BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Is The iPhone's Design Inevitable? Apple-Samsung Patent Trial Continues (Live Blog)

Following
This article is more than 10 years old.

Software and industrial design will dominate testimony Monday as Apple and Samsung continue to grapple in federal court Monday.

Apple is scheduled to call industrial designer Peter Bressler and Macintosh iconographer Susan Kare to testify as U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh referees a spate of objections that have already been filed by Samsung to their written statements.

Bressler's argument: the iPhone's designs has been mimicked by Samsung, and that it's possible to design a modern smartphone that doesn't resemble an iPhone. Bressler is the founder of product design firm BresslerGroup and teaches product design at the University of Pennsylvania.

Kare will make a similar argument on the software side: that the iPhone's represents a unique solution to the problem of building a smartphone user interface, one that Samsung has mimicked closely. Kare was an early Apple employee, and helped develped the Macintosh computer's distinctive interface.

Samsung's lawyers will have tough questions for both witnesses.

First up: Samsung Chief Strategist Justin Denison, who will finish the testimony he began last week.

9 am - The morning begins with sparring over whether some of the evidence submitted by Apple was submitted before the deadline for discovery expired. More housekeeping: Judge Koh notes that Apple has used 3 hours and 51 minutes of the time it has allotted for testimony. Samsung has used three hours and 11 minutes of its time. And with that the jury is escorted into the courtroom and Samsung attorney John Quinn resumes leading Samsung's Denison through his testimony

9:15 am - A smartphone geek? You'll love this. Not so much? This might get tedious. Quinn and Denison delve into the intricacies of Samsung's product line, and how the design and trade dress from generation to generation and carrier to carrier.

Quinn starts by asking Denison about two phones, Samsung's Infuse and Samsung's Galaxy Vibrant. Both are Galaxies. The Vibrant is sold via T-Mobile and the Infuse through AT&T, Denison explains. Both phones are present in the courtroom. Quinn asks that they be passed to the jury. So why does Samsung sell different phones to different carriers, Quinn asks. Denison replies that each carrier wants something unique, something that competitors don't have.

Next question: how many different Galaxy S II phones were sold to carriers? Four different phones to three different carriers. Were new features added to each generation of Galaxy phones? Yes. Were the newer phones more successful than previous generations? Yes.

9:30 am - Quinn has a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and iPad 2 brought to Denison. He identifies them.

Quinn highlights some of the intersections between Apple and Samsung. Does Samsung do tear down analysis, like Apple does, of its competitor's products? Actually Samsung subscribes to a tear down service. Do you have a sense of what percentage of the cost of the parts in the iPhone are supplied by Samsung? Yes, about 20 percent. Does that include the application processor? Yes. What is the division of Samsung that makes that? The System LSI Division within Samsung Semiconductor.

Now some tidbits about Samsung's culture. Is there a particular style of communication that is present at Samsung, by which management motivates people,  Quinn asks.

Samsung does an excellent job of remaining very humble, very critical, and constantly creating a sense of urgency within its own ranks, Denison replies

Are hyperbolic statements such as 'crisis of design,' or 'heaven and earth,' common at work, Quin asks.

Yes, Denison says.

There's a famous story within Samsung where the chairman was upset with some of the quality of the products coming from the factory, Quinn asks...

Apple objects: hearsay, he wasn't there.

Judge Koh - Sustained.

Quinn -- is this a famous episode within Samsung?

Yes it is..

Apple objects.

Sustained.

Are there some features that Samsung added to its phone that Apple later added to its phones, Quinn asks.

Voice recognition... advanced screen technology, with Super AMOLED.... Samsung launched the first cloud-based video service, Quinn says.

Do you feel like Apple ripped you off, Quinn asks.

No, Denison replies.

Were you outraged?

No, not really, Denison replies.

Do you see a difference between emulating and copying things that nobody can own and copying things that are actually owned by somebody else, Quinn asks.

Apple objects. Overrulled.

Yes, I see a big difference in that, Denison says.

To your knowledge is there any handset manufacturer that owns the right to devices that are black with rounded corners...

Apple objects. Sustained.

Is there anything wrong with Samsung trying to do as well or better than Apple at things that Apple doesn't own, Quinn asks.

No, Denison says.

9:35 - Cross-examination time. Apple's attorney steps up. If someone was competing with you by infringing your patents, that's not fair, is it, Apple's attorney asks.  No, Denison says. Apple's attorney drills in, asking a flurry of questions that establish that Denison is not a software designer or a product designer. He then pushes into the matter of how much Denison knows about Samsung's design process. Has he seen the computer-aided design files for Samsung's products? Can he know that none of them have been destroyed? No, he can't.

9:45 - Apple's attorney asks about Samsung's 'crisis in design,' that he referred to earlier. Samsung's lawyers object. The judge overrules, noting that Samsung 'opened the door,' to such questions, since Denison discussed it earlier in his testimony. Apple's lawyer produces the email in question. Can you show me the document that shows me that there's a crisis in design compared to Nokia? No I can't, Denison says. The only documents that you can identify from Samsung that refer to a crisis in design... refer to the iPhone? I can't, Denison says. Apple's lawyer reads long excerpts from the email, which refers to the iPhone as the 'standard,' have I read that correctly, Apple's lawyer asks? It appears so. Mission accomplished: Apple's lawyer has exposed the jury to the points in the document he wanted to highlight. He's done with Denison.

9:58 am - Samsung's attorney takes another crack at Denison. He's trying to show that Samsung's response to the iPhone wasn't about copying Apple's design. Didn't Samsung respond with phones with screens that are larger than the iPhones? Denison confirms. And that's it.

10 am - Time for a new act. Peter Bressler, a noted industrial designer. Apple's attorneys begin by having Bressler walk through his credentials. Graduated in 1968 from Rhode Island School of Design; founded his design firm, BresslerGroup, in 1970 a 25-person product design firm that has worked for over 600 clients; former president of the Industrial Designer Society of America; Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Pennsylvania; holds more than 30 design patents. He's designed lots of electronics: cell phones for Motorola, tablet computers, touch screen gaming devices, stereo equipment...

10:25 -- So let's get to it. Bressler says it is his view that there are a number of Samsung designs that infringe Apple's design patents. Apple attorney Rachel Krevans and Bressler walk the jury through the design patents that Apple asserts that Samsung violated, at length. Time for a break so Apple and Samsung lawyers can do some more quarreling with the jury out of the room. Testimony resumes at 10:50.

11:20 -- And we're back. Bressler gets to it, with Krevans walking him through is analysis. It's Bressler's opinion that the design of the Galaxy S 4G infringes a pair of Apple design patents. The Galaxy S 4G has a flat rectangular front, is transparent, is black, has a display centered on the face of the phone, and a lozenge-shaped speaker slot. What about the bump sticking out of the back of the phone? "Because it is the back of the phone and this patent is specifically for the face of the phone," Bressler says.

11:45 - Next Bressler compares Apple's patent for the front of its phone to an earlier patent that Samsung claims as 'prior art.' Bressler points out a number of differences between the two patents. Now, with roughly a dozen variants on Samsung's Galaxy handsets in front of him, Bressler claims all of them infringe on Apple's patent for the look of the face of its phone. What about product names? The names on the phones are ignored when doing patent analysis. Another 8 Samsung phones infringe on yet another Apple design patent.

12:00 - Now moving on to tablets. Bressler asserts that the Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Note infringe on Apple's design patents for the iPad. The colors on the back of the tablets are different. (Apologies, updating less frequently as a tap out an unrelated story from courtroom)

1:10 - And we're back. Bressler continues his testimony. Apple attorney Krevans continues walking him through his testimony. Krevans has Bressler go through a report generated by Samsung on tablet returns at Best Buy stores. One conclusion: the greatest number of returns were from customers who mistakenly thought they were buying an iPad 2. New topic: were any elements in Apple's design patents generated by the device's function? No, Bressler asserts.

1:15 - Now Bressler breaks down the elements of the iPhone's trade dress. Were there alternatives to the design approach seen in Apple's trade dress? Yes, Bressler asserts. The jury is shown five alternative designs that don't mimic Apple's trade dress. The examples include a Sony Ericcson Xperia Arc g, a Pantech Crosover, the Nokia Lumi 800, the Casio G'zOne Commando, and LG Optimus T. None of them look anything like an iPhone.

1:18 - Next up, a look at the elements of the iPad trade dress. Were any of the elments functional, or necessary for the device to do its job? No. Are there alternative designs? Yes, Bressler asserts. Examples include the Acer Iconia A500, the Barnes & Noble Nook Tablet, the Vinci Tablet, and the Sony Tablet S. That's it. Now Samsung's lawyers get their shot.

1:51 - You have no direct evidence to suggest that any consumer has purchased an Apple or Samsung smartphone believing it was a device from the other manufacturer? No. It goes on. Samsung's  lawyer is trying to get Bressler to admit he doesn't know, firsthand, that would be Apple customers are fooled into buying Samsung products. Next up: Samsung's lawyer throws a bunch of old design patents at Bressler and has him walk through how they're similar to Apple's design patent: they're rectangular, all have big screens, some have lozenge-shaped earpieces, all have narrow lateral borders, and larger ones above and below the screen. Bresler takes issue with the approach: 'this is an incorrect analysis,' he says.

3:09 -- After a break, we're back. Bressler is still getting grilled. Samsung's lawyer is comparing the Galaxy S 4G with Apple's patent in detail. The speaker hole in the Galaxy is thinner and longer than it is in Apple's patent. It's also not vertically centered, as the hole in the iPhone is. Samsung's lawyer isn't subtle, but his point is clear: details matter, particularly in design. He's going to keep after Bressler.

3:30 - Samsung keeps digging into Bressler. You're not an expert in how these phones function, you don't have that kind of education or back ground, do you, sir, Samsung's lawyer asks? No I don't, Bressler responds. There's not a single element of Apple's design elements are functional? Yes, I do. You did not consider whether the design elemnts are primary ornamental, did you? I certainly do, Bressler responds. It's been like this for hours now, interrupted only by spats over the admissabilty of various pieces of evidence between Apple and Samsung's legal teams.

3:50 -- Still at it.  Samsung's lawyer, Charles Verhoeven, still digging into Bressler's experience. You only worked on concepts for two or three cell phone projects, Samsung's lawyer asks? Yes, Bressler answers. You helped design one computer tablet? That's it. The version of the computer that reached the market was substantially different than the design you worked on? Yes, it was different, yes. The project was intenced for insurance agents appraising car accidents? Yes. It wasn't designed for watching movies? No. Browing thte internet? No. REading books? No. Completely different type of product? Different type of product in that it didn't do the same thing, yes... I don't think we're going to get to Apple's other witness today.

4:00 -- This Samsung lawyer's a terrier. After chewing on Bressler's leg, we take a quick break as Samsung's team squabbles with the judge over a piece of evidence the judge deems in-admissable. The judge is exasperated after Samsung's repeated pleas. Keep going, she says. She's charging their time. Argument settled, the jurors are readmitted and we're back to Bressler.

4:20 -- The Bressler grilling continues. Let's look at some images of the Galaxy Tab. On the back there are at least  two pieces, with a seam that goes along the back and protrudes down under a camera hole, Verhoeven points out. There's a whole rim structure that goes all the way along the  tab. There's no such rim in Apple's design patent, or a seam that goes along the back separating two portions of the back housing, Verhoeven asks? No, Bressler concedes.    Verhoeven refers to Apple designer Christopher Stringer's testimony from last week: the iPad was meant to be a single, seamless vessel -- as Stringer testified -- is the Galaxy Tab a single, seamless vessel? No, Bressler says, but it appears to be.

4:21 -- Verhoeven still chewing. Apple is paying you for your testimony, Verhoeven asks. Yes, Bressler replies. How much is Apple paying you per hour? $400. How much has Apple paid you so far? About $75,000. You put up the site www.peterbressler.com? This isn't the first time you have provided paid testimony for Apple? If you count the ITC case, this is the second time. Okay, that's it. Now Apple gets its witness back. Their plan will have to be to build Brssler up again after Verhoeven's hours-long session with  him.

4:30 -- Apple's Rachel Krevans: have you done any research personally to determine if consumers ever purchase Samsung products believing them to be Apple products? I've seen this report, but I haven't done any surveys of my own, Bressler answers. Has Samsung done any investigation to determine if conumers have ever purchased Samsung products believing they are Apple products? Yes, Bressler answers, based on the survey Samsung did showing that the greatest number of customer return types for the Galaxy Tab at Best Buy were consumers believing it to the iPad 2.

4:32 -- We're done with testimony for the day. The jury is dismissed. Up for tomorrow:  Macintosh iconographer Susan Kare.