The lawsuit between Apple and Samsung last Friday was his sixth day. There were six witnesses appeared, including two professors from the University of Toronto and a professor of marketing at MIT. This week Apple should defend its case next week’s Samsung’s turn. Interestingly, the revelation that Apple in 2010 to a licensing model Samsung has offered.Samsung would be $30 per smartphone and pay $ 40 a tablet. This was independent of the operating system. The license fee for tablets in two years would drop to 30 dollars. There were discounts available: used as a telephone patents which Microsoft already had taken a license, then applied a discount of 40%. The reciprocal provision of each other’s patents between Apple and Samsung could yield another 20% discount and if Samsung would opt for a QWERTY phone (with hardware keyboard), you will receive another 20% off.
Apple gave a presentation in August 2010 for Samsung executives, in which she warned that Android was infringing on several patents. They demonstrated that with dozens of examples. The Apple summit warned that Android would lead to imitation of the iPhone – not only Samsung but also by other manufacturers. Later there is a second meeting in which Apple a licensing model proposed. Not all IOS lost their patents on the table, but Apple wanted a part of the patent portfolio license offer.
Trademark expert Hal Poret said Friday in court that he had conducted an investigation which revealed that the iPhone and iPad consumers can easily recognize, even if there is no mark on the home button is not visible and the icons are masked. The general appearance is according Poret how consumers recognize an Apple product. The study also found that many consumers confused the Samsung devices with an Apple product. According to Samsung is not the case.
Kent van Liere then told in court that consumers are confused when someone else see a smartphone or tablet use. Van Liere is a market researcher and showed that one third of consumers thought in his research that people used an iPad, while the tablet was a Samsung. The same confusion occurred also for the Barnes & Noble Nook, an e-reader. In addition, 24% thought that it was an iPad.
Apple had computer scientist Ravin Balakrishnan, University of Toronto invited to show that the Samsung phones violate Apple’s patents. In videos, he showed why. It was partly the elastic scrolling text at issue: if you’re a piece of text at the bottom and try to do the scrolling further, you get a funny bounce effect, making you come back a little soar. This was a patent which Steve Jobs at Samsung had urged it not to copy. That seemed clear: in an internal document to read that it was “a nice effect for the user generates a visual element that seems to bounce.” Samsung had the effect in a different way to implement without violating patents, but did not.
Karan Singh of the University of Toronto tried in a presentation to explain than 24 Samsung products Apple’s pinch-to-zoom patent infringed. By squeezing your fingers together or spreading on a touch screen you can zoom in and out. During this presentation was one of the few pieces of evidence used, which does not need to be made public. These sources, which have been shown to the jury, but not on the Internet will be published.
Marketing Professor John Hauser of MIT also had an interesting research that he wanted to share with the jury. He discovered that consumers are willing to pay extra for Samsung phones, if there is some Apple features it has. Perhaps the aforementioned Samsung had $30 license better pay, although that was not the conclusion that Hauser took the occasion of his research. He discovered that consumers wanted less than $ 100 extra to pay in order to use functions, that are already on the iPhone available.
Patent expert Boris Tesker specializes in the licensing of patents. He was last Friday as the turn and told how Apple contacted Samsung to license certain patents. It was patent that they felt that Samsung has made infringement. Patents in which the recognizable industrial design, software platform or certain unique features were recorded, were not part of the deal. The amount of $ 30 per smartphone was designed to provide cost-effective license to offer, based on the patent portfolio that Apple wanted to share. Patents that Apple’s brand identity reflect and create unique selling points in the market, Apple did better in their own hands.
Monday Apple may complete its part of the case. Of the 25 hours available to both parties to make their views known.
