So after a three week battle between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. over patent issues the two tech giants will make closing arguments on Tuesday in a Federal Court in San Jose before a jury of nine and Judge Lucy Koh. The jury will decide in this multi-billion dollar case, whether Samsung, "ripped off" Apple as stated by the company's designer Christopher Stringer or whether it just drew inspiration from its competitors, as Samsung puts it.
As Howard Mintz of mercurynews.com says, "Apple's simpler arguments, coupled with the mystique of its products, may give it an advantage, but much depends upon the amount of credibility the jury assigns to Samsung's counter-arguments."
Since 2011, the two tech moguls have engaged in quite a tussle over design infringement, Apple has repeatedly accused Samsung (not without merit) of imitating its designs for its various products. While, one cannot deny Samsung's products bears a definite resemblance to the corresponding Apple products, Apple might have taken the issue a little too far by suing the company for $2.5 Billion. In turn, Samsung is counter suing Apple for approximately $400 million for damages to reputation and $22 million in royalties.
Apple has been very sensitive, and rightfully so to a certain extent, to patent infringement. In a biography of Steve Jobs by Walter Issacson quoted the former Apple CEO saying about Google's Android, "Our lawsuit is saying, 'Google you f***ing ripped off the iPhone, wholesale ripped us off. I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product," as reported by thevarguy.com.
Apple's pursuit against the South Korean company has been quite in the same lines. In 2011, Apple filed suit against the South Korean Tech mogul Samsung over patent issues and intellectual property rights regarding Apple's highly popular smartphone iPhone and computer tablet iPad. Apple claims that Samsung's smartphones and tablets are knock-offs of its designs.
The two companies have been dispute in over 10 countries, earlier last month a Judge in Great Britain ruled in favor of Samsung. Judge Corin Birss released a statement saying, "They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool," he said. "The overall impression produced is different," according to Reuters.
A few months ago, due to Apple's claims that Samsung's Galaxy Tablet infringed on patents of its very popular iPad, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ordered the Galaxy 10.1 computer tablet to be temporarily removed from the US markets.
Samsung's lawyer Charles Verhoeven dismissed accusations telling jurors, "Everyone is out there with that basic form factor...There is nothing wrong with looking at what your competitors do and being inspired by them," as reported by Time Magazine.
Prior to start of the trial, the South Korean company told the Inquirer that it was confident of winning the lawsuit. Samsung told the newspaper "trusts that the jurors will agree with its case," and further added "Patent law was never intended to give a company a monopoly over an entire market...Samsung wants to compete with Apple, not to stifle competition; to offer more choices to consumers, not to limit their ability to buy the product they want at a price they can afford," as reported on theinquire.net.
Samsung released a statement as follows: "Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims in other countries based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited," as reported on Reuters.
In turn, Apple released a statement in direct rebuttal to the South Korean company on Reuters, "It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging."
The case was filed as: The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11- cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).
Mintz describes the case perfectly when he calls it "the most difficult types of cases in the federal court system, addressing an extensive muddle of patent, antitrust and "trade dress" legal claims raised by both companies," as reported on www.mercurynews.com
