Legal
Latest
Apple hit with lawsuit over disappearing iMessages for iPhone to Android switchers
Well, that sure didn't take long. Shortly after we highlighted how a number of iPhone to Android converts are no longer receiving text messages sent from other iPhones, Apple has been slapped with a lawsuit over the matter. Bloomberg reports that a frustrated Android user filed suit against Apple late last week in San Jose. The suit seeks class action status and alleges that consumers who decide to switch from Apple's ecosystem to Android are being "penalized and unable to obtain the full benefits of their wireless-service contracts." The text-messaging lawsuit, which seeks class-action status and undetermined damages, claims Apple failed to disclose that switching to a device other than one running on Apple's iOS operating system would result in the interference. The suit is based on contractual interference and unfair competition laws. Unquestionably, not receiving text messages has to be a terribly frustrating experience. According to a widely circulated blogpost from Lifehacker Editor-in-Chief Adam Pash, Apple is aware of the problem and is working, albeit unsuccessfully, to come up with a solution. One suggestion to hopefully help iPhone to Android users avoid this predicament altogether is to deactivate iMessage before switching over to Android. Barring that, some fixes that have reported worked for some affected users include the following: Deregister your phone number from iMessage by going to Settings > Messages and turning iMessage off Go to https://supportprofile.apple.com/MySupportProfile.do. Next, log in and click on "edit products." Lastly, click on the "x" to the right of the product and click "unregister." Sign out of your App Store account on any device where it may be open Go to https://appleid.apple.com and change your password If none of these solutions alleviate the problem, your last resort is to call 1-800-My-Apple and ask them to deactivate iMessage for you. According to one TUAW reader, doing so will result in Apple sending you a verification code and "revoking your certificate" in the iMessage system.
Report: Tech company files complaint to halt Wii, Wii U sales in US
Philips, the personal care, lighting and healthcare technology company, has filed a complaint for patent infringement against Nintendo, according to a document on Scribd. The complaint alleges Nintendo infringes on Philips' patent '379, "Virtual Body Control Device," with the Wii, Wii Remote Plus Controller, Wii Remote Controller, Wii Nunchuk Controller, Wii MotionPlus, Wii Balance Board, Wii U, Wii U GamePad and Wii Mini. Philips says it sent notice of induced infringement to Nintendo on December 16, 2011, and since then Nintendo has deliberately infringed on its patent: "The December 16, 2011 notice letter provided Nintendo with knowledge of Nintendo's and its users' infringement. Moreover, Nintendo has with specific intent or willful blindness, actively and knowingly induced infringement of the '379 patent." Philips alleges a second instance of patent infringement, this one number '231, "User Interface System Based on Pointing Device." Philips provided notice to Nintendo of patent '231 on the filing date of its complaint, May 14, 2014. Considering Nintendo's infringement has been "deliberate and willful," Philips is seeking damages up to three times the amount inflicted by Nintendo's continued use of these products in the US. Plus, the complaint seeks to prohibit Nintendo from "making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing within the United States" the Wii family of products. Philips is seeking a trial by jury. [Image: Nintendo]
Wizards of the Coast accuses MMOTCG HEX of copyright infringement
In a press release issued today, Wizards of the Coast announced that it has filed a lawsuit against Cryptozoic, the studio behind MMOTCG HEX, which is currently in closed beta. WotC alleges "willful infringement of intellectual property rights": May 14, 2014 (Renton, WA) – Today Wizards of the Coast LLC, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. (NASDAQ: HAS), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against Cryptozoic Entertainment, LLC and its alter ego, Hex Entertainment, LLC (collectively, "Cryptozoic"), for willful infringement of intellectual property rights. Cryptozoic develops and publishes the digital trading card game, Hex: Shards of Fate, a clone of the world famous tabletop collectable trading card game, Magic: The Gathering®, and its digital expressions, Magic Online® and the Magic: The Gathering – Duels of the Planeswalkers® franchise. "Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast vigorously protect our intellectual property. This infringement suit against Cryptozoic demonstrates that while we appreciate a robust and thriving trading card game industry, we will not permit the misappropriation of our intellectual property" said Barbara Finigan, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Hasbro. "We attempted to resolve this issue, but Cryptozoic was unwilling to settle the matter." The suit includes claims for copyright, patent and trade dress infringement. [Developing. With thanks to dddd for the tip!]
What customer information will Apple provide to the cops?
At the beginning of May, Apple updated its Legal Process Guidelines for U.S. Law Enforcement. These are the guidelines that law enforcement and government entities within the U.S. must follow when seeking information from Apple Inc about the people who use their products, services, and devices. So what exactly do these guidelines say and, more importantly, what information will the company give to the police? The good news is that Apple takes the privacy of its customers seriously, so if personal information is being sought by law enforcement the company will notify you. Of course, there are always exceptions to every rule. Here are situations where Apple won't inform you: ...where providing notice is prohibited by the legal process itself, by a court order Apple receives (e.g., an order under 18 U.S.C. §2705(b)), or by applicable law or where Apple, in its sole discretion, believes that providing notice could create a risk of injury or death to an identifiable individual or group of individuals or in situations where the case relates to child endangerment. We know that Apple will notify you if your information is being requested in most situations, so how much information is Apple willing to give up? The answer is a lot, as long as there is a proper subpoena or warrant in place. Currently, law enforcement can gain access to your basic registration, customer information, and customer service records with a proper legal subpoena. This includes the name, address, email, and telephone number you provide when registering a device, your purchase date and device type, and records of support interactions with customer service. In addition, information about your device, warranty or repair history may also be available depending on the scope of the subpoena. Your iTunes information is slightly more complicated. Like your customer data, your iTunes subscriber information (name/physical address/email address/telephone number) and your IP addresses can be provided with a subpoena or warrant. Your iTunes purchases and download history can obtained with an order under 18 U.S.C. §2703(d) or a court order meeting the equivalent legal standard. A search warrant is required for Apple to provide the specific content purchased or downloaded. Apple will provide information for purchases made at its online and physical retail locations if subpoenaed, including your IP address, products purchased, debt card number, and the serial number of the item purchases if available. Your iCloud information is, surprisingly, very safe. In the interest of clarity, we've copied all of the information that is available from iCloud. i. Subscriber Information When a customer sets up an iCloud account, basic subscriber information such as name, physical address, email address, and telephone number may be provided to Apple. Additionally, information regarding iCloud feature connections may also be available. iCloud subscriber information and connection logs with IP addresses can be obtained with a subpoena or greater legal process. ii. Mail Logs iCloud mail logs are retained for approximately a period of 60 days. Mail logs include records of incoming and outgoing communications such as time, date, sender email addresses, and recipient email addresses. This information is available only through a court order under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) (or a court order with an equivalent legal standard) or a search warrant. iii. Email Content iCloud only stores the email a user has elected to maintain in the account while the customer's account remains active. Apple is unable to produce deleted content. Apple will produce customer content, as it exists in the customer's mailbox in response to a search warrant. iv. Other iCloud Content. PhotoStream, Docs, Contacts, Calendars, Bookmarks, iOS Device Backups iCloud only stores the content for these services that the customer has elected to maintain in the account while the customer's account remains active. Apple does not retain deleted content once it is cleared from Apple's servers. Apple will produce customer content in these categories only in response to a valid search warrant. What about the Find My Phone feature? No need to worry, as the feature is customer-facing and Apple doesn't have records of maps or email alerts provided through the service. In addition, the company cannot activate the feature on your device at the request of law enforcement if you have the feature turned off. However, Apple will turn over activity logs for when the feature is activated or if a request has been made to remotely lock or erase a device with a court order or search warrant. Finally, if provided with a valid search warrant Apple can remove certain types of active data from a password-locked iOS device. Apple can only remove unencrypted user-generated files that are contained in Apple's native apps. With a valid warrant, Apple can provide the following: SMS, photos, videos, contacts, audio recording, and call history. Apple cannot provide: email, calendar entries, or any third-party App data. This sounds more troubling that it actually is, however, because to get this information the cops have to already physically have your phone. The phone also has to be in good working order and using iOS 4 or higher. Then the police need to submit a valid warrant that specifically includes the device's serial number and IMEI. Once they have the warrant the device has to be sent to Apple's Cupertino headquarters. In keeping with the Fourth Amendment, Apple's guidelines for turning over user data requires specific information from law enforcement along with legal paperwork. If you're still worried about Apple's law enforcement guidelines, try to keep controversial information off your phone's native Apple apps.
Street artist claims Apple ripped off his inspirational slogan
A well-known New York City street artist named James De La Vega (no relation to Ralph) recently sent a cease-and-desist letter to Apple demanding that the company stop using the tagline "You're more powerful than you think" in its commercials. The NY Daily News reports: James De La Vega says he's been using the phrase, "You are more powerful than you think," for almost a decade as part of his "Become Your Dream" series. The Cornell University grad with a degree in fine arts has chalked his slogans onto sidewalks, painted them into murals and even incorporated them into a graffiti motif that designer Tory Burch used recently for a line of handbags and fashion accessories. Apple's use of the allegedly trademarked phrase is rather new; it appears at the end of the company's recent iPhone 5s commercial -- appropriately titled "powerful", and also on a new page on Apple's website dedicated to interesting and creative iPhone use cases. The C&D letter articulates that Apple's commercial operates to mislead consumers into thinking that De La Vega himself endorses the company's products. Given the localized nature of De La Vega's work, not to mention the fact that the phrase itself doesn't appear to be all that new or unique, I'm not sure that De La Vega has much of a leg to stand on. If anything, the slogan itself seems markedly similar to this much more famous quote from Marianne Williams: "Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure..." De La Vega, though, claims that the phrase in question is so closely associated to him that a company that sells inspirational magnets even asked him for permission to use the phrase on one of their products. The complaint asks that Apple stop using the phrase and acknowledge that De La Vega is the proper owner of the trademark. De La Vega is also seeking a settlement deal from the affair. "Words are weapons," De La Vega explains. "This is my way of building a movement. [Apple] should pay me because I created it and they've used it to create national excitement about a product and huge profits for themselves."
EVE monument vandals catch the wrath of CCP's banhammer
Mere days after CCP Games unveiled an imposing stone monument to the legions of players who've navigated virtual deep space in EVE Online, the structure was defaced. Now, CCP claims to have found the perpetrators. Though those responsible remain anonymous, CCP community manager "Falcon" has revealed that three people have been permanently banned from EVE Online. A fourth person also reportedly involved in the vandalism received a six-month ban. All of these people are now blacklisted from future EVE events, most notably CCP's annual EVE Fanfest. Falcon also notes that many in the EVE Online community have called for far harsher treatment for the alleged vandals, but refuses to outline any punitive steps CCP might be taking outside of its cult-favorite space simulation. "[W]e now consider this issue resolved within the EVE Universe, and any further action taken outside the virtual world relating to criminal damage or recovery of costs for repairs to the EVE Universe Monument will remain confidential between CCP Games, the authorities, and those involved," he wrote. [Image: CCP Games]
Samsung's business strategy detailed: Copy, counter-sue, and delay
Earlier this week, Kurt Eichenwald of Vanity Fair published an incredibly in-depth article highlighting many of the hurdles Apple has had to deal with in taking Samsung to court. Suffice it to say, Samsung is not your run-of-the-mill litigant. It doesn't shy away from court room battles, and indeed, it isn't afraid to use the drawn out process of litigation as a business strategy, and an effective one at that. According to various court records and people who have worked with Samsung, ignoring competitors' patents is not uncommon for the Korean company. And once it's caught it launches into the same sort of tactics used in the Apple case: countersue, delay, lose, delay, appeal, and then, when defeat is approaching, settle. "They never met a patent they didn't think they might like to use, no matter who it belongs to," says Sam Baxter, a patent lawyer who once handled a case for Samsung. "I represented [the Swedish telecommunications company] Ericsson, and they couldn't lie if their lives depended on it, and I represented Samsung and they couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it." For anyone that has closely followed the ongoing saga that is the Apple/Samsung litigation, Samsung's willingness to bend and sometimes break the rules will likely not come as a surprise. Recall that during Apple and Samsung's first California litigation, Apple accused Samsung of purposefully destroying "vast quantities" of evidence. Over and above that, Apple, in its motion at the time, pointed out that Samsung had, in the past, been sanctioned for similar evidence-destroying behavior. The entire Vanity Fair piece is a rather scathing indictment of Samsung's moral code. More specifically, it paints a portrait of a company whose executives curiously find themselves entangled in "bribery, money-laundering, evidence tampering" and more. Again, the article does an able job of highlighting Samsung's admittedly successful strategy of copying competitors and simply letting the bureaucracy of the legal system delay any resolution. Apple, in this regard, is not unique. Samsung has had similar tussles with other companies, including Sharp and Pioneer, particularly in the TV business.
CCP permabans EVE monument vandals
Citing a "zero tolerance approach to dealing with harassment and victimization in the EVE Universe," CCP announced today that it has permanently banned the three vandals who defaced the new EVE monument in Reykjavik, Iceland. A fourth individual received a six-month ban. "The fact that the monument was vandalized is an insult to the entire community, not just to the individual who's name was directly targeted by the vandalism," the studio posted. The ban includes not only CCP's games but attendance at Fanfest as well. CCP declined to release the in-game names of the individuals and said that any future development related to the incident will be kept confidential.
Samsung plans to appeal recent $120 million damages award; wants it lowered to "zero"
Samsung has finally commented on the $120 million it's been ordered to pay Apple for infringing upon their IP. The company's response, not surprisingly, is that they plan on fighting and appealing the judgement. Bloomberg, citing lead Samsung lawyer John Quinn, reports that Samsung believes that the damages award is not substantiated by evidence and that the company will fight to reduce the damages award down to zero. Of course we're pleased that the jury awarded Apple 6 percent of what they were asking for. But even that can't stand, because Apple kept out all the real world evidence and didn't produce anything to substitute for it, so you have a verdict that's unsupported by evidence -– and that's just one of its problems. Samsung's law firm, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, has proven, if anything else, that they are tenacious and are not willing to go down without a fight. Indeed, Samsung hasn't yet paid Apple the nearly $1 billion in damages stemming from its Summer 2012 trial with Apple as the company continues to appeal the judgement. As for the most recent $120 million damages award, we reported earlier this week that 85% of that total can be traced back to Apple's "Data Tapping" patent.
Apple's Data Tapping patent accounted for 85% of its damages award
A jury on Monday finalized Apple's damages award, leaving the company's original $119 million figure intact. While Apple at trial asserted five patents, the jury determined that Samsung's products infringed upon three of them. And from those three, one patent in particular accounted for the vast majority of Apple's damages award. Patent 5,946,647, otherwise known as the '647 patent, was initially filed in 1996 and encapsulates a feature known as "Data Tapping." The patent describes a method by which a device can detect certain types of data -- i.e dates, URLs, phone numbers, addresses etc. -- and subsequently present users with a list of clickable actions. For instance, say you receive a text that says, "Let's meet for lunch next Thursday." iOS is able to detect the data structure "next Thursday", underline it, and subsequently allow users to tap on the string whereupon they can create a calendar event for that day. As another quick example, let's say you receive an email with an embedded phone number. iOS detects the presence of a phone number and presents users with the following options when they tap the string. It's a rather nifty iOS feature, and a valuable one at that. Of the $119.6 million awarded to Apple, 85% of that amount ($102 million) resulted from Samsung products infringing upon the '647 patent. Also worth noting is that if you look at the damages award on a product by product basis, the Galaxy S2 and S3 are largely responsible for the bulk of the damages Samsung now owes Apple.
Jury leaves Apple's $119 million damages award intact
After a jury last week found that a number of Samsung products infringed upon Apple's patents, Apple was awarded $119.6 million in damages. Not too long afterwards, Apple's legal team discovered that damages connected to one infringing Samsung device had not been included in the final tally. Consequently, the jury reconvened earlier today to reach a firm and final figure. The result? Still a hefty $119.6 million. As it turns out, the jury added $4 million in damages for the one infringing device it initially left out but also subtracted $4 million in damages connected to another device. Ina Fried of Re/Code reports: It took the jury a little over two hours to reallocate its damages award. The panel raised the amount owed for some products, but lowered the amount for others, basically leaving things where they stood initially. Both sides are expected to appeal various parts of the case, including the verdict. All in all, it's arguably a bittersweet victory for Apple given that the nearly $120 million in damages is markedly less than the $2 billion that the company was aiming for.
Google will not cover Samsung's damages amount
During Apple and Samsung's recent trial, it was revealed that Google agreed to help foot the bill for Samsung's legal costs and indemnify the company for any damages connected to two specific Apple patents at issue in the case -- patent '959 which pertains to Unified Search and patent '414 which pertains to asynchronous data synchronization. But as it turns out, the jury found that none of Samsung's accused products infringed upon the aforementioned patents. As a result, Samsung alone will be on the hook for the entirety of the damages amount. As for the patents Apple successfully wielded against Samsung, the jury found that all of the accused Samsung products infringed upon Apple's '647 patent. The '647 patent covers "Data Tapping" and encapsulates functionality wherein certain types of data such as URLs and phone numbers become actionable links. The jury further found that some of Samsung's accused products infringed upon Apple's '721 patent which covers "slide to unlock" functionality. Lastly, Judge Lucy Koh ruled before the trial even started that Samsung's products infringed upon Apple's '172 patent which details a method for providing word recommendations while a user is typing. As we reported last week, the jury in the Apple/Samsung case awarded Apple $119.6 million in damages. That amount, however, will be adjusted upwards after Apple attorneys discovered that damages from an infringing Samsung product hadn't been added to the final amount.
Oculus VR responds to claims of IP theft from ZeniMax
When John Carmack left ZeniMax to work for Oculus VR, claims were made that he took some important intellectual property with him. "The proprietary technology and know-how Mr. Carmack developed when he was a ZeniMax employee, and used by Oculus, are owned by ZeniMax," a ZeniMax statement to Engadget said. Now the Oculus folks are responding to these accusations for the first time in an official capacity stating that all claims are false. Read on past the cut for the official statement from Oculus VR. [Source: Oculus VR press release]
Oculus denies John Carmack stole VR tech from his former employer
When word came out last week that Oculus VR Chief Technology Officer John Carmack was being accused by his former employer of stealing intellectual property for use in his new gig, the nascent Facebook subsidiary only issued a cursory statement: "It's unfortunate, but when there's this type of transaction, people come out of the woodwork with ridiculous and absurd claims. We intend to vigorously defend Oculus and its investors to the fullest extent." The company's expanding on that statement today, and pushing back on the claims made by Zenimax.
Apple comments on patent win as final judgement amount looms
Late on Friday, news broke that the jury in Apple and Samsung's second California litigation had reached a verdict. When the dust settled, the jury found that Samsung had in fact infringed upon a number of Apple patents, subsequently awarding the company $119.6 million in damages. The jury also found that Apple infringed upon one of Samsung's asserted patents, tacking on a $158,400 damages amount in the process. In the wake of the jury's findings, Apple issued a statement to Re/Code applauding the ruling: We are grateful to the jury and the court for their service. Today's ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found: that Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products. We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers. Note, though, that a final damages amount hasn't yet been reached because Apple's legal team, in going over documents from the jury, found that damages from an infringing Samsung product hadn't been added to the final tally. As a result, the jury will reconvene on Monday morning to determine just how much Apple is owed. Whatever the final judgement comes out to, it will still be a far cry from the $2 billion Apple was seeking and significantly less than the nearly $900 million Apple secured during its first California legal tussle with Samsung. At the time of this writing, neither Samsung or Google have issued statements regarding the jury's findings.
Washington state files suit over unfulfilled Kickstarter rewards
The state of Washington has filed a lawsuit against Altius Management, the company behind the successfully-Kickstarted Asylum Playing Cards. Despite exceeding its initial goal of $15,000 by more than $10,000 in October 2012, rewards have allegedly failed to reach backers' hands. The suit seeks restitution for backers, the state's cost and attorney's fees, and $2,000 per violation of the Consumer Protection Act in civil penalties. "This lawsuit sends a clear message to people seeking the public's money," Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a press release. "Washington state will not tolerate crowdfunding theft. The Attorney General's Office will hold those accountable who don't play by the rules." For what it's worth, Kickstarter itself would seem to agree; its Terms of Service make a project creator legally obligated to fulfill rewards when their project is successful or to offer refunds if they cannot deliver said rewards. Crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter come with a certain amount of risk. The project you backed might be delayed. It might not be particularly good. It might get bought out by a larger company. Sometimes, as is allegedly the case here, you might not even get what you backed at all. While Kickstarter's ToS seem pretty cut-and-dry on the issue, this lawsuit may nonetheless change how the website handles crowdfunding in the future, as well as the public's perception of Kickstarter. [Image: Altius Management]
Apple vs. Samsung trial round two: Samsung infringed three patents, owes Apple $119.6 million
Here we go again. 2012's patent trial of the century -- which was all about whether certain Samsung devices were utilizing Apple technology without paying for it -- resulted in a billion dollar win for Apple. Yet, at the time we knew a second case, involving different patents and devices, was brewing on the horizon. The trial for that other case is finally over (almost), and the jury has rendered a verdict -- though there's still a damages issue regarding the Galaxy S II set to be decided on Monday, which could change the final damages tally. In general terms, the verdict's not a complete win for either party, as Apple owes Samsung $158,400 and Samsung will have to cut Apple a check for $119,625,000, a far cry from the $6.2 million and $2.2 billion the parties asked for, respectively. Why? Apple devices infringed one of two asserted Samsung patents, while Samsung phones and tablets infringed three of Apple's five asserted patents. Update May 5,2014: The outstanding damages issues have been resolved by the jury, but the total amount Samsung owes remains unchanged. [Image Credit: Janitors/Flickr]
Oculus accused of stealing ZeniMax IP [Update: Carmack responds]
[Update: John Carmack has responded to ZeniMax's claims. "No work I have ever done has been patented," he said. "Zenimax owns the code that I wrote, but they don't own VR."] The Elder Scrolls series publisher ZeniMax Media is seeking compensation for the Oculus Rift VR headset technology following the recent departure of associated developer John Carmack, The Wall Street Journal reports. ZeniMax alleges that Carmack performed "extensive VR research and development" while employed at ZeniMax, entitling the company to "ownership of key technology used by Oculus to develop and market the Oculus Rift." Carmack joined Oculus as Chief Technology Officer shortly before departing the ZeniMax-owned id Software last year. ZeniMax notes that Carmack first contacted Oculus founder Palmer Luckey in 2012 regarding the company's virtual reality technology. While at ZeniMax, Carmack allegedly iterated on a prototype VR headset he received from Luckey, later demonstrating a modified version at a ZeniMax convention booth in Los Angeles.
John Carmack's former employer claims he stole tech for Oculus VR when he left
The man who co-created Doom, who co-founded id Software, and who later left id Software for Oculus VR, is being accused by his former employer of taking intellectual property with him to Oculus VR. Lawyers for id Software's parent company, Zenimax Media, sent claims to Oculus VR stating, "It was only through the concerted efforts of Mr. Carmack, using technology developed over many years at, and owned by, ZeniMax, that [Oculus founder] Mr. Luckey was able to transform his garage-based pipe dream into a working reality." The Wall Street Journal obtained copies of the correspondence. Oculus denies Zenimax's claim. The company provided the following statement: "It's unfortunate, but when there's this type of transaction, people come out of the woodwork with ridiculous and absurd claims. We intend to vigorously defend Oculus and its investors to the fullest extent." Update: John Carmack took to Twitter to respond, where he said, "No work I have ever done has been patented. Zenimax owns the code that I wrote, but they don't own VR."
As trial concludes, Samsung states: "We don't think we owe Apple a nickel"
With Apple and Samsung's second California trial coming to an end, both sides this week presented their closing arguments to the jury. Whereas the first trial between the two tech giants was rife with behind the scenes info detailing the origins of the iPhone, not to mention a slew of fascinating iPhone prototypes, this trial was a bit less sensational. Nonetheless, a whole lot is at stake with Apple seeking upwards of $2.2 billion in damages. And highlighting just how far apart the two companies are in that regard, Samsung contends that if it owes anything at all, $7 million is a more appropriate estimate. According to the Wall Street Journal, Samsung's star lawyer John Quin explained to the jury during closing arguments, "We don't think we owe Apple a nickel. They'll be dancing in the streets of California if you give them $100 million." Recall that during the first California trial, a jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, a figure which was later reduced to a still formidable $930 million. As for the content of each sides closing arguments, the themes were similar to what we've been hearing over the past few weeks. While Apple asserts that Samsung purposefully copied some of the iPhone's key features in an effort to boost its own smartphone sales, Samsung argues that Android engineers at Google were working on certain software features before the iPhone popularized them. And as for the patents at issue -- which you can read about in-depth over here -- Samsung argues that they, in and of themselves, aren't even compelling enough as to influence a consumer's purchasing decision. In other words, Samsung is essentially saying that Apple's asserted patents aren't really that special or important. Driving the point home, Samsung stressed during the trial, and again during its closing argument, that a few of the patented features at issue were never on the iPhone to begin with. How then, Samsung asked, could these patents be worth over $2 billion? "You can't copy if it's not there", Samsung's attorneys emphasized. The WSJ adds: Continuing its strategy during the trial, Apple in closing arguments recapped a broad story about Samsung's copying and asserted the need for justice for the company and its inventors. Samsung reiterated a narrower reading of patents, making a case that individual patents are a small part of a modern smartphone or tablet computer. As for the particulars of Apple's closing argument, Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny reiterated Apple's oft-repeated claim that the iPhone was a revolutionary product that Samsung just swooped in on and copied without any consideration of intellectual property rights. "Where was Samsung before the iPhone?" McElhinny asked the jury. "You know the answer to that one. They didn't even have a smartphone." And now, the onus is on the jury to render a verdict in either direction. Should Apple come out on top, it will be particularly interesting to see how Apple's damages award stacks up to the $2 billion it's seeking. For a full blow by blow account of each side's closing argument, Re/Code has a solid recap that's worth checking out.
