V-am spus acum cateva zeci de minute ca SVP-ul diviziei de marketing al Apple a declarat ca Samsung a evoluat atat de mult in ultimii ani deoarece a copiat tehnologii si produse ale celor din Cupertino. Raspunzand in fata acestor acuzatii, un martor al celor de la Samsung a afirmat ca majoritatea celor care achizitioneaza produsele companiei nu o fac pentru tehnologile care ar fi fost copiate de la Apple. Mai exact, el spune ca terminalele Android nu au avut succes deoarece contineau functia pinch to zoom, pe care a brevetat-o Apple, sau alte tehnologii care au legatura cu ecranele tactile, la baza intentiei de achizitie stand alte caracteristici ale terminalelor Android.
An expert hired by Apple had determined the company was due $114 million in lost profits because of Samsung’s use of technology under Apple’s patent No. 7,844,915, also known as “pinch to zoom.” The ‘915 patent covers technology that can distinguish whether a user is scrolling with one finger versus using several touch points at once for a pinch-to-zoom action.
However, Michael Wagner, an accountant and lawyer hired by Samsung, said there’s no evidence from either company that shows consumers bought Samsung devices because they liked that particular touch-screen feature. As a result, he believes Apple should receive no money for lost profits. “I believe people bought these phones for other features,” Wagner said. That includes bigger, AMOLED screens; faster processors; and 4G LTE.
Continuandu-si declaratiile, martorul celor de la Samsung sustine ca ecranele AMOLED mari, procesoarele rapide si compatibilitatea cu tehnologiile 4G LTE sunt principalele caracteristici in baza carora terminalele coreenilor au fost atat de populare. Afirmatiile au rolul de a sustine pretentiile celor de la Samsung de a plati doar 52 de milioane de dolari in locul celor 380 cerute de catre Apple pentru presupusele incalcari ale brevetelor de inventie
, insa ramane de vazut daca juratii vor fi de acord cu ele. In procesul precedent juratii au dat castig de cauza celor de la Apple in aceeasi problema, insa au gresit calculele privind despagubirile, asa ca procesul acesta are rolul de a clarifica lucrurile.