Apple v. Samsung, part deux: Experts quibble over what the survey really says

Apple v. Samsung, part deux: Experts quibble over what the survey really says

Summary: Yeah, this is still happening.

SHARE:
samsungs4-inhand

Yeah, Apple v. Samsung: The Sequel, is still happening.

Samsung picked up where things left off on Monday after just getting started with presenting its defense last Friday afternoon.

To recall, Apple took up the bulk of last week's proceedings with its case, a number of programming experts as well as a few seasoned Apple executives to prove its argument that Samsung lazily copied the iPhone and iPad for the Galaxy series, among other devices.

The most eye-catching (or maybe hair-raising) point arguably had to do with money, which is really what this trial is all about in the end. Basically, Apple upped the ante from $2 billion in damages sought to $2.191 billion.

Since then, Samsung attorneys have been doing their darndest to nail down their argument that Apple is really just using the Korean tech giant as a scapegoat in its larger mobile market war against Google.

Samsung's legal team also pushed in a new argument by poking holes in the testimony of one of Apple's expert witnesses, John Hauser, the Kirin professor of marketing at the MIT Sloan School of Management.

Hauser previously described to the jury about an extensive survey he undertook, asking hundreds of Samsung tablet and smartphone users to determine how many people were buying select devices for specific features. Eventually he came to the conclusion that fewer consumers would have bought the Samsung devices at question in this lawsuit if certain features were missing.

On Friday, Samsung called in an expert witness of its own to refute that testimony and study. David Reibstein, chaired professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, took issue with Hauser's methodology, citing that the survey neglected some major bullet points -- namely the value of brand name. He even equated that tactic with asking consumers what cup holder they would want in a prospective car rather than asking about favorite manufacturers.

It also suggests Samsung aiming to illustrate that not all of the features on iOS that Apple is trying to protect are necessarily unique or creative intellectual property -- rather more like generic functions that are just universal across smartphones and tablets today.

Maybe Apple doesn't actually "Think Different" as much as it preaches after all? That's what Samsung hopes the jury will conclude by the end of the month.

[Sidebar fun fact: Reibstein might also be the winner for the most highly-paid expert witness in the tech trial of the year -- albeit a pay cut from his day job.]

Or put another way...

Like many of the high-profile intellectual property trials inundating federal courthouses in and around Silicon Valley over the last few years, there is a dedicated pool of tech journalists covering live each day -- many of whom are frequently live-tweeting updates.

If you don't have the time (or patience) to follow along each day, check back here on ZDNet next Friday for another installment recapping the week in Apple v. Samsung, part deux.

Topics: Legal, Apple, Mobility, Patents, Samsung

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

24 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Samsungs Case

    Seems pretty reasonable to me. A) Your issue is with Android, and therefore with Google, and we are just one of dozens of companies using Android, and B) Seriously guys, many of your 'patented features' were in use before the iPad/iPhone

    Which adds up to "Sue Google, and you STILL wouldn't have a case"
    luke mayson
    • So, your case is...

      Google forced Samsung to use Android?
      Bruizer
      • No

        The case is that Samsung is not unique in using Android, so why are they being singled out?
        luke mayson
        • Guilty

          We have actual emails from Samsung execs saying they know they blatantly copied Apple. We have already come to the conclusion that Samsung copied at least 5 of Apple's patents. We're past the phase of 'guilty or innocent'. Samsung has been found guilty by the court. What is being determined at this point is how much money to award Apple. We're in the penalty phase of the trial.
          Maha888
          • references please.

            I'm not sure what emails we have seen from Samsung that admit they copied apple. could you link a few?

            as for the patents from apple. I don't think any of those have held up in any other court in the world, save the USA in Apples own back yard for the court case. Still, haven't most of those been invalidated by the patent office as well?

            honestly I can't see what patents have been violated to the degree apple is filing auit over. they are seeking billions in damages and requesting sales bans on entire phone lines. over what, bounce back and rounded corners on icons?

            this whole case stinks of suppressing competition through litigation.
            Emacho
          • degree of patent violations

            It looks and does what our app does... Just like how my car (camry) does exactly what my friends ford does. Rolls on four wheels, burning fossil fuels and gets us where we need to be in more luxury than we need.

            I hope the courts slap apple and if they don't, then Samsung just tells apple to come and take the money from the SK banks, if they can. Maybe when the rest of the world begins to shun the US market and block US products from being sold in their countries (because cases like these are pointless and damage competition by building monopolies) we will learn to stop allowing monopolies from forming.
            Robert_hil
          • Apple Has LOST on all "Copyist" claims!!!

            They didn't win on any design patents in Apple own backyard in their last go around. They did however as you say have all but one patent in that $900+ Million verdict, invalidated USPTO under re-examination. Which means this is why Samsung has yet to pay Apple one single nickel to date.

            Under appeal right now any legal beagle aware patent attorney will tell you that $900+ Award is in serious trouble of being tossed out completely now. Which would also invalidate partially the award for "Slide to Unlock" patent already proved in courts worldwide to be invalidated by Neonode's 2004 patent!

            Although as it's been explained elsewhere, this is a Method Patent. The very heart of the reason Software Patents should never have ever been granted in the first place. A full 85% of all patents issued today are Software Method patents and are involved in 90% of all patent lawsuits. Hard to prove let alone to prove and they can be so generic as to make impossible to tie your shoes without violating a method patent from some asinine patent troll!!! .....like Apple is clearly becoming suing and winning on two of 4 Non Practicing Entity Method Patents here!

            Our Patent System is BROKEN..... and has been since companies in the 90's started applying for patents on the most asinine features and methods possible!
            KronJohn
          • Hypocrisy

            “We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.” -Steve Jobs

            First, what Samsung copied from iOS was very general in nature - bouncy lists, rounded corners, icon shapes and colors, etc.

            Second, virtually every feature Apple claims to have been copied, Apple themselves copied or adapted from existing products or technologies. Swipe to unlock, touch screens, bouncy lists, using gears to denote settings, etc.

            Third, Apple has, and continues, to not just blatantly copy ideas from Android, but to make the most minor of changes to justify patenting the ideas. Did you see their recent patent for a pattern gesture unlock feature?

            Forth: It makes zero sense that Apple would suffer a loss of sales specifically because Samsung (Andorid) copied these overly general features. It's the features unique to Android that form the basis of it's desirability, not features already available on iOS. Case in point, I absolutely loved my iPhone 3G, but when it came time to replace it, a comparison of the then current iPhone and competing Android phones better served my needs because of it's openness as a platform, it's expandability (memory), it's larger screen, etc.

            All this case proves is that Apple can not, or will not, compete on features and simply wants to stall the competition. Apple's business model is based on selling the same device over and over with the most minimal of improvements. Having to compete with a rapidly developing and innovating platform like Android is a direct threat to Apple's business model - in other words, it's a threat to Apple's ability to be lazy and milk a product for far more than what it's worth.
            PC987
          • we have copies of emails

            Paypal doesn't even accept emails from postal services as proof of delivery in dispute cases and you reckon a COPY of an email is good enough for court?
            if that is acceptable, anyone can manufacture damning evidence.
            warboat
          • "We have ........."

            Seriously, "We" have emails, "we" have come to the conclusion", "we're" past the phase... Don't let your bias cloud your judgement.
            tietchen
          • So what?

            So what? Every manufacturer of Cars, Dishwashers, refrigerators, clothing washer/dryer, and any other house hold appliances copy each other.

            This industry has become stale, because most everything has been done and the wheel cannot be remade. Get over it, and make the wheel roll better.
            Robert_hil
      • In affect yes!!!

        Samsung couldn't use iOS and WinMo was out of the question. Win8 wasn't even out yet. So the only viable no proprietary OS available was Android!

        Really easy to figure that out! lol.... and what? You think no other Android manufacturers were forced, but only Samsung should have to pay? lol.... you perverted brain washed Cult of the Apple fans need to get your heads examined. Apple is just as guilty as anyone else of copying, if all it takes is losing on a Method or Software Patent! hahaha.... Grow up and face that now Court Confirmed.... FACT! ...............because Apple is a confirmed "Copyist" too.... under own lame ignorant definition of what a "Copyist" is!!! :D
        KronJohn
    • Damages

      Yes, but Apple,cannot claim damages against a product that is given away free. Samsung sells devices along with the software in direct competition with Apple. They can assess an amount of money and go after it. The other Android manufacturers are insignificant.
      flyguy29
      • Android is not "free"...

        and, when considering what Android really is, one has to conclude that, it's "part" of the device which it comes in. The device without Android (or any OS), would just be a brick. Thus, Android is an essential element to the devices in which it's installed. It has value. It affords the ability to sell devices which would otherwise not even exist, or would exist with some other OS.
        adornoe@...
      • Free doesn't mean they can't claim damages

        Android is free but to say because something is free it can't be held responsible for breaking patent laws. Like someone releasing a free clone of Microsoft Windows, Microsoft would sue them to get that product taken down.

        The main reason they are not going after Android is that it is not owned by Google as many people see to believe. Google started the OS but does not own it and is its own company Android Open Source Project which Open Handset Alliance was responsible for most of Androids early development.

        Apple is targeting Samsung because they are the ones who gained the most traction for Android and is iOSs number 1 competitor.
        Richard Couillard
    • Android is not owned by google

      Android has its own company "Android Open Source Project (AOSP)" and was originally developed by Google and Open Handset Alliance. If Google owned Android Google wouldn't be pushing Chrome OS as hard as they are. Google is getting greedy wants 100% control.

      It is funny that Apple is suing Samsung over features that come from Android and only after Apple realized that Android wasn't just a joke that was going to go away and surpassed iOS before they even knew it was a threat with Samsung being the top competitor.

      I think it is sad that Apple is winning such basic general functions. When Apple claimed Microsoft copied them it was on the grounds of "a visual operating system" and "programs that could overlap each other" and a judge threw that crap out because it was stupid and if that did hold in court we wouldn't have Microsoft or Apple today because Xerox would have destroyed Apple in court right after that. That judge had common sense.

      Its like Ford suing GM for making a car with 4 wheels and a steering wheel. Can you imagine if every company did that from the start? We wouldn't be nearly as advanced as we are today and we would have nothing but monopolies.
      Richard Couillard
  • This is the point:

    "rather more like generic functions that are just universal across smartphones and tablets today."

    Prior to Jan 2007 these functions were not universal across smartphones.
    Bruizer
    • Wow

      You have drank about a gallon of the kool-aid, you better take your mat and lay down. Even some Palm phones before had many of these features. There is prior art all over the place.

      Give Apple credit where its due, they took all the elements that existed in the smart phone segment and refined them to a very polished product and have made billions. Why are they so greedy for other people's billions that they made selling competing products?
      Rann Xeroxx
      • Exactly

        Greedy to a fault. That is what they are a corporation. I remind you they pay 1.9% tax in US this is not so unusual for fortune 500. I bet you pay a larger percentage of tax.
        Altotus
    • countersue Apple for $120 billion for

      Swipe down for notifications.
      Settle for breakeven zero.
      Lawyers win.
      warboat