When Apple executive Phil Schiller talked about the iPhone’s early days at the first Apple-Samsung trial, he offered a new view into Apple’s process.
Hearing the same story again, well, it’s kind of like watching a movie you have seen before. There’s just not much surprise left.
Schiller showed the jury many of the same articles, ads and sales charts as he did the last time, again characterizing the risks Apple took with the iPhone and iPad and the early success both products enjoyed.
The iPhone was born by looking at how the iPod had changed the music industry and then looking at what might next disrupt the market.
“We wanted to try to invent that future rather than let it happen to us,” Schiller told the jury. He then told the now-familiar tale of how the iPhone and iPad came to be.
So far, the biggest difference between Schiller’s prior appearance and Tuesday’s was the striped tie he wore with his dark navy suit this time.
Schiller’s testimony followed opening arguments from both Apple and Samsung. Apple lawyers contend that Samsung copied the iPhone, and in the process infringed on five patents. Apple is seeking roughly $2 billion in damages.
Samsung, meanwhile, countered that Apple’s patents are relatively narrow, covering minor software features, and that Apple’s damage claims are vastly exaggerated. Samsung also argues both that its products don’t infringe on Apple’s patents and that the patents should never have been granted in the first place.
Before opening statements, two members of the 10-person jury were excused, leaving four men and four women to hear the case.
Update: Still on the stand, Schiller is getting into slightly new ground as he is asked to think back to his first reaction to the first Samsung Galaxy.
“It looked so much like an attempt to copy the iPhone,” Schiller said.
Schiller said that Apple has been harmed by Samsung’s copying.
“It has caused people to question some of the innovations we created,” Schiller said. “I think it has confused people as to which products are creating this experience.”
On cross-examination, Schiller acknowledged that Apple expected competition in the smartphone market and that it didn’t have a corner on the market for easy-to-use phones.
More Posts About the Apple-Samsung Trial
- Apple, Samsung Agree to Drop Non-U.S. Litigation, but Still No Settlement
- In Modest Victory for Apple, Dutch Appeals Court Upholds Sales Ban on Older Samsung Galaxy Phones
- Apple, Google Settle Motorola Patent Dispute But Broader Issues Remain
- Apple-Samsung Jurors Say Google’s Role Intriguing, but Didn’t Determine Outcome
- Apple-Samsung Jury Recalculates Verdict, but Leaves Intact Original $119 Million Award
- What the Apple-Samsung Jury Will Have to Clarify on Monday
- A Look at Google’s Not-Always-Secret Contracts With Android Phone Makers
- There’s No Dancing in Streets of Cupertino After Latest Apple-Samsung Verdict
- Here’s Exactly How the Jury Awarded Apple $119 Million in Latest Samsung Patent Case
- Google a Winner in Apple-Samsung Verdict