Adam Tow


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


I find it fascinating that a SVP of marketing and PR is devoting his freetime to working and preparing a case in court instead of making ads, listening to customers desires, and ensuring that the product is able to deliver what is portrayed in the advertising communications.  Phil seems mixed up.  The court of public opinion is important, as he described, but he's lost his touch.

Apple's marketing staff doesn't say anything at all, makes no claims to the warranty or fitness of the product's ability to do anything.  So the marketing message becomes something a 5-year old with a box of crayons can do.  "You have to try it".

I'm not sure what they're paying Mr. Schiller over there, but my guess is that for a $1.00 salary, they could replace him with someone like steve jobs.  That would be a worthwhile investment..!


@Ina, perhaps you would have provided a different title if you hadn't originally submitted your opinion piece before the "update"? How about sticking to reporting and cutting the wise ass attitude? There's enough of that elsewhere on the 'net.


Danke sehr, Ina!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 309,287 other followers