Apple portrays itself as smartphone underdog in Samsung suit opening remarksIn the opening remarks of Apple's patent infringement suit against Samsung, Apple's attorneys have attempted to portray their company as an underdog that changed the smartphone industry with the launch of the iPhone.
Had the iPhone failed, it could have ended Apple as a company, attorney Harold McElhinny said during Tuesday's opening remarks of Apple v. Samsung in San Jose, Calif. He said that Apple came into the smartphone business with "no name in the field" and "no credibility," according to Josh Lowensohn of CNet.
"On January 9, 2007, when Steve Jobs and Phil Schiller went through that presentation," McElhinny said, referencing the unveiling of the first iPhone, "they were literally betting their company."
Apple's case against Samsung centers on the belief that the smartphone and tablet markets have changed dramatically thanks to Apple. During his remarks, McElhinny showed Samsung products from 2006, before the first iPhone was unveiled, to 2011, when Apple believes Samsung's products were infringing on its patent portfolio.
Tuesday marks the start of arguments in the trail, in which both Apple and Samsung have accused the other of patent infringement. The 10-person jury was selected for the trial on Monday.
Apple illustration of Samsung phones pre- and post-iPhone. | Source: Apple trial brief
The trial has begun more than a year and a half after Apple first sued Samsung for allegedly copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. The two sides took part in court-ordered negotiations intended to avoid a trial, but those talks did not result in an out-of-court settlement.
On Topic: patents
- Apple patents laser mapping system, hybrid mechanical-capacitive keyboard, invisible I/O connectors
- Apple investigating 'active fluids' for wearable displays, connectors, sensors and more
- Apple patents Apple Watch Series 2 water expulsion tech, smart straps
- Patent holder Acacia wins $22.1M judgement against Apple
- Samsung says Apple's Supreme Court position could encourage abuse of patent system