San Jose, California: Apple spent four years pouring resources into developing the iconic iPhone, while Samsung couldn’t keep up and eventually decided to copy its major competitor, an Apple attorney said in court.
Closing arguments kicked off on Tuesday as the high stakes trial between Apple Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd drew towards a climax in a federal court in San Jose, California. The jury will likely begin deliberating on Wednesday.
Apple attorney Harold McElhinny urged jurors to consider the testimony of a Korean designer who said she worked day and night on Samsung’s phones for three months.
“In those critical three months, Samsung was able to copy and incorporate the result of Apple’s four-year investment in hard work and ingenuity — without taking any of the risks,” McElhinny said.
Closing arguments kicked off on Tuesday as the high stakes trial between Apple Inc and Samsung Electronics . Reuters
A Samsung attorney is expected to begin his closing argument later on Tuesday.
Apple and Samsung are going toe-to-toe in a patents dispute that mirrors the struggle for industry supremacy between the two rivals that control more than half of worldwide smartphone sales.
Apple accuses Samsung of copying the design and some features of its iPad and iPhone, and is asking for a sales ban in addition to monetary damages. South Korea’s Samsung, which is trying to expand in the United States, says Apple infringed several patents, including some for its key wireless technology.
The trial, which is in its fourth week, revealed details about the famously secretive maker of the iPhone and iPad, some substantive and some just colourful.
An Apple industrial designer described working around a kitchen table with his team to come up with the company’s mobile products. Its patent licensing director said Microsoft was one of the only companies it agreed to license its design patents — but only because Microsoft consented to an anti-cloning provision.
The case in US District Court, Northern District of California, is Apple Inc v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, No 11-1846.
Reuters
