Bill Price Makes Closing Arguments For Samsung in Apple v Samsung Trial
This is a trial report from my typed notes of the trial. Most often what is recorded is a paraphrase of what was said. There may be errors. And in places where I missed testimony or could not make it out, I placed question marks. This may be useful to some in the time period before official written transcripts are released
Closing Arguments of Bill Price
Thank you ? jury you are going to see something never done before. Four lawyers. Wanted to hear from lawyer who examined the witness. So we want to make sure you see different personalities.
I am going to real world evidence on copying and why Samsung sold phones.
???? about Samsung patents
??? talk to you about damages case and what Apple is asking
During this presentation I don’t know how many McElhinny said Samsung sales caused because they had technology to these five patents and their asking for a big number and the reason we are said to copy so much because they have to ?? justify this kind of number. Copy-copy-steal. iPhone here. Samsung going to dark side. First let me address copying and I’ll put slide up to address:
And its true you don’t practice patent if you..??
But you can’t copy something from iPhone if it’s not in patent. Apple has never practiced claim 25 of 959 universal search. Claim 20 of 414 background it doesn’t do what its patent says. Claim 18 of the ? word suggestion patent. Apple has never used in iPhone. It’s not part of that heroic iPhone. So Samsung didn’t – Google didn’t copy. Y0u can’t copy if it’s not there if they don’t practice. No evidence 647′ copied. Reason by the way because they are specific architectures to accomplish. There are not universal search word suggestion. Can’t copy if not there. Evidence slide to unlock not practiced – now ios setting.
Second in damages claim Apple saying Samsung using particular claim – particular architecture couldn’t do that then a lot of would come to Apple which is also not practicing those claims – those patents and that makes no sense . Why would you go from one to another? It simply makes no sense. Let me talk about that first. Not because you can’t get damages for patent you don’t practice. It’s because you can’t copy. Why would someone copy if you are not practicing.
Let me go into a little more detail. ?Truty? is particular patent claims in this case created not copied ?birll? engineers Google right up the street. ?Truty? Samsung any other Android because it made best hardware Android platform Google independent . Intentionally misinterpretation document Apple.
Let me address crisis design – head of local division look at that. McElhinny their own words copy iPhone. Not speech all about. Praising iPhone it did come out. Ambi made up in Washington made by other not very good. And, part of document. Language about copying iPhone. That’s what carriers were saying. And what was saying here Samsung has always in past carriers says yes. That’s a short cut to going out of business. You heard ?? come up here and for few years after carriers instead of direct . I hear like iPhone. Nowhere does he say. And they don’t. Saying we are behind need to find os system platform. Documents shows just that.
201 McElhinny showed during trial. Remember 2009 internal document hardware used to be important now it’s software? You heard again software not hardware. Misleading. Because you used to go for flip phone or whatever – those days are over. People choose phone for content – for services. McElhinny didn’t tell the second part – Apple applications – not hardware – experience driven by aftermarket customization look also 13 and a1 Samsung was in place where os it could use download wonderful applications from third parties. Download apps – (examples given) when you see software – read the document carefully because what it says is software allows consumer experience getting so customer can customize. Samsung recognized what ended 2009. Was resolved undisputed. It chose to go with Google Android platform as has virtually every other. I mean it is the alternative (for the world ) to apple ios.
You’ve heard Mr. Lockheimer of Google recognized in 2006. And that is that man?ual? ?wreen? concentrating software and that Google decided to build platform that would be flexible and os that would give guts os that any manufacturer and use and then application developers could take it work with that platform. And of course Google makes own apps. Back in 2006. Version 1 2008. And here is key undisputed fact in case. That every patent which Apple claims infringed in case id infringed by basic Google software. Is there any ?? Google Nexus Galaxy all 5. Lockheimer told you the source code for every ?? was developed Engineers at Google. This is not saying pointing at Google android. This is saying 5 patent particular infringed . We brought in Google folks who independently developed – told you different architecture. And you are going to hear more. We are not pointing finger. We are saying independent develop feature. We brought you the inventors.
Quick distraction indemnity – that’s relevant to possible bias. If they have potential bias financial result some who lose money. That is something when Google witness took stand Apple knew about limitation. They knew they didn’t ask if they were biased and you could see not biased.
Who i this trial has tried to hide relevance Google not Samsung Google?? Everyone witnesses – go give impression Google irrelevant. Google critical on copying. Samsung ding’ copy weren’t told to copy. Engineers they didn’t copy they told. Nowhere is one area Google os little changes you can make differentiate from another like HTC for Motorola. One of those is slide to unlock. Apple accuses Google’s way. Basic Google software. They claim. We brought into you Samsung software design?er? and you hear from (Ms or Dr) Kim testified whether she copied – absolutely not . She pointed out they try to differentiate. You can ?? . Again look at what you do not what you say. If you look at her work she came up with puzzle 2008-2009. You’ve seen some of her documented iPhone Samsung – what she told you was that what she got was basically book reports looked at and frankly she pays no attention. You know by results. Look what she – slide to unlock looks nothing like iPhone. Galaxy SII 2011 – that’s one of those the whole screen slides by. Apple doesn’t accuse. Another one Galaxy Note see this circle move outside of circle Apple does not accuse of infringing. She came up with ripple slide to unlock. Apple does not accuse of infringing. In fact their expert testified – look these are coming out before Apple’s patent even issued. And Mr. ??? came up copied slide to unlock doesn’t make sense and own expert Cockburn came up and said no evidence and this is T?? Cockburn. Pull up his testimony – .
They have to make you think that so you can get enraged big money damages award. And let me go to so we have – Google – Google’s dev code. You were asked where were you 2007 and it didn’t happen. This point all of them. 2010-2011 we know what Jobs thought. And he thought- holy war on Android – exhibit 489 and if I had ?? in my pocket I would give it to McElhinny. ??? shows Android as a platform. And we know in October 2010 Jobs we have to holy war what 2011 all about.
The primary reason for executive get together – look at this document everyone talks about Google Android it was all about ?? innovators – ?at? Google ? if you go through this they say Google ahead in the cloud – the future going to where you sync cloud ahead calendar – ?? and Samsung’s mention and ?? RIM Samsung one of those manufacturers ??? Focus was on holy war with Google they were going to target who became largest Android – independent platform you could use to download your apps and watch TV do all that fun stuff. How research how Samsung ?? sales it wasn’t because it copied – 5 particular ways – Google independently developed – the way they did it was a paradigm shift.
And by the way we didn’t bring in executives. We brought in inventors of accused features. We brought in Ms. Kim in charge of slide to unlock. And Dale Sung – president of ?Samsung America? and key adviser in Korea and he explained paradigm shift what we realized. We realized that we hadn’t branded Samsung we go into stores and ?sk d? for it not focus on brand lets go and increase special retailer – friendly to retailer. Shift investment on marketing promote brand and by the way that ?? advertising costs – ?[I think he said they did not go up they shifted but I am not sure]? make sure product flawless. Mr. Penland came up how are we selling rest of world – so how would we sell Samsung phones. Because HTC selling twice as much. Explained to you we focused on leadership 4G, big screen later quality of screen – you know the hardware to distinguish us from rest of world basic Android software. And it worked. And the way you know it worked is that Apple later started panicking 9 first branding worked. Remember Schiller showed him email WSJ Apple is losing cool Samsung and he said we have to so something about this response ad agency only one ever James Vincent and this is 408 a 3 was telling things Apple bigger screens brand slipping. Exactly Sung hardware and the brand and Apple as a result losing sales Samsung because hardware and by the way and just if you look #’s the string of emails between Schiller and other going to do fast drastic changes. By the way drastic change in that summer for first time 14 or 15 they decided to brand campaign – their brand most – designed by Apple in California as oppose to everywhere else. The real world understood done because ?accuse? patents.
Another way you now dissected Samsung phones – 489 look through that number of documents that shows take a guess whee came where they could find out. Page 37 conclusion – Good screen ?sim?, speed. cameras – .
In court Apple said why Samsung doing well not because particular ways of – because ?? brand, hardware, and final document is the offsite (?meeting?) – shortly after Schiller – here he presented a Fiscal Year ’14 planning ?offise? exhibit. Suggestion done by Schiller madman. Actually draft of this distributed widely also kind Oppenheimer something CFO . Look and see what they recognized – first – still selling more . People like Apple. Why. Internal verdict as to why. Lets to to page # – whats going on. Strongest demand among less exp large screen. Exactly strategy even crisis design. – Carriers getting sick of apple. Why cost carriers when you carrier is losing money 600-700 capping sales subsidy premiums unfriendly polices. And then competitors see Samsung – Android – because holy war.
Competitors drastically improve hardware and in some case ecosystems. Spending obscene amounts on advertising.
Apple’s internal verdict as to why we were selling. Come in here they consumers infringe product. That was not internal verdict. Their conclusion consumers want what we don’t have. Where is growth? It’s coming from what Apple does not have. Not from what Apple does have. That’s the real world not the made up world. And by the way. Another real world – Note 2 S3. Apple – ? didn’t infringe. Keyboard slide to unlock. Those two phones. Sold more than all other phones combined that are accused in this case. The fewer the number of infringement claims the larger the Samsung sales. Samsung sales come from innovation, hardware – make up case. Mr. Nelson will now talk about ???: