He said Apple made a presentation toSamsung executives in August 2010 intended to warn the companyagainst copying the iPhone.
But, considering the Korean company was a major supplier, Apple apparently was also willing to make a deal with its rival.
In October 2010, Apple offered to license its portfolio of patents to Samsung provided the Korean company was willing to pay on the order of $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet.
Samsung chose to embrace and imitate Apples iPhone archetype, Apple said in an Oct.
Doesn’t that tip those taking the survey off that this isn’t an Apple device, Samsung’s lawyer asks.
Apple also offered to give Samsung a 20 percent discount if the Korean company cross license its portfolio back to Apple.
The Samsung Galaxy S II is a smartphone running the Android operating system that was announced by Samsung on 13 February 2011 at the Mobile World Congress.
For 2010, Apple estimated that Samsung would have owed Apple approximately $250 million, an amount it noted was far less than Apple was spending on components.
Other Apple patents covering technology that let userspinch and expand images on a screen and allow for“repositioning and rightsizing” are infringed by more than 20Samsung products, Karan Singh, Balakrishnan’s colleague at theuniversity, testified.
Apple has identified dozens of examples where Android is using or encouraging others to use Apple patented technology, Apple said in the August 2010 presentation, which contained the headline Samsung copying iPhone.
Many more Apple patents are relevant to the Android platform, Apple said, outlining dozens of patents it believed were being infringed.
Clearly those negotiations didnt bear fruit as Apple and Samsung are in the midst of a high stakes patent battle that includes a jury trial now taking place in San Jose, Calif.
During his testimony on Friday, Apple patent licensing director Boris Teksler made reference to the presentation.
We didn’t understand how a trusted partner would build a copycat product like that,” Teksler testified, adding that late Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs and then COO Tim Cook spoke to Samsung about the issue.
The testimony helped perk up what was a largely dull day in court as Apple called expert after expert to support its contention that Samsung infringes on its patents.
Samsung attorneys, meanwhile, spent as much time or more aiming to shoot down the experts and their studies.
Samsung has now used more of its allotted time before the jury even though it wont start calling its own witnesses until Monday.
Apple also used the expert testimony to introduce two more internal Samsung studies showing that the Korean company saw a need to follow in the iPhones footsteps.
Those largely echo an earlier study already put into evidence that offers a feature by feature comparison of the original Samsung Galaxy with the iPhone, frequently recommending Samsung make its products more like Apples.
Samsung is trying todemonstrate that there is little actual confusion amongconsumers between its and Apple’s products.
Apple showed highlights of the studies earlier earlier on Friday during the testimony of several of its patent experts.
Samsung Apple Oct 5 2010 LicensingApple versus Samsung Full CoverageRELATED POSTS:Samsung on Its iPhone Envy Memo: Nothing to See Here, Move AlongSamsung’s 2010 Report Says Its Galaxy Would Be Better if It Were Just More Like the iPhoneSimilarity of Apple and Samsung Icons “Beyond Coincidental,” Designer TestifiesiPhone Caused “Crisis of Design” at Samsung (Memo)Samsung Exec Downplays “Crisis of Design” Memo at Patent TrialFive Things We Learned at the Apple Samsung Trial Last WeekSamsung’ Hinges its Case on Rectangles and Rounded CornersApple’s Case Against Samsung in Three PicturesTop Apple Executive Saw Market for 7 Inch Tablet in 2011, Said Company Should Do OneApple’s Scott Forstall on How “Project Purple” Became the iPhoneApple’s Phil Schiller on How Apple Came Up With the iPhone and iPadApple Loses Bid to Keep Customer Survey SecretSamsung and Apple Speaking to One Jury, Many AudiencesSamsung: We Weren’t Trying to Mess With the JuryJudge Koh on “2001” Evidence: we’m Sorry, Samsung, we’m Afraid we Can’t Do ThatApple: Litigation Misconduct Is Part of Samsung’s Legal StrategySamsung Goes Public With Excluded Evidence to Undercut Apple’s Design ClaimsApple Designer: We’ve Been Ripped OffApple Designer: Even Steve Jobs Doubted the iPhone at TimesApple Literally Designs Its Products Around a Kitchen TableSamsung: Apple Didn’t Invent the RectangleApple: Samsung Took the Easy Road and Copied UsDay One of Apple vs.
We will paraphrase this ad, “This is the web on an iPhone, this is your mail on an iPhone and this is you answering a call on your iPhone. Does that ad ring a bell? It should because it demonstrated how revolutionary the iPhone was, and it should because without the iPhone, Samsung phones wouldn’t look and function the same way as the iPhone today.. Product confusion is deeper than what you are comprehending here. Sure when someone “buys a knockoff purse on Canal Street” most people aren’t confused and think they are buying a real Prada, etc., however, no one is going to a seedy place to purchase these phones and tablets. As was clearly marked into evidence from internal Samsung surveys, the main reason for returns at Best Buy of Samsung tablets was the customer thought they were buying an iPad. You claim that being able to handle the product prevents confusion. Well, they don’t turn on the product and unlock it like was done in court over and over again before they purchase it. When products are on display at these stores, like Best Buy, they are already turned on and on the screen with all the apps that Samsung has worked so hard to make look like the same screen on the iPhone and iPad.. we’m glad you brought up packaging. You claim the packaging differentiates the products as well and prevents confusion. Have you seen the packaging and how much Samsung has worked to even copy Apple’s packaging of the iPhone and iPad? Sure they put their cloned product on the package and write the product name and then “by Samsung” in tiny letters under the product name, but this is clear evidence that confusion is intended when you even try to copy how a product is packaged. “This point of purchase product does much to eliminate any potential confusion.
Samsung Starts With Another Debate on Apple’s “Sony Style”Samsung Thwarted in Bid to Show Apple Has “Sony Style”As Apple and Samsung Head to Court, Here’s a Handy Cheat SheetKey Witness No Longer Works at Apple, Doesn’t Want to Testify at Samsung TrialCan we Get a Witness.
Apple’s Case Against Samsung Gives Rare Glimpse at Dozens of iPhone and iPad Prototype DesignsSamsung Makes Another Case to Have Apple’s “Sony Style” Put Before JuryApple Tries to Torpedo Samsung’s “Sony Style” iPhone ChargeSamsung, Apple Even at Odds Over Where They Will Sit at TrialDocuments in Apple vs.
Samsung Give Reporters Plenty to Chew OnSamsung, Apple Reveal Names of Those Who May Testify at Next Week’s TrialApple’s iPhone Has Sony Style, Says Samsung (Full Trial Brief)Apple: Google Warned Samsung Against Copying UsJury to Hear That Samsung Failed to Preserve Evidence in Apple Patent SuitApple to Samsung: You Give Us $2.5 Billion and We’ll Give You a Half Cent a Unit RoyaltyApple vs.
Danielle Northrop is a business journalist based in Sydney, Australia. Danielle has a passion for financial markets and breaking news stories and loves writing about business news, stock market, and economic opinions that matters most to its audience. Danielle spends a lot of time discovering and researching latest financial markets and industry news stories in order to make sure the latest and greatest stories are brought to you first on BigBoardNews.com.