Schiller, Forstall drop iPhone backstory

The Apple-Samsung smartphone trial resumed Friday with Judge Lucy Koh chastising Apple and Samsung for objections each side was raising in preparation for witness testimony:

 “Some of these objections are ridiculous.”

Koh denied Apple’s motions for relief based on Samsung’s leak to the press of excluded evidence on Tuesday and lamented:

 “… this is a situation of Samsung’s and Quinn Emanuel’s own making…”

… for not submitting the evidence of Apple’s Sony-style phone mockup sooner. Each juror was called in individually to make sure that none of them had seen media reports that would prevent them from deciding the case on the merits presented in court.

All nine jurors were deemed credible, and Koh assured the jury that they would receive all of the materials regarding the case, including the media reports, after they make their decision.

Apple resumed its case by bringing Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller to the stand to testify about the marketing of the iPhone and iPad. Schiller said each new generation of an Apple device would sell enough units approximately equal to the cumulative sales of the device’s previous generations.

Schiller “was pretty shocked” when he found out about the Samsung Galaxy S because Apple marketing relies on a product as the hero model, in which the product itself is the star of Apple promotions.

In cross-examination, Samsung drew attention to how Apple separated itself in its product design and in its marketing by choosing only one button and deliberately eschewing features like a removable battery.

Apple counsel Harold McElhinny objected when Samsung counsel Bill Price asked about changing the device design for the iPhone 5. Schiller testified that he preferred not to reveal confidential information about new products.

During examination Apple played a segment from the iPhone announcement keynote in which Steve Jobs called and sent a photo to Schiller as a live demonstration. When McElhinny asked Schiller if he had dark hair five years ago, Schiller replied:

 “Yes, I did. Thank you for reminding me.”

McElhinny then brought Apple VP Scott Forstall to talk about the software side of the iPhone development:

 “We wanted to build a phone for ourselves.”

Forstall added the creation of an on-screen keyboard was a “science project” to his team working separately from other Apple employees in the Purple Dorm, which had a “Fight Club” sign on it to suggest what goes on behind the closed doors was not to be talked about.

The ability to zoom and center images while browsing, a feature of Apple’s ’163 utility patent, “dramatically changed how [Forstall] used the web,” especially important because web browsing is popular among iPhone and iPad users.

In cross-examination, Samsung counsel Kevin Johnson highlighted internal Apple documents implying that Apple was seeking ideas from its competitors. Last year, VP in charge of iTunes Eddy Cue said in an internal email, “I believe there will be a 7 (inch) market” and that Apple should make a seven-inch tablet.

Apple’s final witness of the day was Samsung’s Telecommunications Strategy Chief Justin Denison. Apple attorney Bill Lee examined Denison’s testimony as a corporate representative of Samsung, which was important because Denison in his deposition testified that he communicated with Samsung designers and was told that there was no copying.

When Lee asked about copying concerning the products involved in the trial, Samsung attorney John Quinn objected and argued the question was outside the scope of what Denison was authorized to talk about.

Quinn even mentioned the injunction against Samsung briefly, and after apologizing to the judge, Koh remarked:

 “I have difficulty believing that was unintentional.”

Denison admitted that he was not a designer and that his deposition was not about the products Apple alleges infringes on Apple patents and trade dress.

After Judge Koh dismissed the jury for the weekend, Koh criticized both sides again, mentioning at one point how briefing the witnesses six times is “cruel and unusual punishment.” Apple and Samsung agreed to limit their objections to two per witness.

The trial resumes Monday morning with more testimony from Samsung’s Denison.