Professor Erdem Testifies in Apple v Samsung Trial

This is a trial report generated using my typed notes from the trial for Monday, April 21. I attempt to paraphrase what happened. It is not a transcript. It may be that this is the continuation of cross examination from Friday. I was not in court on Friday. This trial report will generally only be of interest to those with some knowledge of the trial in the time period before official transcripts become public. Professor Erdem is a Samsung expert witness from NYU.

 

Cross Examination of Professor Tulin Erdem by Apple

Apple’s attorney pulled up eye tracking study – exhibit 59 I believe, from professor Erdem. Apple’s attorney mentioned that her report had 21 features of smartphones that eye tracking was unimportant to consumer decision making. He then mentioned near field communication. I missed her response. My notes pick up with Apple attorney metnion of CPU and GPS – that she concluded by eye tracking it was unimportant. Ms. Erdem responded that she concluded they were not key demand drivers. There is a distinction. She said the reason why with GPS was that all the phones had it. Apple’s attorney then said that so these features were not differentiators. Ms. Erdem said something about GPS in her response and the attorney said something about a driver differentiator. And then I missed some testimony.

Somebody said something about not being differentiator or driver and something about no appearance. Somebody said something about professor Reibstein’s critique the list of features collected. And something about items being bolded. And then something about being mentioned 3 or more times on websites.

Apple’s attorney asked if she read Friday’s transcript. Professor Erdem said she was there in court and listened. Apple’s attorney said if we pull up certain lines of testimony – features he had bolded that were more important for customers in their decision process. Dr. Erdem responded that she saw the sentence. Apple’s attorney then said that if you look at next in trascript – pointing to certain lines there, Mr. Pierce questioning Dr. Reibsten and he said driving features. And professor Erdem said yes he said driving. Apple’s attorney asked if she saw that it references bold features as driving features. She asked him to repeat. The attorney asked if she saw Samsung refers to driving features. She said that she saw driving features, yes. Apple’s attorney then asked if she concluded 13 described driving features… And then there was an objection. I was not able to record how the objection was resolved.

My notes pick up with somebody saying what the question – key demand driver difference. And the belief that Reibstein’s point many websites – Hauser – brand, battery, and operating system – he was not saying all these things in bold are demand drivers. Apple’s attorney said to look back at I believe exhibit 59. And of the 29, 13 or identified as bold and described as driving. Dr. Erdem responded that they were in bold does not say demand driver. And she referenced her chart also.

Somebody brought up something about near field communications. And the other person confirmed that something was near field communciations. There was mention of something that sounds like Pendelton – and Samsung marketing USA – and how important superbowl advertisement. And something about promoting ad. Mention that superbowl ads are expensive. And Dr. Erdem agreeing they are. Apple’s attorney suggested that advertisers are selective in what they put in the superbowl. And Dr. Erdem responded sure but that does not mean they are a demand driver. And here I missed some testimony.

My notes pick up with Apple’s attorney asking if she had talked to Samsung. Dr. Erdem responded no. The attorney said she did not know why Samsung put the features in, and she said no. Here I missed some more testimony.

My notes pick up with Apple’s attorney saying she did not know how the Samsung engineers valued the features. She said sure she didn’t know with respect to engineers. Apple’s attorney went on to say that she does not know how they compare value. Dr. Edem responded that it is not relevant to what consumers think – demand driver. Apple’s attorney asked if she hadn’t talked to anybody about eye tracking study or conclusions. Dr. Erdem responded that was true. Apple’s attorney added that she did not know whether Samsung has ever used eye tracking for the purposes you she did. And Dr. Erdem answered no.

Apple’s attorney asked about work with Analysis Group. I must have missed a little of the question. Dr. Erdem responded that that was right. Apple’s attorney said they helped you with the study is that right? Dr. Erdem responded that they gave her litigation support. At this point I missed some testimony. Apple’s attorney asked if she billed 563,000 dollars. Professor Erdem said that was about correct. Apple’s attorney said in addition – and then something about Analysis – probably Analysis Group. And here I missed some testimony.

My notes pick up with Apple’s attorney asking if she got 10% of Analysis’ proceeds. Somebody said something about including something, and then 164,000 dollars was mentioned. Then I believe Apple’s attorney said if that’s 10% that means they have billed 1.5 million. Dr. Erdem responded that she didn’t know.

Apple’s attorney asked if that math sounded OK. And Dr. Erdem responded that the math sounded good. Apple’s attorney said something about Analysis Group. And Dr. Erdem said right. Apple’s attorney asked  if she’d worked with Analysis Group – and I missed some testimony. My notes pick up with Apple’s attorney asking to her knowledge if Analysis had ever used eye tracking. Dr. Erdem responded that she didn’t think so. Apple’s attorney went on to ask, to her knowledge, if anyone in any court in U.S. had ever used eye tracking to study demand in a patent case. And Dr. Erdem responded she is not aware of any instance for litigating a case. Apple’s attorney asked if as far as she knew this is first time. Dr. Erdem responded that it could be and that it is nice to be innovative.

Apple’s attorney asked if she was listed as an expert with Analysis Group. And then I think he went on to ask about one thing talking about conjoint studies. She responded correct. Apple’s attorney asked if the website touts it. Dr. Erdem said conjoint is useful in certain contexts. Then I missed a little bit of testimony – but the attorney mentioned something about product features. Dr. Erdem responded that you can get relative preferences. Apple’s attorney asked if the website even cited smartphones (using conjoint analysis for smartphone cases). Here I missed some testimony.

My notes pick up with Apple’s attorney saying that is it true that the website said Conjoint can be used in patent cases to study not just primary but secondary and tertiary features. Dr. Erdem said I don’t know if it says it but that she could comment on that. Apple’s attorney said OK and that there was nothing further.

Redirect By Samsung

This began at 9:17 a.m.. The Samsung attorney mentioned that she had been asked questions about Reibstein by Mr. Bennett – and he pulled up the transcript – he asked if she recalled in the Bennett questions – Mr. Reibstein asked demonstrative and that she had answered this is a list of all features all shopping sites – and the ones in bold are mentioned 3 or more times – and the question regarding those sites though more important in the decision – and he asked her if she saw that. Dr. Erdem said that yes she did. Samsung’s attorney asked if in Dr. Reibstein the ones that were in bold in the study were more important in the comparison shopping sites. She answered that was correct. There was an objection here by Apple which was overruled.

Samsung’s attorney asked if she understood that more important to Reibstein meant the same thing as major term – major feature as she used in her choice study. Dr. Erdem answered that she thought he was making a relative judgement. She said something about the Hauser study. Something about more websites – relatively more. And then she said what she was saying was more important not key demand driver – more important than those that were omitted.

Samsung’s attorney again directed to Bennett related testimony transcript from Friday – where Bennett said – the graphic showed to the jury and testimony critiqued Hauser – Quirty and GPS major features should be included and your testimony is minor – and her testimony that Quirty and (either GPS or CPU) not key – different – can a feature be more important in the sense that it is mentioned many times without being major feature demand driver. Dr. Erdem responded that for example GPS in her study – that all the phone’s had GPS so it was not a differentiator. She also said that with the keyboard on Friday – can type on all and not about function – can be keys or touchscreen – all five have so no differentiation – all have touch screen other than like blackberry physical one – not drivers because they don’t differentiate the brands.

Samsung’s attorney next directed everybody to the demonstrative Bennett questioned her about on Friday. The comparison of and something about folks seeing – I missed a little here. There was mention of 5 options columns. And then I missed some more testimony. My notes pick up with Samsung’s attorney asking that the slide be blown up here but keeping all five on screen – and then I think he may have given up doing both blow up with all five. He said that in any event what it does show is five with respect to GPS – and I think Dr. Erdem responded saying yes across so all five have GPS.

Samsung’s attorney said OK so consumers all have GPS – does it  have any relevance to you as to whether GPS? Dr. Erdem said yes that it does not come out significant because it is not a differentiator. Samsung’s attorney mentioned Bennett and the video camera. Dr. Erdem answered yes, has the same issue – all of them record video.

The Samsung attorney then directed everybody to a particular part of a slide – and asked what they said. And Dr. Erdem answered that they all say exactly the same thing (specifications on video). Samsung’s attorney asked if it would be surprising to find video would not be a driver of choice. Dr. Erdem responded it wouldn’t be surprising as there was no variability – so not a demand driver. That demand drivers are most important and they vary. Samsung’s attorney asked if there is a difference between not having a feature at all and having one version in terms of consumer choice. Dr. Erdem answered that she would say consumer choice based on functionality and not on how functionality is delivered. Samsung’s attorney asked if autocorrect or word suggestion would be an example and Dr. Erdem said that was correct.

Samsung’s attorney then went to what he called that funny example and Apple. Dr. Erdem I believe then responded “technogeeks.” And then I missed some testimony. My notes pick up with Dr. Erdem asking whether they (?keep / replace?) they don’t drive demand for the average consumer. Whether they care about enough that was the point she said. Samsung’s attorney asked if she meant when they do to buy a phone whether tapping here or tapping at top not the basis of the decision. Dr. Erdem said that was true that was what she was saying in her deposition.

Samsung’s attorney then asked, so Mr. Bennett asked questions about Quirty keyboard and again referred to trial transcript – he asked OK for instance the Quirty keyboard – keyboard on smartphone as opposed to nine digit – you concluded the actual keyboard had no effect and not driver of consumer demand – your long answer do you see that – and Dr. Erdem responded yes.

Samsung’s attorney said to look at next Bennett sequence – saying that Quirty typewriter keyboard as opposed to nine digit (I missed a little testimony here) – he asked if she understood Bennett was speaking of difference between 9 key feature or each number of counts for certain (and here I missed some more). Dr. Erdem responded that in the question she missed they are different – later on is why she came back – all of these phones it is not about ability to type. And the more precise distinction – all five showed no version no physical version like Blackberry. Samsung’s attorney then asked that in fact in the instructions if she gave definition of Quirty. Dr. Erdem responded that the description was there for them to read if they wanted to.

Here I miss some testimony.

I believe they went to report here but not sure – I see a reference to being in the report in parentheses in my notes here. Somebody said that we see the Quirty definition here. And then the other person said yeah – and read it aloud. Samsung’s attorney then said so what as it is defined and presented in her survey, what was Quirty? Dr. Erdem responded that it is like a blackboard (perhaps this is a typo and she said Blackberry?). Then somebody said physical keys and the response was physical. And then Samsung’s attorney asked if they had it and Dr. Erdem responded no.

Here I missed some more testimony. My notes pick up with Dr. Erdem responding that it wasn’t a physical keyboard. And Samsung’s attorney said that as indicated in her report Quirty was 26 digit keyboard not 9 key old fashioned keys. And she answered that that was correct.

Samsung’s attorney asked if Mr. Bennett when asking the question if he had the actual report. And Dr. Erdem answered he probably did.

Samsung’s attorney said he would ask final question, and it was about Near Field. He asked if this doesn’t driver consumer choice why is it incorporated in projects. Dr. Erdem responded that being innovative is a good thing for brand image it signals to consumers that you are innovative even if it is not a driver – it becomes part of halo affect. Samsung’s attorney asked, “Halo?” Dr. Erdem said, right, certainly, go beyond case to 3M who is known to be innovative. How do they create they promote all things new things they are doing.

Another Rexamination by Apple 

Apple’s attorney started by asking, what I now hear you saying is your report eye tracking not drive demand is that what you are saying now? I did not get all all of Dr. Erdem’s response. She said something about that they do drive demand, and something about medium complexity and perhaps low complexity – and certain things not driving demand.

Apple’s attorney then asked that everybody has GPS so doesn’t drive demand. Dr. Erdem responded that as a group it does not drive demand.  Apple’s attorney asked – because everybody has it. Dr. Erdem responded that Mr. Kringer (sp?) showed us that every phoen has GPS does not drive demand. Apple’s attorney said that would be true of every feature that is a must have feature in other woulds. Dr. Erdem responded that if all had it it would not be differentiating. Here my notes are a little unclear but it appears Apple’s attorney said something like – would not be GPS must have won’t sell. Dr. Erdem responded they may – consumers may want GPS as I said if every phone has GPS it is a general capability – these things must be had but are given. Apple’s attorney then asked – but you don’t know whether Samsung has made that determination of must have – yet not withstanding and then said something about eye tracking. Dr. Erdem responded yes and tried to continue but the attorney cut her off and said nothing further.

Witness was dismissed without recall.

© 2009-2014 Alta Financial & Insurance Services, LLC
Google