Samsung, apparently taking the “WAH!” legal approach, has accused Apple of calling expert witnesses that exhibit “slavish adoration” to the company during the continuing patent trial between the two electronics giants. Samsung says Apple’s experts have “cast aside established scientific methods and governing legal principles in favor of slavish adoration of their client…”
BGR:
“Apple’s damages expert, Terry L. Musika, writes in his report that ‘Apple has built a considerable and at times a cult-like following to all things Apple,’ ” Samsung’s attorneys wrote in a court filing, according to FOSS Patents. “That cult-like following apparently includes several experts who are appearing on Apple’s behalf in this case, and may explain why they have cast aside established scientific methods and governing legal principles in favor of slavish adoration of their client and platitudes about its alleged magical and revolutionary products, issues that are of no relevance to the claims and defenses at issue.”
The filing attacks a number of the Apple witnesses, suggesting they are part of Apple’s cult-like following, who are referred to by some as “iSheep”. Samsung says the experts testimony should not be allowed to be included in the trial. Samsung takes special issue with one particular witness, Henry Urbach, who is, says Samsung, a “loyal devotee of Apple.”
“Before being retained by Apple in this matter, Mr. Urbach wrote an essay on the design of Apple’s retail stores, entitled Gardens of Earthly Delights, describing them as ‘Quasi-religious in almost every respect, . . . chapels for the Information Age,’ ” Samsung’s motion stated. The filing also claims that Urbach referred to Apple’s co-founder Steve Jobs as “St. Eve.”
In addition to Urbach’s “potential bias,” Samsung states that he is not a qualified witness because he “has admitted he has no experience in product design, or marketing, and therefore any opinions he could offer would be beyond his area of expertise.”
Apple is taking a more focused, (and let’s face it more mature,) approach with its motions, saying that Samsung’s experts were not qualified to testify on the infringement, patent validity, and damages issues at stake. Apple also moved to strike recent Samsung arguments that are either inconsistent with the Korean company’s original claims or that were allegedly not disclosed during discovery.
