apple samsung collage feature crop

Ina Fried

Mobile


Samsung used a good chunk of time on Friday to make the case that Apple’s experts vastly overstate the value of the five patents at issue in the current infringement case.

The company called a pair of experts, including a New York University professor who said that an earlier expert called by Apple used a flawed study that resulted in an inflated damages estimate.

NYU professor Tulin Erdem said that an Apple-commissioned study by John Hauser teaches consumers about the features at issue in the case — features most consumers aren’t aware of and weren’t already valuing, resulting in what Erdem says are “demand artifacts.”

“You are elevating artificially the importance, the value of these things,” Erdem said.

By contrast, Erdem said in her deposition they were the kind of features that only a weird or crazy person or a “techno-whatever” would care about.

“They are not even in the radar screen of consumers,” Erdem said on the witness stand on Friday. “These are very granular … and they wouldn’t drive demand.”

Samsung on Friday also played deposition testimony from several Apple executives who said that hundreds of features go into the iPhone’s overall ease of use.

The Korean Electronics giant is also arguing that its products don’t infringe on Apple’s patents and also that Apple’s patents are invalid. Many other witnesses this week have testified as to those issues.

Apple has argued that a number of Samsung phones and tablets do infringe and argues Samsung should have to pay more than $2 billion in damages.

Testimony in the case is winding down as each side has used the bulk of its 25 hours of time before the jury. At the current pace, the final witnesses will be called a week from now, with closing arguments on April 28.

Samsung asked Judge Koh on Friday to give each side an extra bit of time, but Apple opposed the move and Koh denied to extend the case.

More Posts About the Apple-Samsung Trial




3 comments
Patentista
Patentista

I realize it's Saturday but it would have been helpful to have either a link to the testimony or a bit more of the language used to describe the crazy, weird, or techno-whatever features the expert witness said weren't valuable.  Most people using Apple (and Samsung) devices are none of the above. 

stsk
stsk

Also, Koh needs to learn about FRCP Rule 11 and apply it to Quinn Emanuel with a really large stick.

stsk
stsk

Shocker. Let me paraphrase, "Burglar's lawyer hires hack to say 'That stereo he stole out of your house isn't worth your cost because he can only fence it for a fraction of that.'" It's entertaining to see which bottom-feeder Samsung's Tort of malicious defense legal team will hire next.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 279,690 other followers