As the first day of Apple's second California patent trial against Samsung drew to a close on Tuesday, the suit's first witness, Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller, took the stand to deliver testimony nearly identical to that given twice before during the first Apple v. Samsung case.
As noted by multiple in-court reports on Tuesday, Schiller hit the same bullet points under direct examination, taking jurors into the process behind developing, producing and marketing Apple's iPhone.
A familiar story for tech reporters and anyone who followed the first Apple v. Samsung trial, Schiller walked jurors through Apple's "New Product Process," just as he did last November during a retrial for vacated damages. Paramount to the executive's testimony was conveying the risk Apple took in developing the iPhone.
Schiller illustrated the handset's success through graphs, charts and articles — many of which were identical to those seen in his previous testimony — before moving on to the iPad, reports Re/code.
According to reporter Mike Swift, Schiller said Samsung's "copying" hurts Apple's clout as an innovator. The alleged copycat devices from Samsung have diluted Apple's cachet.
On cross-examination by Samsung's Bill Price, Schiller admitted that he was not fully briefed on the patents-in-suit, eroding somewhat the executive's claims of copying.
When asked to share his first impressions of the Samsung Galaxy, Schiller said, "It looked so much like an attempt to copy the iPhone." He reiterated that Apple had been harmed by Samsung's alleged copying.
"It has caused people to question some of the innovations we created," Schiller said, according to Re/code"I think it has confused people as to which products are creating this experience."
Tuesday's court session ended before cross-examination was up, but Samsung will get more time with Schiller on Friday at 9 a.m. Pacific.
Apple is seeking some $2 billion in damages from Samsung on infringement of five patents. The Korean tech giant argues Apple's claims are narrow, cover minor software tweaks and should never have been granted.
Samsung is also leveling claims of its own in the second Apple v. Samsung trial, but the company's case has been whittled down to two claims from two patents.