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

Yeah, this is still happening.


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.

Read this

Samsung Galaxy S5: Evolution, not revolution, but still packs a powerful punch (review)

For Samsung's latest flagship smartphone, it's more about what's beneath the surface than its outer design. But there are a few innovations we haven't seen in a Galaxy device before, notably a fingerprint scanner, a heart-rate sensor, and a beefier 16-megapixel camera.

Read More

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.