of a court case going on in the United States in which Samsung is being accused of creating devices that are so similar to Apple’s products that they feel they’ve been robbed, so to speak. The case centers around patent infringement, prior art, and the idea that one company may be inspired by another without “copying” them without mercy.

Today’s revelation comes in a sheet submitted by Judge Koh, in charge of this case, which includes several prior art examples that Samsung says came before the iPad and/or the iPhone which Apple must have been inspired by. We’ve seen most if not all of these examples before, leading up to this case, but with one swoop, the judge appears to have dismissed the lot of them. Above what you’re seeing is a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey in which an IBM-made concept tablet computer – or a display, rather – is shown in full use. Below is the full list of dismissals shown today.

The Blue Glow patent listed in the first row is one in which Samsung is attempting to show that they did not copy Apple’s rubber-band scrolling effect in iOS. Most of these items have been dismissed because they do not successfully match up with what Koh sees as close enough to Apple’s design for their mobile mainstays OR they’re not being seen as important to the proceedings.

In other words, it doesn’t matter if Apple’s designs had anything to do with the designs in 2001, for example, if Samsung straight up copied Samsung. That’s not necessarily what’s happening here, but Koh is essentially that Samsung will not be allowed to point fingers at other designs to get the law off their own back.

Check out the timeline below to see additional pieces of this story as the tech trial of the summer continues!

[via AppleInsider]

Samsung evidence dismissed in droves in Apple case is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

In the continuing epic battle that is Apple vs Samsung in the USA version of their collection of court cases going on around the world, Samsung has opened with statements that attempt to make it clear that they admire the iPhone. Along with this admiration, Samsung’s lawyer Charlie Verhoeven has attempted to make it clear that being inspired by a product is something that everyone does, and that this process is called competition, no copying. Samsung pushed for detailed comparisons between Samsung and Apple devices, showing rounded corners, startup sequences, and home screen configurations as well.

Verhoeven’s opening statement for Samsung went so far as to assert that Apple “didn’t invent the rectangular shaped form factor” and “didn’t invent having a touch screen.” Of course his hour and a half statement did not take the same stance as Apple’s did, that being the company positioning themselves as the risk-taker in a world (before the iPhone) where they’d have had to risk it all to make a name for themselves in the industry. Instead, Samsung is hoping to make it clear that Apple depends on Samsung for a collection of components in the iPhone including:

• Processors
• Flash memory
• Main memory

Verhoeven made it a point to mention these bits and make it clear that Samsung supplies several parts to Apple for the iPhone. These bits are key components, he said, and Samsung was the one to create them in a way that Apple decided to utilize for their most important products – the iPhone in particular.

“The guts that make this phone work, … they are all supplied by Samsung. Apparently Apple thinks Samsung invented something, because it’s buying products for its own devices.” – Verhoeven

The quote above comes from Josh Lowensohn from CNET, direct from the courtroom. Verhoeven noted that Samsung certainly never copied what Apple had made in the original iPhone. Such an inspiring product, he said, was never going to exist without seeing reactions in kind.

“We’re not standing here telling you ladies and gentleman of the jury that the iPhone wasn’t commercially successful. It was an inspiring product to everyone, including the competition. But being inspired by a product and seeking to make better products is competition. It’s not copying.” – Verhoeven

Check out the rest of our coverage of the Apple vs Samsung case from its big start today and in the few weeks leading up to this battle. We’ll be here throughout the case to bring you up to date happenings as they go down as well – the war is on!

Samsung opening statement calls iPhone “inspiring product to everyone” is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.