Apple Lawyer to Frustrated Judge: Yes, We Need All These Witnesses, and No, I’m Not Smoking Crack
Already annoyed by the amount of paperwork in the Apple vs. Samsung case, Judge Lucy Koh boiled over with frustration on Thursday after lawyers for both sides filed a new round of objections over witness testimony.
A big part of Koh’s displeasure focused on the long list of witnesses that Apple said it intends to call in its few remaining hours of time before the jury.
“Unless you are smoking crack you know these witnesses are [not] going to be called,” Koh said, conferring with lawyers before the jury returned from a morning break.
Apple attorney Bill Lee defended Apple’s proposed witness list.
“First, I am not smoking crack, I can promise you that,” Lee said. While a few witnesses might or might not be called, he said the majority would be called and he said Apple had timed their testimony to make sure they would be able to get it all in.
Koh disagreed, quite adamantly, and grew frustrated with the time it was taking to sort out the matter.
“We’re wasting the jury’s time,” she said. “You are being unreasonable.”
Koh called Apple’s proposed witness list unrealistic.
“Come on, come on,” she said. “This is ridiculous.”
Apple said it would even waive some of its objections if needed. “We didn’t mean to burden the court.”
That didn’t appear to curry any favor.
“What are you talking about you don’t want to burden the court,” she said, pointing to 75 pages worth of new objections filed by the parties in the case related to the remaining witnesses.
Update, 11:16 a.m.: Samsung now rushing to get its final experts on the stand to establish the damages it believes it is owed if Apple is found to infringe on Samsung’s patents at issue in the case.
Samsung expert Vincent O’Brien testified that, for the feature patents in question, Samsung would be owed roughly $22.8 million in “reasonable royalties.”
As part of his calculation, O’Brien likened each of the feature patents to an app that someone might download for 99 cents from the App Store. He only gave Samsung a small part of that, with his ultimate royalty ranging around 11 cents to 19 cents per device per feature.
“These are nice features,” he said. “They are desirable features, but they are one of many features on the phone.”
Samsung may also try to use O’Brien’s estimates to show it being reasonable and Apple wanting excessive royalties.
He also based that in part on the fact Apple has paid $1.4 billion in patent royalties to other companies whose patents it has licensed. “These are typical.”
11:27 a.m.: On cross-examination, Apple again pointing out that Samsung doesn’t use some of the patents in its products that it accuses Apple of infringing.
11:40 a.m.: Samsung called another expert, David Teece, to asess how much the company would be owed if the jury finds Apple infringes on the cellular standard-related patents.
Teece calculated that Samsung should be paid between 2 percent and 2.75 percent of net sales on the iPhone and iPad. Based on iPhone sales of $12.23 billion and iPad sales of $2.29 billion in the period in question, Teece estimated a reasonable royalty due Samsung ranging from $290 million to $399 million.
11:49 a.m.: Teece is explaining to the jury how he arrived at that royalty rate, pointing to a bunch of other confidential patent licensing deals. Unfortunately, only the jury gets to see the actual license terms. These are some of the documents that got all the other tech companies hot and bothered — folks like Nokia, RIM, Intel, Microsoft and others.
1:07 p.m.: Back from lunch and Teece is back on the stand for more cross-examination by Apple’s lawyer. Apple gets Teece to agree that no one has ever paid Samsung directly for the standards-related patents Apple is accused of infringing.
1:13 p.m.: Apple’s lawyers get Teece also to agree that he is recommending that Samsung be paid more for the one or two patents at issue, should they be found infringed than the 2.4 percent that Samsung offered to license its full standards-related portfolio of 86 patents.
With that, Samsung rests its case, with a couple minor stipulations
1:16 p.m.: It’s Apple’s turn again. Apple calls Tony Blevins, its vice president of procurement and a 12-year Apple veteran. He oversees getting parts for the iPhone, iPad and iPod lines and supervises some 300 employees.
He’s testifying about the baseband processor, the product that does the functions that is accused of infringing Samsung’s standards-related patents. Apple gets its processors today from Intel and Qualcomm. Historically, Intel was only provider of those chips.
1:24 p.m.: Blevins testifies that Apple pays intel an amount that varies per quarter, but is on the order of $12 per chip. He then shows a few example reciepts.
1:25 p.m.: Next up is former Apple software engineer Emilie Kim. Kim now works at Path after leaving Apple last month. Among her duties at Apple was working on the photos and camera app for iOS.
Kim is describing how the photo and camera apps work, with Apple’s lawyer aiming to draw a contrast between how things are done in iOS and the way they are described in two of the Samsung feature patents that Apple is accused of infringing.
One interesting note here: One of the Samsung patents relates to being in the photo library, taking a photo and then returning to the same photo in the gallery. Apple has Kim show a scenario in iOS where that wouldn’t happen, such as when the device runs low on memory or is restarted.
On cross-examination, though, Kim agrees that under other conditions the user will return to the photo they were looking at.
1:40 p.m.: The parade of witnesses continues with Apple-hired expert Paul Dourish, a UC Irvine professor and former researcher at Apple and Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center.
Dourish is on the stand to testify that Apple doesn’t infringe on one of Samsung’s digital image-related patent and that the patent should be declared invalid.
2:14 p.m.:We’re back to super nerdy patent stuff, so sparing the details. Now up is another UC Irvine professor–Tony Givargis–who will testify about the validity of another of the Samsung patents at issue.
As expected, Givargis testifies that the Samsung patent he studied–one that covers background playback of music–is not infringed on by Apple and should also be declared invalid.
2:36 p.m.: As an example of prior art, Givargis shows the Sony Ericsson K700i and demonstrates it playing Louis Armstrong’s “What a Wonderful World.”
- Calling All Gluttons for Legalese Punishment: Here’s the Apple-Samsung Amended Verdict Form
- Apple-Samsung Juror Tells CNET Debate Was “Heated”
- “The Jury Has Now Spoken”: Apple CEO Tim Cook’s Memo to Employees on Patent Win Over Samsung
- Apple’s Big Patent Win: A Shot Across the Bow of All Android Device Manufacturers
- Next Stop for Apple-Samsung: Appeals Court
- Wall Street Reacts to Apple’s Legal Win Over Samsung: Maybe, Let’s Not Kill All the Lawyers!
- Apple Says Verdict Is a Win for Values; Samsung Says It’s a Loss for Consumers
- Jury Slightly Lowers Apple-Samsung Verdict After Inconsistencies Noted
- On One-Year of Anniversary of Jobs Stepping Down as CEO, Karma’s a … Patent Victory for Apple
- Jury: Samsung Owes Apple More Than $1 Billion for Infringing Patents
- Competing Views of Competition in Apple-Samsung Trial
- Ringside as Apple and Samsung Go Into the Final Round
- Apple, Samsung Jury Won’t Hear About Missing Evidence
- The Definitive Insider’s Guide to Apple vs. Samsung
- At Long Last, Testimony Wraps up in Apple Vs. Samsung
- Apple: Samsung Didn’t Live Up to Its Standards Obligations
- Judge Koh: It’s Samsung’s Own Fault It Ran Out of Time
- Apple Lawyer to Frustrated Judge: Yes, We Need All These Witnesses, and No, I’m Not Smoking Crack
- Apple vs. Samsung Judge Encourages “Horse Trading” to Narrow Case
- Apple Says Samsung Documents Show Google’s Influence On Galaxy Products
- Patience Runs Thin as Time Runs Short in Apple vs. Samsung
- Samsung Designer Says Galaxy Tab 10.1 Work Preceded iPad Announcement
- Give Peace a Chance, Judge Says, Asking Apple and Samsung CEOs to Meet One Last Time
- Samsung Document Notes Their Smartphone Icons Not Always Iconic
- Samsung Designer Testifies She Didn’t Copy Any of Apple’s Icons
- Fireworks in Apple-Samsung Trial Over Whether Expert Had Improper Access to Intel Source Code
- The iPhone Advantage Is Largest in Big Cities, According to Samsung Study
- Judge Refuses to Toss Most of Apple’s Suit Against Samsung
- Apple: Offer to License Patents to Samsung Didn’t Include iPhone’s Interface
- Latest Front in the Apple vs. Samsung Battle: Jury Instructions
- A Look Back at the Second Week of the Apple-Samsung Trial
- Here’s Apple’s August 2010 Warning to Samsung on Patents
- Apple Offered to License its Patents to Samsung for $30 Per Smartphone, $40 Per Tablet
- Apple Patent Head: We Don’t Want to License Clones
- MIT Professor Says Samsung Customers Might Pay Extra $100 for Apple-like Features
- After Starting With a Bang, Apple vs. Samsung Now Just as Boring as Other Patent Cases
- Samsung’s U.S. Tablet Revenue Less Than 5 Percent of Apple’s, Court Documents Show
- Apple vs. Samsung Trial Forces Companies to Open Up the Books
- Jurors in Apple vs. Samsung Get a Raise, but Still Woefully Underpaid
- Samsung on Its iPhone-Envy Memo: Nothing to See Here, Move Along
- Samsung’s 2010 Report Says Its Galaxy Would Be Better if It Were Just More Like the iPhone
- Similarity of Apple and Samsung Icons “Beyond Coincidental,” Designer Testifies
- iPhone Caused “Crisis of Design” at Samsung (Memo)
- Samsung Exec Downplays “Crisis of Design” Memo at Patent Trial
- Five Things We Learned at the Apple-Samsung Trial Last Week
- Samsung’ Hinges its Case on Rectangles and Rounded Corners
- Apple’s Case Against Samsung in Three Pictures
- Top Apple Executive Saw Market for 7-Inch Tablet in 2011, Said Company Should Do One
- Apple’s Scott Forstall on How “Project Purple” Became the iPhone
- Apple’s Phil Schiller on How Apple Came Up With the iPhone and iPad
- Apple Loses Bid to Keep Customer Survey Secret
- Samsung and Apple Speaking to One Jury, Many Audiences
- Samsung: We Weren’t Trying to Mess With the Jury
- Judge Koh on “2001” Evidence: I’m Sorry, Samsung, I’m Afraid I Can’t Do That
- Apple: Litigation Misconduct Is Part of Samsung’s Legal Strategy
- Samsung Goes Public With Excluded Evidence to Undercut Apple’s Design Claims
- Apple Designer: We’ve Been Ripped Off
- Apple Designer: Even Steve Jobs Doubted the iPhone at Times
- Apple Literally Designs Its Products Around a Kitchen Table
- Samsung: Apple Didn’t Invent the Rectangle
- Apple: Samsung Took the Easy Road and Copied Us
- Day One of Apple vs. Samsung Starts With Another Debate on Apple’s “Sony Style”
- Samsung Thwarted in Bid to Show Apple Has “Sony Style”
- As Apple and Samsung Head to Court, Here’s a Handy Cheat Sheet
- Key Witness No Longer Works at Apple, Doesn’t Want to Testify at Samsung Trial
- Can I Get a Witness? Sure, Here’s a Whole List of Them, as Apple vs. Samsung Heads to Trial.
- Apple’s Case Against Samsung Gives Rare Glimpse at Dozens of iPhone and iPad Prototype Designs
- Samsung Makes Another Case to Have Apple’s “Sony Style” Put Before Jury
- Apple Tries to Torpedo Samsung’s “Sony Style” iPhone Charge
- Samsung, Apple Even at Odds Over Where They Will Sit at Trial
- Documents in Apple vs. Samsung Give Reporters Plenty to Chew On
- Samsung, Apple Reveal Names of Those Who May Testify at Next Week’s Trial
- Apple’s iPhone Has Sony Style, Says Samsung (Full Trial Brief)
- Apple: Google Warned Samsung Against Copying Us
- Jury to Hear That Samsung Failed to Preserve Evidence in Apple Patent Suit
- Apple to Samsung: You Give Us $2.5 Billion and We’ll Give You a Half-Cent-a-Unit Royalty
- Apple vs. Samsung: Another Patent Slapfight, Another Exasperated Judge