在蘋果(Apple)和三星(Samsung)侵權(quán)官司的結(jié)辯陳詞中，兩家公司火力全開，全力進攻。蘋果律師強力指謫三星抄襲其專利，但三星律師則反咬是蘋果侵權(quán)。整場庭審歷時超過四小時。 蘋果首席律師Harold J. McElhinny拿出準備好的文件，他表示，陪審員可以看看文件上所提到的時間點，顯而易見，三星確實侵犯了蘋果的專利。 “到2009年，三星還試與與iPhone公平競爭，但當時三星的銷售卻持續(xù)下降，”McElhinny說?！霸谌堑母邔訒h中，其行動部門主管表示，三星正面臨著“設(shè)計危機”…而電信業(yè)者對他們說，他們必須去做一些更像 iPhone 的產(chǎn)品，”他表示。 McElhinny引用的另一份文件，是長達100頁的報告，該報告將三星的 Galaxy S1和 iPhone 進行比較，文中建議S1采用iPhone的技術(shù)。

znWesmc

“當三星的用戶界面設(shè)計師Jeeyeung Wang提到，他們?yōu)槿堑腉alaxy智能手機幾乎不眠不休地工作三個月之久時，這段感人的發(fā)言幾乎讓我從椅子上跌了下來，”McElhinny說。 “在那三個月之中，三星復(fù)制了蘋果歷經(jīng)四年開發(fā)出的創(chuàng)新，而且沒有任何風(fēng)險，因為他們是在復(fù)制全球最成功的產(chǎn)品，”他說。 Galaxy S在2010年問世，“三星忽然知道他們要的到底是什么了──他們的銷售忽然起飛......接下來是一系列的iPhone仿冒品，直到蘋果起訴他們，”他說。 “三星從我們這里得到了數(shù)十億美元收益，”他說，他同時聲稱這家韓國大廠已經(jīng)賣出了2,200萬支侵權(quán)手機，相當于81.6億美元的營收?！耙驗榍謾?quán)相當嚴重，所以損害也非常巨大，”他說。

znWesmc

蘋果正試圖向三星提起22.41億美元的手機侵權(quán)賠償，另外蘋果也估計該公司損失了4.888億美元利潤，以及2,124萬美元的權(quán)利金。由于這個案子尚面臨許多變量，但若陪審團發(fā)現(xiàn)侵權(quán)行為，他們至少應(yīng)該判給蘋果5.19億美元的賠償，他補充道。 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 本文下一頁：三星的立場

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 蘋果戰(zhàn)三星，站在中立者的角度看對錯
• 蘋果戰(zhàn)三星：鷸蚌相爭，漁翁得利
• 蘋果三星對簿公堂內(nèi)容揭秘：誰是抄襲者？znWesmc

{pagination} 三星的立場 三星首席律師Charles Verhoeven花了很多時間檢查交叉詰問時的證詞，并聲稱可擊破蘋果的論點。他還認為，從三星的立場來看，是蘋果侵犯了其專利，包括該公司聲稱由歐洲電信標準協(xié)會(ETSI)設(shè)定的兩個必要的3G蜂巢式標準在內(nèi)。 Verhoeven認為，蘋果沒有提供可顯示消費者會會把三星智能手機和平板電腦與iPhone和iPad混淆的證據(jù)。他打開三星手機和平板電腦，屏幕上顯示了該公司的名稱，使用者必須透過解鎖和主屏幕導(dǎo)航等功能，才能看到所謂涉嫌侵權(quán)的應(yīng)用程序屏幕。 “對任何想購買平板和智能手機的消費者來說，這實在太明顯了──它們就是三星的產(chǎn)品──要說會與蘋果的產(chǎn)品混淆，這委實不可思議，”他說。 “蘋果沒有提供任何證據(jù)的原因，就在于他們根本沒有證據(jù)，”Verhoeven說。 “蘋果在無權(quán)要求情況下，要求其最大的競爭對手停止為客戶提供他們想要的產(chǎn)品──具備大屏幕的移動產(chǎn)品，”他說。 “蘋果不在市場上競爭，他們是上法院競爭，”他說?！八麄冊噲D阻止最大最成功的競爭者，甚至阻止其它人加入市場競爭行列，”他補充說。 就像蘋果的Lee一樣，Verhoeven也援引了硅谷的愛國主義精神和創(chuàng)新精神。 “如果你認同蘋果的做法，那么，這種做法或許可以改變這個國家的競爭方式......也就是說，去創(chuàng)造一個擁有巨大專利庫，用以阻擋競爭對手，”Verhoeven對陪審團說。“在成為今天的硅谷以前，這里是一片片的果園，而現(xiàn)在，硅谷提供了有成千上萬的就業(yè)機會，這一切，都是由企業(yè)間的競爭所衍生出來的，”他說。 “從競爭者身上獲得啟發(fā)，同時去思考我們怎樣才能做得更好，并不會違反法律，”他接著援引了蘋果如何研究競爭產(chǎn)品的例子。 Verhoeven還認為，智能手機是自然朝著無按鍵的大屏幕設(shè)備方向演進的?！懊恳恢е悄苁謾C有著邊緣為圓角的方形外形，這種設(shè)備有90%的表面都是顯示屏幕，這是技術(shù)的發(fā)展，”他說。 蘋果的證人證詞也反復(fù)無常，他說。他同時指出，當談到侵權(quán)時，他們反駁了三星和蘋果產(chǎn)品之間的細微差別，但卻使用了一些相同的差異來作為三星侵犯蘋果專利的左證。 “當談到專利的有效性時，手機前面板設(shè)備非常重要，當他們談到被侵權(quán)之處時，這又成了不可信的證據(jù)，”Verhoeven表示。 “你可以說手機的侵權(quán)和這些專利無效，或是根本就沒有侵權(quán)，”他對陪審團表示。 “三星一直是優(yōu)秀的企業(yè)公民，只是想制造消費者想要的產(chǎn)品──所有這些復(fù)制的指控都是廢話，因為他們沒有任何證據(jù)證明“市場”會混淆兩家公司的產(chǎn)品，”他總結(jié)道。 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 本文下一頁：蘋果的反駁

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 蘋果戰(zhàn)三星，站在中立者的角度看對錯
• 蘋果戰(zhàn)三星：鷸蚌相爭，漁翁得利
• 蘋果三星對簿公堂內(nèi)容揭秘：誰是抄襲者？znWesmc

{pagination} 蘋果的反駁 蘋果的律師Bill Lee則是在三星指控蘋果侵犯三星五項專利，包括兩項由 ETSI 訂定的3G標準專利時提出了反駁。 具體而言，蘋果聲稱三星打破了ETSI的規(guī)則，并未如實申報該公司握有3G標準相關(guān)專利。對蘋果而言，三星顯然違反了美國反托拉斯法，這家公司運用其在市場上的力量造成不公平競爭，并拒絕在公平合理條款下授權(quán)必要專利給蘋果。 “他們有些工程師從來沒有設(shè)計過產(chǎn)品，他們最主要的工作，就是在標準會議上試圖獲得專利──他們甚至?xí)剟瞰@得專利的工程師，”Lee表示。 蘋果針對反壟斷部份僅要求支付35萬美元，該金額也僅夠支付給參與這場訴訟的專家和證人?！澳悴荒軄淼竭@個國家，又違反我們的反托拉斯法，”他也試著用美國式的硅谷愛國主義精神來反駁。 Lee對陪審團表示，他們必須終止三星看來頗有玩世不恭味道的計劃。在你對蘋果做出判決前，你要重新思考美國的專利制度，這里的人之所以能創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機會，正是因為有著專利制度的保護。 “這家公司每年花費數(shù)十億美元做廣告，這是三星的大手筆廣告策略，”Lee表示?！俺悄愠鍪指深A(yù)，否則他們不會改變。” Verhoeven 則反駁道，蘋果是以扭曲的角度來看ETSI的運作。另外，他還表示，三星曾提供專利授權(quán)給蘋果，但蘋果拒絕談判。 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 編譯： Joy Teng 參考英文原文：Apple, Samsung fire final salvos as case closes ，by Rick Merritt

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 蘋果戰(zhàn)三星，站在中立者的角度看對錯
• 蘋果戰(zhàn)三星：鷸蚌相爭，漁翁得利
• 蘋果三星對簿公堂內(nèi)容揭秘：誰是抄襲者？znWesmc

{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(chǎn) 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.