It's not about the question of guilt
In the beginning it was Apple vs. the issue. Samsung in the US about whether Samsung patents hurt Apple or not. Even the very first decisions led to the same result: Samsung violated Apple's patent and must pay.
There was a back and forth over the last few years. Once a jury decided per Apple, sometimes per Samsung. The bottom line, however, changed only the sum that Samsung should pay as compensation to the iPhone manufacturer. So at no time did the courts actually question Samsung's breach of Apple's patents. In the main, juries in the end decided on the alleged costs.
Emergency makes Samsung inventive
This also happens in this process. For just over a week, the parties submitted their views. Witnesses were used. On Monday it will be called: Apple gets a billion US dollars from Samsung, or pays only 28 million US dollars. The truth will be somewhere in between. But these two amounts mark the ideas of the two parties.
So Samsung no longer denies that it violated patents. In his distress it is looking for "alternative" strategies. Apple's position is clear: Samsung sold 8.6 million smartphones that violated the design patent, generating $ 3.3 billion in revenue. Apple wants something from the cake. Samsung wants to pay only $ 28 million.
Wild reasoning, or reasonable conclusion?
Meanwhile, the Korean company argues that it's Apple's patents that are broken only by the smartphone's cover Has. The technology inside the device would not be affected. Protective glass and housing chassis are worth nothing, so that you have made little sales. Similarly, only one (fractional) part of the device could be used to calculate the claim for damages.
However, Samsung argues in this way without being able to quantify the cost of each component. Apple's lawyer, Joe Mueller, interviewed a witness of Samsung, manager Michael Wagner. Whether Samsung would have divided the components apart, wanted to know Mueller? No, Wagner answered. Mueller reasoned: With a million devices that caused a million violations, Samsung has made millions of profits. So Apple should not get a cent, Mueller wanted to know from Wagner? He responded dryly: "Yes." The dialogues are in part handed down by court observer such as CNET's Stephen Shankland.
No profit, no compensation?
A subtlety in such trials in the US is that the amount of compensation is based on the amount of profit. Samsung argues that it would have made no noticeable profits with the protective glass and the chassis. Accordingly, it wants to pay a maximum of $ 28 million.
On Monday, a jury decides how much money Apple will ultimately be entitled to.
Do you find Samsung's arguments correct? Or is not there a smartphone for you without a glass and without a case?