在苹果(Apple)和三星(Samsung)侵权官司的结辩陈词中，两家公司火力全开，全力进攻。苹果律师强力指谪三星抄袭其专利，但三星律师则反咬是苹果侵权。整场庭审历时超过四小时。
苹果首席律师Harold J. McElhinny拿出准备好的文件，他表示，陪审员可以看看文件上所提到的时间点，显而易见，三星确实侵犯了苹果的专利。
“到2009年，三星还试与与iPhone公平竞争，但当时三星的销售却持续下降，”McElhinny说。“在三星的高层会议中，其行动部门主管表示，三星正面临着“设计危机”…而电信业者对他们说，他们必须去做一些更像 iPhone 的产品，”他表示。
McElhinny引用的另一份文件，是长达100页的报告，该报告将三星的 Galaxy S1和 iPhone 进行比较，文中建议S1采用iPhone的技术。
yvGesmc
“当三星的用户界面设计师Jeeyeung Wang提到，他们为三星的Galaxy智能手机几乎不眠不休地工作三个月之久时，这段感人的发言几乎让我从椅子上跌了下来，”McElhinny说。 “在那三个月之中，三星复制了苹果历经四年开发出的创新，而且没有任何风险，因为他们是在复制全球最成功的产品，”他说。
Galaxy S在2010年问世，“三星忽然知道他们要的到底是什么了──他们的销售忽然起飞......接下来是一系列的iPhone仿冒品，直到苹果起诉他们，”他说。
“三星从我们这里得到了数十亿美元收益，”他说，他同时声称这家韩国大厂已经卖出了2,200万支侵权手机，相当于81.6亿美元的营收。“因为侵权相当严重，所以损害也非常巨大，”他说。
yvGesmc
苹果正试图向三星提起22.41亿美元的手机侵权赔偿，另外苹果也估计该公司损失了4.888亿美元利润，以及2,124万美元的权利金。由于这个案子尚面临许多变量，但若陪审团发现侵权行为，他们至少应该判给苹果5.19亿美元的赔偿，他补充道。
本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载
本文下一页：三星的立场
相关阅读：
• 苹果战三星，站在中立者的角度看对错
• 苹果战三星：鹬蚌相争，渔翁得利
• 苹果三星对簿公堂内容揭秘：谁是抄袭者？yvGesmc
{pagination}
三星的立场
三星首席律师Charles Verhoeven花了很多时间检查交叉诘问时的证词，并声称可击破苹果的论点。他还认为，从三星的立场来看，是苹果侵犯了其专利，包括该公司声称由欧洲电信标准协会(ETSI)设定的两个必要的3G蜂巢式标准在内。
Verhoeven认为，苹果没有提供可显示消费者会会把三星智能手机和平板电脑与iPhone和iPad混淆的证据。他打开三星手机和平板电脑，屏幕上显示了该公司的名称，使用者必须透过解锁和主屏幕导航等功能，才能看到所谓涉嫌侵权的应用程序屏幕。
“对任何想购买平板和智能手机的消费者来说，这实在太明显了──它们就是三星的产品──要说会与苹果的产品混淆，这委实不可思议，”他说。
“苹果没有提供任何证据的原因，就在于他们根本没有证据，”Verhoeven说。 “苹果在无权要求情况下，要求其最大的竞争对手停止为客户提供他们想要的产品──具备大屏幕的移动产品，”他说。
“苹果不在市场上竞争，他们是上法院竞争，”他说。“他们试图阻止最大最成功的竞争者，甚至阻止其它人加入市场竞争行列，”他补充说。
就像苹果的Lee一样，Verhoeven也援引了硅谷的爱国主义精神和创新精神。
“如果你认同苹果的做法，那么，这种做法或许可以改变这个国家的竞争方式......也就是说，去创造一个拥有巨大专利库，用以阻挡竞争对手，”Verhoeven对陪审团说。“在成为今天的硅谷以前，这里是一片片的果园，而现在，硅谷提供了有成千上万的就业机会，这一切，都是由企业间的竞争所衍生出来的，”他说。
“从竞争者身上获得启发，同时去思考我们怎样才能做得更好，并不会违反法律，”他接着援引了苹果如何研究竞争产品的例子。
Verhoeven还认为，智能手机是自然朝着无按键的大屏幕设备方向演进的。“每一支智能手机有着边缘为圆角的方形外形，这种设备有90%的表面都是显示屏幕，这是技术的发展，”他说。
苹果的证人证词也反复无常，他说。他同时指出，当谈到侵权时，他们反驳了三星和苹果产品之间的细微差别，但却使用了一些相同的差异来作为三星侵犯苹果专利的左证。
“当谈到专利的有效性时，手机前面板设备非常重要，当他们谈到被侵权之处时，这又成了不可信的证据，”Verhoeven表示。
“你可以说手机的侵权和这些专利无效，或是根本就没有侵权，”他对陪审团表示。
“三星一直是优秀的企业公民，只是想制造消费者想要的产品──所有这些复制的指控都是废话，因为他们没有任何证据证明“市场”会混淆两家公司的产品，”他总结道。
本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载
本文下一页：苹果的反驳
相关阅读：
• 苹果战三星，站在中立者的角度看对错
• 苹果战三星：鹬蚌相争，渔翁得利
• 苹果三星对簿公堂内容揭秘：谁是抄袭者？yvGesmc
{pagination}
苹果的反驳
苹果的律师Bill Lee则是在三星指控苹果侵犯三星五项专利，包括两项由 ETSI 订定的3G标准专利时提出了反驳。
具体而言，苹果声称三星打破了ETSI的规则，并未如实申报该公司握有3G标准相关专利。对苹果而言，三星显然违反了美国反托拉斯法，这家公司运用其在市场上的力量造成不公平竞争，并拒绝在公平合理条款下授权必要专利给苹果。
“他们有些工程师从来没有设计过产品，他们最主要的工作，就是在标准会议上试图获得专利──他们甚至会奖励获得专利的工程师，”Lee表示。
苹果针对反垄断部份仅要求支付35万美元，该金额也仅够支付给参与这场诉讼的专家和证人。“你不能来到这个国家，又违反我们的反托拉斯法，”他也试着用美国式的硅谷爱国主义精神来反驳。
Lee对陪审团表示，他们必须终止三星看来颇有玩世不恭味道的计划。在你对苹果做出判决前，你要重新思考美国的专利制度，这里的人之所以能创造就业机会，正是因为有着专利制度的保护。
“这家公司每年花费数十亿美元做广告，这是三星的大手笔广告策略，”Lee表示。“除非你出手干预，否则他们不会改变。”
Verhoeven 则反驳道，苹果是以扭曲的角度来看ETSI的运作。另外，他还表示，三星曾提供专利授权给苹果，但苹果拒绝谈判。
本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载
编译： Joy Teng
参考英文原文：Apple, Samsung fire final salvos as case closes ，by Rick Merritt
相关阅读：
• 苹果战三星，站在中立者的角度看对错
• 苹果战三星：鹬蚌相争，渔翁得利
• 苹果三星对簿公堂内容揭秘：谁是抄袭者？yvGesmc
{pagination}
Apple, Samsung fire final salvos as case closes
Rick Merritt
Here’s a sampler of the points made in closing arguments Apple and Samsung made over four hours in front of a crowd that extended into two overflow courtrooms.
SAN JOSE, Calif. – Apple and Samsung both made compelling points in closing arguments of a case in which Apple seeks more than $2.751 billion. Here’s a sampler of their comments from four hours in front of a crowd that extended into two overflow courtrooms.
Apple’s lead attorney Harold J. McElhinny laid out a plausible time line marked by documents he said jurors could follow to conclude Samsung infringed its patents.
“Through 2009 Samsung was trying to compete fairly [with the iPhone], but Samsung sales continued to decline,” said McElhinny. “At a Samsung executive meeting the head of the [mobile] division said Samsung was facing ‘a crisis of design’…and carriers told them they had to make something like the iPhone,” he said.
Among the documents he cited was a 100-page Samsung report comparing feature-by-feature its Galaxy S1 and the iPhone, generally recommending the S1 adopt iPhone techniques.
“When Samsung [user interface] designer Jeeyeung Wang spoke quite movingly about three intense months of [work on Samsung’s first Galaxy smartphone], I almost fell out of my chair when she said it--she said it was a three-month effort,” McElhinny said. “In those three months Samsung was able to copy Apples’ four years of innovation without taking any of the risks because they were copying the world’s most successful product,” he said.
With the Galaxy S in 2010, “Samsung got exactly what it wanted--its sales that had been doldering along suddenly took off …a whole series of iPhone knock offs followed up through the day Apple sued them,” he said.
“Samsung makes fun of us for asking for billions of dollars,” he said, but claimed the Korean giant sold 22 million infringing phones making $8.16 billion in revenue. “The damages should be large because the infringement has been massive,” he said.
Apple is trying to recoup Samsung profits of $2.241 billion on those phones as well as estimates of its own lost profits of $488.8 million and royalties of $21.24 million. Given many variables in the case, if jurors find infringement they should at least award Apple $519 million, he added.
Samsung's position
Samsung lead attorney Charles Verhoeven spent much of his time reviewing testimony under cross examination that he claimed shredded Apple’s arguments. He also argued Samsung’s case that Apple infringed five of its patents including two it claims are essential to the 3G cellular standard set by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
Verhoeven argued Apple had not provided evidence showing consumers confused Samsung smartphones and tablets for iPhones and iPads. He turned on Samsung phones and tablets to show they displayed the company’s name and that users would have to navigate through unlock and home screens to get to an allegedly infringing apps screen.
“It’s obvious to any consumer that wants to buy one of these things it’s a Samsung product—it’s just incredible to suggest there’s confusion,” he said.
“The reason [Apple] didn’t provide any evidence of deception is they didn’t have any,” Verhoeven said. “Apple is here asking for what they are not entitled to, it’s here asking you to stop its biggest competitor from giving customers what they want—[mobile systems with] bigger screens,” he said.
“Rather than competing in the marketplace, Apple is seeking a competitive edge in the courtroom,” he said. “They are seeking to block their biggest most successful competitor from even attending the game,” he added.
Like Apple’s Lee, Verhoeven also invoked the spirit of patriotism and the innovation zeitgeist of Silicon Valley.
“If you go Apple’s way, it could change the way competition works in this country…[creating a market where] giant competitors with patent arsenals block competition,” Verhoeven told jurors. “Silicon Valley back in the day was all orchards, and now there are thousands of jobs, and it happened because of competition,” he said.
“It’s not against the law to be inspired by competition and say ‘how can we do better,’” he added, citing examples of how Apple studied competing products.
Verhoeven also argued smartphones like TVs have naturally evolved into big screen devices without buttons. “Every smartphone has a rectangular shape with rounded corners and 90 percent of that device is a screen—there’s nothing nefarious about this, it’s the way technology has evolved,” he said.
Apple’s witnesses were inconstant in their testimony, he charged. He noted they dismissed minor differences between Samsung and Apple’s products when claiming infringement, but used some of the same differences to dismiss prior art Samsung presented on Apple patents.
“When he’s talking about [patent] validity, [front side] flatness is incredibly important, and when he’s talking about infringement it’s not—it’s not credible testimony,” Verhoeven said, a refrain he often repeated.
“Either you have to say the phones infringe and the patents are invalid or they don’t infringe,” he told the jury.
“Samsung is a good corporate citizen and just wants to make products consumers want--all this copying nonsense is hand waving [because] they don’t have any evidence of [market] confusion,” he concluded.
Rebuttals
Apple attorney Bill Lee attacked Samsung’s case alleging Apple infringed five Samsung patents including two that are essential to the 3G standard set by ETSI.
Specifically, Apple alleges Samsung broke ETSI rules in failing to declare it had patents on aspects of the 3G standards. That formed the basis for Apple’s charge in the case that Samsung violated U.S. antitrust rules using its market power to unfairly claim standards-essential patents it refused to license to Apple on fair and reasonable terms.
“They have engineers who have never designed a product, whose sole job was to work with patent lawyers at standards meetings to try to get patents on standards--they were even rewarded for getting patents on standards,” Lee said.
Apple is asking for about $350,000 for the alleged antitrust violations, just enough to pay for its expert witness on the issue. “You can’t come in to this country and walk over our antitrust laws,” he said, trying to invoke a spirit of U.S. and Silicon Valley patriotism.
Lee told jurors they need to “up-end Samsung’s cynical game plan. If you render judgment for Apple you will have reaffirmed the American patent system, people here will create jobs because you will have protected the patent system,” Lee told jurors.
“This is a company that spends billion dollars a year on advertising--there are Samsung ads on Giant’s games,” said Lee. “They will not change their way of operating if you slap them on the wrist,” he said.
In a rebuttal, Verhoeven said Apple presented a distorted view of how ETSI works. In addition, he said Samsung made an offer to license its patents to Apple but Apple declined to negotiate.
The nine-person jury began its deliberations Wednesday morning.
责编：Quentin
扫码分享到好友
