updated 09:15 pm EDT, Wed August 15, 2012
Clock winds down on trial, 2.5 hours remain for Samsung
The Samsung versus Apple testimonies in San Jose federal court press on, in this, the third day of Samsung's offensive against Apple. Samsung continues to burn the 25-hour trial clock by driving home the point that Apple's patents being applied against it are invalid, on the basis of prior art and patents existing prior to Apple's filings.
Judge Lucy Koh, the federal judge overseeing the trial, requested this morning before the proceedings started that the CEOs of Apple and Samsung should try and work out a deal before the jury begins deliberation on Wednesday, noting that she "sees peril for both sides" in a verdict. Koh added that if the point of the trial and testimonies was to increase awareness of intellectual properties owned by the respective companies then "Message delivered. In many respects, mission accomplished."
After Judge Koh's advice to both sides, Samsung commenced testimony with video depositions of two Intel employees—Markus Paltian and Andre Zorn. Both discussed Samsung's role in the 3GPP standard development and firmware deployment, which are related to Samsung's patent claims against Apple. During the deposition, some sealed Intel documentation related to the patents was admitted into evidence.
Following the video depositions, Tim Williams, Samsung's expert on "high speed data" patents, took the stand. His largely technical testimony focused on the ability of wireless phones to process data, and regulate power consumption while the phones are in use, and he believes that Apple infringes the Samsung-held patents using Intel technologies in the iPhone 4 and iPad 2.
Under cross-examination by Apple attorney William Lee, Williams admitted that Apple engineers had no direct evidence of Samsung's patents being violated knowingly by Apple. Apple's argument to refute Williams' point stated that since Samsung had a cross-licensing deal with Intel, and Intel sells products to Apple with no direct involvement by Apple in the development of the Intel product, then Apple didn't infringe on Samsung's patents.
Ten-year Samsung veteran designer Jin Soo Kim, testifying through an interpreter, took the stand after lunch. According to Kim, Samsung started working on the Galaxy 10.1 tablet in October 2009, prior to the early 2010 launch of the iPad. A January 2010 Samsung e-mail was presented to the court with a general sketch of a tablet device, discussing display and bezel plans. Kim claimed to have not copied the work of any other smartphone manufacturer.
During Kim's cross-examination, Apple attorneys displayed an e-mail describing a meeting between Google executives and senior Samsung design staff saying "Since [the tablet is] too similar to Apple, make it noticeably different." An additional e-mail demonstrated that Samsung ignored Google's advice in both the tablet and smartphone designs by the Korean manufacturer. Kim claimed no knowledge of the e-mails or meetings with Google.
A video from the '90s from the Knight-Ridder Information Design Lab was shown, reporting on the idea of tablet devices replacing newspapers at some point in the future. Samsung argues that the 20-year-old discussion of tablets is proof of prior art, similar to the 2001: A Space Odyssey exhibit that Samsung tried admitting before the start of the trial.
Following original iPhone design team member Richard Howarth briefly testifying that Apple examines competitor's products during the design process, Brown University professor Andries Van Dam testified that he believed that Apple had no patent right to the "snap back" feature discussed at length on Monday. On cross examination, Apple attempted to prove that the Diamond Touch device wasn't actually a "touchscreen" as implemented by Apple, with Van Dam saying that there was no fundamental difference between the technologies.
Finishing the day, software and graphics interface expert Stephen Gray was called to the stand. Gray repeated an earlier claim that a 1998 Japanese patent application for scrolling and enlargement on a portable device qualified as prior art, and invalidates Apple patents, as well as reiterating that the Diamond Touch technology established touchscreen features like scrolling with fingers long before the iPhone and iPod Touch existed. With an eye on the trial clock, Samsung had to cut short its own witness. As with Samsung cross-examination, of Apple experts, Apple lawyers point out to the jury that Gray earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from the trial and examination.
During testimony, Judge Koh informed the jury that evidentiary proceeding should be completed before the end of the week, and they may have Monday off. The judge expects closing arguments on Tuesday, and the jury will be handed the case for decision after hearing 100 pages or more of jury instructions. Samsung resumes questioning witnesses tomorrow.
Apple has used 18 hours and one minute of its allotted 25 hours, and samsung has consumed 22 hours and 25 minutes. Judge Koh has made it clear that she is not extending the allowed time to either side, for any reason. Apple has disclosed 21 rebuttal witnesses to counter Samsung's arguments, but has promised to the judge to narrow the list in the interest of time.