Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Samsung: Whether or not we ripped off Apple’s tech, Apple stole it to begin with

Updated 4 years ago

As the end of the epic soap opera that is the Apple (AAPL) v. Samsung (005930) trial draws near, Samsung’s turn at the plate kicked off on Monday evening with some interesting events. Apple had gone straight for the jugular with its arguments, stating that Samsung knowingly stole its technology and designs by meticulously examining each key element of the iPhone’s UI and ripping it off in its own products. Rather than get right to denying any wrongdoing, Samsung on Monday decided to take a different approach — prove Apple’s technology patents are not valid because they’re stolen to begin with.

To start things off, Samsung targeted Apple’s pinch-to-zoom patent, which the Cupertino, California-based company claims is being infringed upon by a number of Samsung smartphones and tablets. Via Fortune, live coverage of the trial from San Jose Mercury News describes the courtroom events surrounding one of Samsung’s first key pieces of evidence: A giant table.

Dubbed “Diamond Touch,” Samsung’s legal team presented a massive touchscreen table built by Mitsubishi to the jury in an effort to show that Apple’s patent on pinch-to-zoom technology should not be valid because it already existed for years before the first iPhone launched. What’s more, Samsung suggested that Apple knowingly stole the technology when its witness, Mitsubishi engineer Adam Bogue, testified that he showed the Diamond Touch to Apple engineers back in 2003.

The Diamond Touch consists of a projector and a massive touch-sensitive surface with multi-touch support, on which users can draw and perform a variety of other functions. The device also supports technology that is strikingly similar to the pinch-to-zoom function in iOS, allowing Diamond Touch users to manipulate objects by grabbing the corners of an image or window and dragging.

Since Samsung says technology similar to Apple’s pinch-to-zoom function already existed when Apple was granted its patent, the company is arguing that Prior Art should render Apple’s patent invalid.

Zach Epstein
Zach Epstein Executive Editor

Zach Epstein has been the Executive Editor at BGR for more than 10 years. He manages BGR’s editorial team and ensures that best practices are adhered to. He also oversees the Ecommerce team and directs the daily flow of all content.

Zach first joined BGR in 2007 as a Staff Writer covering business, technology, and entertainment. His work has been quoted by countless top news organizations, and he was recently named one of the world's top 10 “power mobile influencers” by Forbes. Prior to BGR, Zach worked as an executive in marketing and business development with two private telcos.