Samsung has changed tactics again in its courtroom struggle with Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL), seeking for any weak point in its adversary’s arguments. This time, it is taking aim at Chris Vellturo, the expert witness who recommended to the court that the Korean electronics firm ought to pay an unprecedented $2 billion in damages for patent infringements on five Apple patents. John Quinn, one of Samsung’s leading lawyers in the United States, challenged the validity of Mr. Vellturo’s testimony on the basis of the fact that Apple is paying him $2.3 million for five weeks of service at the trial, more than many people will earn in a lifetime.
Pointing out the mercenary origins of Mr. Vellturo’s extraordinary damages assessment, Mr. Quinn went on to note that the witness had worked for the Cupertino company on no less than 15 previous occasions. In one of his keenest thrusts, Mr. Quinn asked if Mr. Vellturo’s estimated damages accounted for the non-infringing advantages enjoyed by Samsung, which are underlined in many of Apple Inc.’s (AAPL) own documents, cited during the court case.
Mr. Vellturo defended his integrity by pointing out that he has also served as an expert witness for Apple Inc. (AAPL) rivals such as Amazon or Microsoft. Also weighing in the minds of jurors, perhaps, is the fact that Samsung is retaining a group of expert witnesses of its own, paying some of them as much as $850 per hour and none less than $450 per hour. Clearly, the Korean firm is just as prepared as Apple to attempt to pay its way to a favorable verdict.
Perhaps the biggest argument against Mr. Quinn’s assertions regarding Mr. Vellturo is that the use of expert witnesses is essentially inevitable in a case like this. Both technology and patent law, particularly applied at the massive scale and rarefied complexity involved in the current legal struggle, would be nearly impenetrable to the layman without clear explanation by someone who understood the Byzantine legal and technical ramifications.
In such an environment, refusing to use expert witnesses would be tantamount to legal suicide, since the other firm would be unlikely to allow its scruples to prevent using them. Without someone to present their case, Apple Inc. (AAPL) would be as doomed as Samsung would be without their witnesses. It is also only to be expected that each company would employ expert witnesses who would be favorable to their viewpoint – Apple would not have hired Mr. Vellturo if he was going to recommend $50 and an apology letter as sufficient damages.
