Samsung has opened its defence in its patent dispute with Apple.
Further reading
Apple claims a quarter of Samsung's ₤19.4bn US sales result from infringements Apple and Samsung trade accusations in first day of $2.5bn patent battle Apple's success forced 'crisis of design' on Samsung
The company is opening with its own expert witnesses in a bid to refute the claims made by Apple that Samsung's smartphones directly copied Apple's design patents, and to assert its own counter-claim that Apple is infringing Samsung's mobile technology intellectual property.
Early witnesses include Clifton Forlines, who worked on DiamondTouch in 2004. DiamondTouch was a "multi-touch", interactive PC interface produced by a company called Circle Twelve and the product was presented by Forlines as an example of prior art on Apple's patent claim over "pinch and zoom" touch features in its iOS operating system.
The most intriguing evidence to emerge from the case so far this week was Apple's "non-aggression pact" with Microsoft that obliges the software giant to steer clear of any form of "cloning" of Apple's products.
The initial deal was reached in 1997 after Microsoft injected $150m into Apple, which was then struggling. At the same time, Microsoft was being assailed by claims of anti-competitive behaviour and needed to keep its rival in business.
However, by 2010, Apple was pursuing Samsung for licences to cover all the phones that it produced, not just for the smartphones that it claimed infringed its design patents. Indeed, according to documents filed in the case, Apple was seeking royalties for Symbian, Bada and even Windows-based phones produced by Samsung, as well as Android.
Bada is a Samsung-developed platform designed to run on top of either Linux or a real-time operating system. It has since been rolled into the Tizen initiative.
Apple's licensing proposals to Samsung suggest that Apple has assumed intellectual property rights over the whole category of the mobile phone.
A "phone" licence, which "allowed" the licence holder to produce phones offering basic telephony, including "wireless standards, Java, processor, graphics, misc hardware";
A "smart" licence, which allowed the licence holder to use "Apple Computing Technologies". This including the operating system and object orientation;
An "advanced" mobile licence, which allowed the licence holder to produce mobile phones with "advanced iPhone technologies needed to create an 'advanced' class device". The technologies included "touch, graphical user interface, apps, music, etcetera".
All three categories of licence covered licensing for broad technologies that Apple did not invent.
The document went on to accuse Samsung of choosing to "embrace and imitate Apple's iPhone archetype... [but] because Samsung is a strategic supplier to Apple, we are prepared to offer a royalty-bearing licence for this category of device".
In order to continue making smartphones, Apple demanded that Samsung pay a royalty of $30 per licensed smartphone, regardless of the operating system of the phone, but with discounts based on the number of phone technologies deployed on the device.
Including discounts, Apple was seeking $24 per phone for Samsung's Android-based devices, $21 per phone for Symbian-based devices, $32 per phone for tablets and just $9 per phone for Windows Mobile-based devices.
Touchscreen tablet computers would also require a licence, starting at $40 per device, reducing to $30 per device after two years.
The documents reveal an intellectual property "land grab" by Apple, which even encompasses use of Apple microprocessors, which are based on microprocessor technology licenced from both ARM and Imagination Technologies.
