As Apple-Samsung trial winds down, judge's patience wears thin

The epic patent trial between Apple and Samsung is coming to a close -- but both companies are racing to fit in testimony before their allotted time runs out. Samsung rested its case on Thursday, asking for $421.8 million from Apple; Apple countered by calling witnesses who doubted Samsung's claims.

|
Vicki Behringer/Reuters
The patent trial between Apple and Samsung is winding down; both companies have asked for damages from each other. In this courtroom sketch, Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny (center) examines Apple design chief Scott Forstall as US District Judge Lucy Koh looks on.

The biggest trial in tech is drawing to a close: Samsung rested its case on Thursday, asking that Apple pay up to $421.8 million if things are settled in Samsung's favor. Samsung's claiming that Apple ripped it off on three patents relating to email, photos, and music -- although the bulk of the case revolves around Apple's claims that Samsung infringed on its intellectual property.

Samsung's damages request pales in comparison to what Apple is seeking against Samsung: $2.45 billion in lost profits for all the Samsung hardware it claims infringes on its patents. US patent law states that a patent owner is entitled to all the profits that an infringer gets -- and Apple is seeking damages for a pretty wide range of products, including many models in the Galaxy line of smart phones and its Galaxy Tab tablets, alleging that Samsung copied its design on these devices. Samsung, of course, says it did no such thing and alleges that several of Apple's patents are invalid.

Patience is wearing a bit thin at this point: on Thursday Apple's lawyers presented a 75-page document relating to more than 20 witnesses they might want to call to rebut Samsung's claims. Judge Lucy Koh responded: "Unless you're smoking crack you know these witnesses aren't going to be called!" (The attorneys agreed to pare down the list, but not before attorney William Lee assured Judge Koh that drugs were not, in fact, involved in the request.) Later in the day Koh chided Samsung for spending too much time cross-examining Apple's witnesses instead of building its own case.

Judge Koh's outburst has to do with the 25-hour total given to each company to present their side of the case, not including opening and closing arguments. As of Thursday afternoon, Apple had fewer than four hours remaining, and although Apple's lawyers assured Koh that they had "timed it out" and would be able to get through all the witnesses, Joe Mullin at Ars Technica reports that Koh has promised to "think up a penalty" if Apple's estimate overshoots.

So what's next? By Thursday afternoon Apple was speeding through its witness list, trying to finish solidifying its case before time runs out. (The witnesses Apple lawyers were able to call included patent experts, Apple's VP of Procurement, and a former iOS software engineer, who appeared in demo videos shown to the court.)

Closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday, and Judge Koh wants the jury to begin deliberations by Thursday. The verdict will have some pretty major implications not only for Apple and Samsung and the consumers who use their products (read: just about everyone), but could also affect the patent process itself -- especially if a good number of either company's patents are ruled invalid.

Reader's what's your take on the trial? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

For more on how technology intersects daily life, follow Innovation editor Chris Gaylord on Twitter @venturenaut.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to As Apple-Samsung trial winds down, judge's patience wears thin
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Horizons/2012/0817/As-Apple-Samsung-trial-winds-down-judge-s-patience-wears-thin
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe