To give you an idea of how wide spread this is just take a look at some of the headlines from the last week. Many were already proclaiming Samsung’s guilt on the first day of the trial. The PR campaign was so bad in the UK that a Judge ordered Apple to publish statements saying that Samsung did not copy Apple on their website and in certain news publications for six months. This judgment has been put off temporarily, but considering the fact that the Judge found over 50 unique identifying features and how often Apple made the claim that Samsung “slavishly copied” Apple the judge felt the punishment was warranted.
Samsung knew that they would be facing a massive PR and marketing effort going into the trial and found a way to counter some of it on the first day. They released (upon request) evidence that the Judge Lucy Koh refused to allow. The release was to specific media outlets that had already sent requests for updates about the case. All of the information released was public domain through briefs filed earlier by Samsung. Both Apple and Judge Koh were not happy about this at all. Apple asked for a summary judgment on the case (which was denied) and Judge Koh was forced to allow some of the evidence to be used.
Still the main point was not to influence the jury, but to put a nagging doubt in the public’s mind. For far too long Apple has made bold and exaggerated claims about Android, Samsung, Security and more without any repercussions. Now there is evidence that Apple’s claims are not true. Under oath Scott Forstall testified that Apple also performs teardowns and comparisons of other companies’ phones. What he would like you (and the jury) to believe is that while everyone else uses them for the purpose of copying Apple; Apple only uses them to benchmark rival designs.
Yet Apple has implemented many features that were not available to the first iPhone only after they have been in other phones first. Should we honestly believe that they did not do their own reverse engineering to bring these to their customers? For those that want a list? How about lock screen notifications (Android), the pull down notification bar (Android), Copy and Paste (everyone else) and, more.
Later Phill Schiller had to also acknowledge that Apple was not able to claim many “firsts” with the launch of the first iPhone simply because too many other products were on the market that already did these things. Still Apple’s launch of the iPhone and later PR campaign has attempted to make that claim without actually saying it. It has led to more market confusion and consumer harm than any perceived copying from any company.
Schiller and Forstall also would like people to believe that it is possible to buy a Samsung Phone accidentally mistaking it for an iPhone. As we have pointed out, Good luck on that one. If you have been to any package store or cellphone store you already know how segregated the products are so this claim is an obvious ploy and one that the Jury should be able to see through.
Apple would like you to believe a lot of things most of which were designed by a very talented PR team with Steve Jobs and the lead. It is their great corporate mythology which is meant to elevate their products over all others. All of these things are intended to get you to buy their products. Unfortunately (as we have said before) the truth will usually find its way to the surface. The Mythology is now breaking down as people have to at least tell part of the truth. There is a limited amount of opportunity for spin here. Yes Apple’s lawyers will try to ensure they keep the Apple show going, but there is a fly in their usual ointment and that is John Quinn. He has already won our respect as a tactician in handling Apple’s PR spin inside the courtroom and out.
Although we would not go so far as to say that Samsung is winning we can say with confidence that Apple’s usual open and shut case will not be this easy now. Quinn has forced the Judge to grasp that any bias will quickly be dealt with, while letting Apple know that he understands how they are playing the game (as a PR presentation). This coming week will be very interesting to watch; I would expect to see both Schiller and Forstall to return to the stand to answer questions about the testimony given last week… I just have a feeling that there might be some contradictions that will pop up…
Discuss this in our Forum
