Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Here are all the crazy things Apple and Samsung’s lawyers said during closing arguments

2014 Apple vs Samsung Lawsuit Closing Arguments

The second major patent-based spat between Apple and Samsung is coming to a close in California. The jury now has to decide who copied whom as both legal team concluded their cases on Tuesday, each reminding the jury why their fight is right. Both sides had clever arguments too, Re/code and The Wall Street Journal report, in their attempts to sway each of the eight jurors in the case.

Samsung’s attorneys said that Apple is basically twisting Samsung’s words to make it appear as though the company was looking to copy the iPhone. But the patents Apple argues that Samsung infringed aren’t even used in the iPhone, and that’s one of Samsung’s main defenses against Apple’s arguments.

According to attorney Bill Price, Apple has been talking about Samsung’s alleged copying and stealing exactly in order to get the jury “a little angry” in order to then justify its damages claim.

Samsung’s counsel John Quinn said “we don’t think we owe Apple a nickel,” adding later that Apple’s $2 billion claim is simply a big number made up to fool the jury. “They will be dancing down the streets of Cupertino if you give them $100 million,” the attorney said. “They want to monopolize this market,” he added.

Quinn also suggested that Apple should create products like the watch, big-screen phone or set-top box that have been rumored instead of suing Samsung

Price stated earlier during Samsung’s closing arguments that “the Android platform is the world’s alternative to iOS,” reminding the jury that Samsung simply did what other Android device makers did, which is to use Google’s Android to compete with the iPhone – that’s Samsung’s second major defense argument in the trial, saying that most of the Apple patents it’s accused of infringing have independently developed by Android engineers.

Explaining the patents in play against his employer, and in particular the difference between “synchronization” and “causing to be synchronized,” Samsung attorney Dave Nelson compared the matter to a conversation with his son. “If my son came to me and I said ‘Did you do your homework?’ and he said, ‘Well I caused it to be done,’ that would be different than having done it.”

Meanwhile, Apple’s attorney Harold McElhinny kicked off Apple’s closing arguments by painting Samsung as a nobody in the smartphone business before the iPhone arrived. According to him, the iPhone was a revolutionary product that caught the industry off-guard.

“Where was Samsung before the iPhone? You know the answer to that one. They didn’t even have a smartphone,” McElhinny said.

The lawyer also challenged Samsung’s top execs from South Korea for not being “brave enough” to take the stand in the trial and face cross-examination from Apple lawyers.

McElhinny added that Samsung continued to copy the iPhone even after Apple warned it to stop. “Samsung was committed with trying to get away from patent infringement,” the attorney said. “Apple simply can not walk away from its inventions.”

Apple further explained to the jury why Samsung is asking for only $6 million damages from Apple for its two patents, despite paying millions to experts and lawyers for the case. According to Apple’s attorney Bill Lee, Samsung’s damages claim makes sense for only one reason: “If you are trying to devalue all patents.”

Chris Smith started writing about gadgets as a hobby, and before he knew it he was sharing his views on tech stuff with readers around the world. Whenever he's not writing about gadgets he miserably fails to stay away from them, although he desperately tries. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Popular News