Back to Mobile View

Skip to Content

As trial concludes, Samsung states: "We don't think we owe Apple a nickel"

With Apple and Samsung's second California trial coming to an end, both sides this week presented their closing arguments to the jury. Whereas the first trial between the two tech giants was rife with behind the scenes info detailing the origins of the iPhone, not to mention a slew of fascinating iPhone prototypes, this trial was a bit less sensational.

Nonetheless, a whole lot is at stake with Apple seeking upwards of $2.2 billion in damages. And highlighting just how far apart the two companies are in that regard, Samsung contends that if it owes anything at all, $7 million is a more appropriate estimate.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Samsung's star lawyer John Quin explained to the jury during closing arguments, "We don't think we owe Apple a nickel. They'll be dancing in the streets of California if you give them $100 million."

Recall that during the first California trial, a jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, a figure which was later reduced to a still formidable $930 million.

As for the content of each sides closing arguments, the themes were similar to what we've been hearing over the past few weeks. While Apple asserts that Samsung purposefully copied some of the iPhone's key features in an effort to boost its own smartphone sales, Samsung argues that Android engineers at Google were working on certain software features before the iPhone popularized them.

And as for the patents at issue -- which you can read about in-depth over here -- Samsung argues that they, in and of themselves, aren't even compelling enough as to influence a consumer's purchasing decision. In other words, Samsung is essentially saying that Apple's asserted patents aren't really that special or important. Driving the point home, Samsung stressed during the trial, and again during its closing argument, that a few of the patented features at issue were never on the iPhone to begin with. How then, Samsung asked, could these patents be worth over $2 billion?

"You can't copy if it's not there", Samsung's attorneys emphasized.

The WSJ adds:

Continuing its strategy during the trial, Apple in closing arguments recapped a broad story about Samsung's copying and asserted the need for justice for the company and its inventors. Samsung reiterated a narrower reading of patents, making a case that individual patents are a small part of a modern smartphone or tablet computer.

As for the particulars of Apple's closing argument, Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny reiterated Apple's oft-repeated claim that the iPhone was a revolutionary product that Samsung just swooped in on and copied without any consideration of intellectual property rights.

"Where was Samsung before the iPhone?" McElhinny asked the jury. "You know the answer to that one. They didn't even have a smartphone."

And now, the onus is on the jury to render a verdict in either direction. Should Apple come out on top, it will be particularly interesting to see how Apple's damages award stacks up to the $2 billion it's seeking.

For a full blow by blow account of each side's closing argument, Re/Code has a solid recap that's worth checking out.

© 2014 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.