 Hey, welcome to the Vergecast Special Edition. I'm Neil Ipatel. Are we sure we run the music the whole time, Creighton? Alright, I'm Neil Ipatel. I'm joined by Matt McCary in Arizona. What's up, dude? Hey, how's it going? Pretty well. And we have Brian Bishop on the phone. Right, Brian? Hey, gentlemen, how's it going? It's going really well. So, Brian, this is a crazy edition of our special edition. It's also the second episode, so I guess it's not that crazy. But Brian is live from the trial. So this week, the trial was scheduled for five days of testimony. And so Brian is there today. And this is your lunch break? Are you eating a sandwich? I'm not eating a sandwich right now. I'm in my car in a parking structure next to the courthouse. So it's very exciting. Wow. Are you selling drugs? What's going on? I don't like to talk about that. Alright, so I know you have a limited amount of time. Let's talk about what's going on. So, real quick, Brian, you want to give us the rundown of what happened on Thursday and Friday last week and into this week? Yeah, well, first off the bat, something interesting this morning. Judge Coe asked basically both Apple and Samsung CEOs to get together to talk one more time before the trial goes to the jury for deliberation. They've done that a number of times before. And I think we'll do it one more time again today. They're hoping to go. She was really pushing it evident. All of it has been this week. Apple wants to call Susan Careback one more time. Who can't do it until Monday. But Judge Surek said if you can't get Karen this week, she's just going to be out for money. And also, down the case, basically, she cut three phones, the International, the Galaxy S, Galaxy S2, and the S8, from the trial altogether because Apple couldn't prove that they were sold in the U.S. So, she's asking to go and trim down their claims even further. She's done a bunch of stuff that happened this morning. And the last couple of days, we saw Samsung finally going to kick into their case after Apple, basically. After that, in terms of their two patents that Apple has in fringe, that was all this morning. It was a pretty dry stop. We're talking about, you know, a new central patent, you know, 3G, you know, back at lag. And, you know, regulating power for channel like super dry stop. And it kind of started because out of nowhere, that company just played that division test, and they can chew and tell employees with no context whatsoever. And then, by an expert afterwards to kind of explain that, he's still on the stand. So, he's going to be wrapping up. She's going to take it back. He wrapped up right before lunch. We have a Samsung, another Samsung designer coming in. You know, we just started like two minutes before lunch break and can start again. And that follows an icon designer that Samsung called yesterday, who kind of gives some insight into their design process. It was a little weird, actually. They kind of started talking about, you know, how hard Samsung designers work. Apple's obviously pushing out how dedicated their team is, how much they work. And then, the same thing, she mentioned that they're working on the Galaxy S. She only slept two or three hours a night and kind of out of nowhere just volunteered that she just had a baby at the time. That it's the first time away from baby. And then, she said she had to stop breastfeeding, which was just odd, but definitely conveyed that they're committed. You know, she was definitely committed to her job. Yeah, it's human interest. That's what they're doing. Yeah, absolutely. But it made a point. And it's interesting. The industrial designer that's speaking today as well as the icon designer, both from Korea, they speak Korean, and they're having a translator go. And in both cases, we kind of saw John Kren emerge from the shadows, kind of question both of those witnesses again. Ah, John Kren. Yeah, and so he's kind of emerging again. And obviously, I imagine those that are definitely are very carefully constructed orchestrated. They don't want to throw anything out of the way of a translator involved. So it makes sense. But interesting changes because Charles Verhoeven has been dealing with a lot of this for the most part. I mean, so it sounds like Samsung is kind of their opening tack was to go with the invalidity kind of argument, right? Definitely. Yeah, they introduced that they showed two different data witnesses. There are two different products they focused on, one called LaunchTile, one called the DiamondTouch Table. They had a number of witnesses speak about that. Ah, the Mitsubishi DiamondTouch. You ever remember that? It's an amazing product that changed the world. You know, it's an overhead projector, you know, shining, you know, images down on a capacitor. There's three of those software that are actually really interesting. One is called Practice Room, also from the man who brought. And that does show very similar single finger touch going and, you know, your gestures, I mean, you know, zooming, that kind of stuff. And it was pretty compelling when they showed it. And the other piece of software was a little bit less so it was called LaunchTile. And it was like a UI that was developed. And they actually showed it running on the iPack, which is another famous pitching tool. Right. And basically had a rough-to-puxon-ish kind of invert bounce-back feature. Long story short, on this jigger UI, you have like a huge field of tiles you can drill down one level for this. You can cut into quarters and each picture one of those tiles. If you scroll a little bit, you know, left or right or up and down, it didn't go far enough. And the page would kind of like, you know, snap back. And the inference is that that was similar to the bounce-back feature. If you scroll to the edge with this thing, it didn't do anything special. There was no, you know, revealing the blank space and having it bounce back to the edge. So, as a visual cue, it was interesting. There wasn't necessarily a direct corollary to bounce-back patent. The more visual example was the thing called Tablecloth that was on the Diamond Touch. And that was basically, they showed it to us, it looked like a Windows desktop. And you could use a finger to go and scroll up or down and it would reveal a second desktop right behind it like a mirror and it's the exact same image. And then you let go of that, it would snap back again. So, once again, interesting visual similarity, but not the same functionality. I mean, definitely not, you know, what was described in the bounce-back patent, which is very, very specific about what they're doing, you know, how that process works. Right. So, Matt, let me ask you. You're a patent lawyer, right? Aren't you? Isn't that what you do for us? I don't know. You just hang out. What's your take on kind of this prior art that they're showing and how it kind of relates to Apple's bigger case? Well, I've said from the beginning, I think that's where their best case is for defense because I don't think they really have much of a non-infringement argument, at least on these older models that used to practice these various features. But, you know, I don't know how a jury is going to perceive it because I think, well, the bounce-back feature, whatever they call it in that Diamond Touch, is not the same thing. It doesn't match up very well with the claims. But, you know, that doesn't necessarily mean a jury won't kind of draw the, won't kind of put it on top of there and figure out a way to see it as an invalidating reference. But I just don't. What were the other ones? What did they use for invalidity on the tap, tap to zoom, Brian? That hasn't shown up yet. I mean, there was a, it seemed like they were kind of hinting at it with the, with launch tile and that, you know, if you could like with zoom up. But in terms of that being a very specific thing, you know, you double tap or you single tap and it zooms up. They haven't had any direct corollaries to that one. The one I think they have a really good shot with though is fractal zoom because that pretty much looks like the exact same thing. So Brian, what's the jury when they're going through this and I, you know, I completely agree with Matt that invalidity, I think Samsung's devices, especially the older ones, the Galaxy S and the S2, I mean, they do the same thing. So, you know, there's the non-infringement is whatever. But I think the better argument and kind of the argument that I think most of us believe should be true is the invalidity argument that these ideas have been around that Apple got patents on them by drafting claims around the prior art. What's the jury when, when, what's the jury looking like when they're going through kind of the technical here's X, it doesn't compare to Apple's Y. Are they engaged? Are they bored? What's the situation? They're into everything as long as it seems to be, you know, visual or design related. And I think that's the way it feels in the court in general, like everybody's engaged by that stuff. When it starts going down into the real specifics of technical patent stuff today, it gets really, really snooty. It's hard to go and stay engaged because they're going down to such a level. You know, they're, they're seeing source code today that wasn't being shown up on the public screen that we couldn't see. But you get that level of granularity that it's just, you know, it's just hard to be engaged with. I might set up here as well as I could have by dropping into this stuff today, kind of out of left field. But, you know, for the most part of all the design stuff, they're really, they're really engaged. And, you know, several of the examples Samsung showed earlier this week in terms of prior art for the iPhone and iPad design patent was compelling. You know, there's, I mean, they're not necessarily the exact same kind of device. When you look at all the illustrations up together next to the iPhone patents, they do look like, you know, rectangles. They do have like center screens. There's a lot of similar elements there. So it depends, I think, on how well the jury is going to go and, and buy into, you know, what the distinguishing elements of those features are. Like how, how broad is this, you know, a center screen? You know, how important is the low lines on the side? How important is the notion of a bezel in terms of an actual bezel or the impression of one from, you know, a plastic, you know, a line of plastic? It kind of comes down to how they're going to interpret all this stuff. Yeah. So actually let me talk about non-infringement for a second, because I just, I just remembered something that I definitely wanted to talk about. Last week, Brian, you caused what I would call a firestorm of controversy. But because Samsung was trying to show that its devices did not infringe several of Apple's patents, I think chief among them, the scroll back patent, the bouncing scroll, everybody knows what I'm talking about. And they were showing some devices and it wasn't clear what they were showing. And it wasn't clear that they were even using the devices in a way that would cause behavior. And you wrote they're trying to mislead the jury in a headline, which I agreed with. And I think Brian agreed with, too. Can you explain what was going on with that argument and why you reacted so strongly to it? Well, there are about three or four examples over the course of the day. And there's per start up that they were showing a Galaxy Tab, the seven is the original Galaxy Tab. And basically saying, like, you know, look, it doesn't go and have this bounce back feature to which the experts said, well, no, it does in the version I did. And there are several different applications in which it has that functionality. And it's such like a direct assault, it's like, no, you're just lying. It was just a weird way to approach it because it wasn't necessarily like they're talking about the new show, the specifics. It was just a device, didn't say what version of the OS it was running, didn't say what version of TouchWiz it was running. Here's something that has that same poor factor that doesn't do this. You know, we're going to infer here that you're wrong, that you're incorrect in your line, which is just weird because there can be a version depending on, you know, software pick back up that doesn't have the behavior. But those are important elements that determine whether that's legitimate or not. You know, like you have to go by that, in fact, they just presented that with no context. Felt really, really weird. And they called it up later, they were showing bounce back features with the one in the browser, scrolling up and down, a thing like, look, we're scrolling up and down and it's not having the bounce back. But they weren't scrolling all the way to the edge of the screen, which is what activates the bounce back in the first place. And the witness corrected them and it was just kind of odd. And they went back to another one, they were talking about, you know, single finger scrolling, dual finger scrolling, you know, dual finger gestures and they said, they have to witness, you know, do any of the Galaxy Tab have dual finger scrolling? And he said, no, it doesn't. They said, well, yes, it does. And they basically showed a video of a user, you know, basically scrolling with two fingers, but what they were doing is they were, you know, moving their fingers, you know, in and out while they were going, pinched and doing while they were scrolling. It also works on an iPhone the same way or an iPad the same way and trying to misrepresent that as two fingers scrolling was incorrect. I mean, that's not the way the devices worked. If you're talking about Samsung devices, you know, scroll with one finger and then have gestures with two, they do. Right. So Matt, let me ask you, is this just more courtroom theatrics? Is this what patent attorneys trying to do in front of a jury to try to, I mean, is this presenting a case zealously? Or is this technical incompetence? It's lame. It's lame. It's lame because, you know, there's times when there's gray areas in how you describe things compared to the claim language and whether or not you're arguing about whether your features the same or if it's operating the same way. But when you're actually, you know, kind of playing games like that, I don't know what you're going to prove because I assume you mean it sounds like the expert called them on it. Yeah. And even if the expert wouldn't have, you know, that Apple's attorneys would have on redirect. So I just think it makes you look bad and I don't think it gets you anywhere. I mean, what's the bad thing? Do you think that they have a good non infringement tactic at all? I mean, you're Samsung's attorney. What do you what do you say? I think on the designs, maybe better. I don't think they really have that. I mean, it sounds like the no, I think on the designs, it's about it because I don't think that what's come out. I mean, we saw some of these dealt with, especially design patents, preliminary injunction motion and co judge co said, you know, she pretty much dismissed all the claims except ended up being the tap 10.1. But in each case, the design path, she says there I think there's one that she didn't, but it's likely infringed and likely valid, but there's no irreparable harm. So, I mean, we're talking about the same basic priority. Now, I don't know if the diamond touch was part of it, but I know that other table. What's it called? Brian, what's the second one? What is it? Launch Tile? Oh, launch tile. Yeah. Okay. Yes. That was that was part of the preliminary injunction motion as well, and it didn't win the day, obviously. So, no, I think on the designs, they might have I mean, jury's different than judge code. They can convince the jury, you know, where they couldn't convince judge go, but I still don't really see the utility patents getting knocked out. And I think it's pretty clear they're infringed. So, I mean, that's if you knock out one or two of the designs and maybe one of the utilities, I mean, you still have a pretty big case going forward for Apple. Whether it's injunction or damages, most likely damages, it's still a significant amount. So, let me let me ask about in terms of paring this down. Samsung argued that Apple shouldn't have included the international Galaxy S, the S2 and the Galaxy Ace, which is funny because I ranted and raved about why the Galaxy Ace was in the trial last week. So, I'm assuming Samsung listened to me and took action upon my words. Obviously. What does that mean? I mean, the Galaxy S2 in particular, the international S2 was a massive selling device, a huge hit around the world. Does that affect their damages calculation? Does that affect? I mean, and, you know, in many ways, I think the S2 and the Ace, they touch on those design patents much more directly than some of the other products. The epic touch 4G, right? I mean, I don't think that it's a QWERTY slider. It looks appreciably different. Whereas the Ace and the S2, they look very much like the iPhone. Does getting on the case reduce Apple's damages claim? Does it reduce the effectiveness of their case? Matt, what's kind of your sense there? And then Brian, I want to get your sense about how that's playing out in front of like the jury. My sense is that it's not a huge, you know, this is the hard part. We haven't been able to get exact number breakdowns of where each one of these phones kind of falls into the damage model. Yeah. So I know that the S, you know, there's a big part of these that are US sales. And to be realistic, the international was i9000 and i9100. Yep. S1 and S2 variants. Those should never been in the case because they were, there's never any indication that they were sold directly to the US other than through some. Yeah, through resellers. Internet purchase, you know, got shipped there. But so I don't really see it. I don't know. I don't know if it's maybe Brian has a better idea because he's heard him talking about that and kicking those phones out of the trial. But I haven't really seen a number attached to them. Right. Well, Brian, let's talk about when they got kicked out because it was another contentious Samsung moment in the court when they were arguing that they should kick these phones out. Can you talk us through what happened there and sort of what the judge and Samsung's attorneys were discussing? Yeah, well, it's funny because like, you know, at the end, you know, we've seen, we saw this in Gorical as well. You know, at the end of the case, you know, each side kind of like, you know, files for a judgment basically, you know, for things, right? In this case, Samsung basically said, you know, we want to go and, you know, file that Apple then query things. So we should just random and everything's good. And just, you know, the day leading up, she said, like, hey, you know, I just want to do these. I want the rule 50 thing to be big deal. I want to move on with the trial. And when it happened, you know, Samsung wanted to go and provide a lengthy argument. You know, they wanted to go on and, like, you know, mention multiple details about, you know, why they thought Apple, you know, had improved the case and whatnot. And Co got very, very frustrated and was like, basically, I've never had anybody need to go and, you know, file like a written brief for rule 50. This is ridiculous. And they made their card with the media and finally she said, OK, and it went on for about an hour. Like, I know it took a while. Yeah. But it was interesting because they talked about these phones. She rejected, you know, basically rejected everything else that they requested except for these three phones. But Apple didn't put up a fight like Apple. Very, you know, there's a brief discussion about it in Apple. And basically she said, like, you know, what's the deal? Apple said, OK, and then that was just over. It was kind of like this. So it kind of felt like Apple wasn't fighting that hard for it either. Right. I mean, because why would they? Who cares? I mean, they're not selling it. Because there's a loser. Yeah. Yeah. It just seems weird that they would have included that in the first place, except for the fact that they're trying to go and get like the market marquee, like non carrier branded versions of these things up here. Just like they're just pure in title, you know, Galaxy S. And also the truth is, you know, a lot of those comparison documents that we've seen have been for, you know, the original Galaxy S, not the domestic variant. It's just, you know, the icon comparison, you know, just like to a tree at this point. You document control, patent conduct, comparing the iPhone to the Galaxy S, the G9000 thing, you know, how can we improve it to be more like the iPhone? And so I feel like that motivated part of what I wanted it in there. Because if it's not in a certain point, maybe those documents don't hold as much water. Yeah. But it wasn't like Apple put up a huge string with spiders at the end of the day. Kind of like, you know, let it go and move on. Well, yeah, I mean, I think you're right. I mean, I think they got to they got to do discovery on the Galaxy S2, which is the phone that led to all the U.S. variants. And then when Samsung threw it out, they're like, whatever, we got our necessary evidence in front of the jury. And now we can just say, like, you saw the Samsung fascinate became was from the S2 and here's the process that led to the S2. I'm not sure that they couldn't have gotten there in a more indirect way by saying the precursor, but they did it. They accomplished their goal. So, Brian, let's talk a little bit about what happened today with the judge asking, asking both sides to pare down their cases, saying, please don't confuse the jury. Get your CEOs together. You both have a lot to lose. What's your sense there from her? I mean, what was that? What was that moment like? She's always I mean, since the beginning of this thing, she's been pushing everybody to go and like, you know, come down because she does not want to have a long trial. She just wants to move along. You know, she has, you know, criminal cases coming up. She wants to move on to. So she's never been shy about basically saying, you know, like, you know, cut it down, be reasonable. But it was interesting because, you know, she started out narrowing, basically bringing up the three phones that have been kicked out as an example of like, you know, hey, you know, guys really didn't need to go ask for Apple. Maybe you can kind of go through as well. A couple more and a couple more lines. But then she asked the CEOs to meet again and both sides agreed readily. There wasn't any hesitation there. But it was interesting because she kind of she called out a couple of things. She said, you know, basically, I think things can be in store for, you know, for both sides. If this goes to trial, you know, even that, you know, we get a verdict, not the hung jury. It can still play out bad. And then she kind of called out. It was really, really great. She said, the whole reason you guys are doing this is just to make everybody really, really aware of your intellectual property. Now it's time to stop. It was crazy if I called it out. Because obviously that's a lot of what's going on here. I think there's a lot of, you know, a lot of, you know, chess feeding on Apple's part, you know, to make everybody really, really scared to go and mess with their designs and their patents and force people to go and design around. Yeah. In other ways, she's doing what she has to do because you're never going to get people to settle if you unless you convince them they both have something to lose. So, I mean, she's kind of just doing what every judge would do. Well, I mean, my assumption is that the settlement talks have been going on in the background of this the entire time. I mean, Matt, I mean, there's no way you would have a trial without constantly talking about settlement with the other side. No, I think there's been a lot of settlement. I think it's, I mean, that brings up a good point. Those documents that came up at the end of last week that showed that they, you know, exactly the details of some of the offers that Apple made or the deal they were trying to work out at least initially with Samsung. That's been going on many, many more times than we could possibly know, I'm sure. Even up to date, I mean, I think those talks that we've seen right before the trial and then like a month or two before that, those are just, you know, kind of the judge forced them to get in the same room. But I'm sure it's nothing more than they've been doing already. Well, I mean, do you think that actually Co saying you've got to get Tim Cook, you've got to get the CEO of Samsung, whose name I'm just not going to butcher in this forum. You've got to get these guys together in a room and they've got to be the ones who make the settlement agreement. I mean, do you think that the lawyers are having settlement conversations and Co is just pushing the actual executives to do something or is this a show? I don't know how helpful it is because we've already seen them get in a room together. Yeah. Least twice. Right. And nothing's come of it. And I think we have a pretty good idea why. I mean, I don't think, I mean, we've seen kind of surprisingly just how willing Apple was. And I want to qualify that they were very willing to settle. But, you know, think about their offer. They're willing to give them their whole portfolio, even these quote unquote fundamental core patents. But the price was very high. And I think there was a big dispute here, I think, and the reason it's not settling is because in the end, in these cross license deals, you usually have a net winner, a net payer and a net winner. And I think Apple's asking for a huge amount of money and getting all of Samsung's portfolio in a cross license and only giving them like a 20 percent discount based on that portfolio. So they're coming out with big money on the other end of that. And there's ego problems with that with Samsung. There's value problems because they do have whether or not it's really the same type of portfolio. It's pretty clear it's not. Yeah. But there's still a lot of value in it, you know, with regard to some of these standards patents and some of the kind of core fundamental hardware patents. So I think it's I think it's just that Apple would settle. I just think that they probably aren't moving off to moving off those big numbers. Brian, they are big there. I mean, they're huge. They're compared to we thought Motorola's offers at, you know, two point two dollars and twenty five cents a unit were insane or two dollars and twenty two point two five percent. That's what it was. Yeah. Yeah. It was. That's what it was. Not dollars. I'm crazy. They want 30 bucks for a night for Samsung phone and 40 bucks for a tablet. I mean, that's that's bonkers. So, Brian, let me ask you when you're in the courtroom and this is this is wild. I'm basically asking you to like do like us magazine body language reading here. I mean, what what is your read on the lawyers and the executives who are showing up every day? Are they are Apple side like ignoring Samsung? Are they are they talking to each other before and after? Are they throwing spitballs at each other? What's what's your vibe of the emotion in the room? You're not seeing anybody talking to each other. And that was that's a big difference from Google Oracle because they would always kind of powwow or be fine. There seems I don't want to say this like it's not really contentious, but it does seem like they know they are like hanging out and chatting it up and being cool. You know, after everything wraps, it's usually like one side on their side, the other side on the other side. In terms of executives, there's been some Samsung executives that have been in the overflow courtroom, some that are, you know, in the stand. They're just very, very reserved and are interacting with people in general. But, you know, it's also a matter of, you know, of the styles of the attorneys. Everybody has their own kind of, you know, vibe, you know, in the courtroom. Yeah, and that kind of carries over. You know, when they're arguing about, you know, objections and all these kind of things, you know, that can go and get a little heated. You know, they're both getting pressed by co on both sides. She's having them both to kind of, you know, you know, hurry it along or be more realistic. Any time you get them to go and you know, move things along quicker, she does. And she's not, you know, she doesn't. So if you have both sides, you know, argue to a point that can get a little frustrating and there can be some cutting off and that kind of thing. Now, and that's sometimes happening, you know, depending on what the situation is that can be happening in front of the jury. Right. Although in most cases, they try to keep it really little mellow in front of those guys and that present like a nice, you know, a calm, you know, a calm face. Right. So let me ask you, who is it? It's been what, two weeks, two and a half weeks now this for you. Yeah. Who's the who's kind of the smoothest lawyer on what side? Because I know in Google Oracle, it was clearly Robert Van Ness on the Google side who was leading the charge in terms of being the most charismatic in front of the jury. Who's really leading the charge here? You know, everybody's putting stuff up. It's hard to pick a particular person. I think Charles Verhoeven is actually pretty good because he's good when witnesses can kind of get can kind of get defensive. You know, he's good at kind of, you know, being fun. And so is Bill Price, for that matter, both on the Samsung side. They're both like really, really good and working with witness. You know, with Apple, you have William Lee, who can who he's good at is going for people. Yeah. You know, without me like a big jerk, he can kind of like, you know, do those great, you know, it's almost like a courtroom TV moment where he's like, you know, what about this? And you're like, oh, no, no, no. That without coming up like a jerk. And Michael Jacobson also, you know, attorney for Oracle, he does always feel vaguely just kind of quoting about everything. He's just not very engaging on a human personal level. I don't feel like. Yeah. Which I think is a problem in Oracle, actually. Oracle. Yeah. So it kind of, you know, it kind of, you know, it kind of varies from person to person. You know, the one person I think that Bill, you know, has been attached to the menace may. I don't know if the jury feels this way because they didn't see what we saw. But it's important. That's every time, you know, John Quinn on Samson steps up, you're expecting something outrageous to happen. But that was just a tone he set early on. That's probably why he hasn't been around so much. Yeah. Well, I mean, he did make it seem like he was and he's not he's like a famous litigator, you know, like he's he's a high end attorney. He's he's not a cheap guy to have on your side. And it's funny that he set this tone of being completely out of control at the beginning because that's not his like, you know, both sides, both of these teams are so smart and so good and so professional. You know, it's neat to go and see them do this thing, even if they're like, you know, strange tactics. But these are all just like really, really smart people and everything they do, I think, you know, is very, very calculated and intelligent. There's always a motivation behind it. So I was talking to Brian about that. And he said, it's interesting that Judge Alsop in the Gorko case was very I mean, I think there's a couple of times he said, you know, great arguments. He was kind of appreciated the lawyering that was going on to the most extent. But Coe is I mean, she's she's just had it. I mean, to come right out and say, you know, I need a written down. I need evidence because I don't trust anything you guys say in this courtroom. Yeah, I mean, that's that's pretty harsh. You don't hear that very often from a judge talking to lawyers that are representing clients in front of her. I mean, that's that's bizarre. Well, I think there's I think, you know, my theory on this is this goes back to them trying to settle. I think the gamesmanship at trial is ultimately about leverage in these other conversations that are happening. And I think on many levels, both Samsung and Apple, maybe not at the legal division, but in the executive division, cannot believe that this has gotten this far and that there will be a resolution and the jury will make a decision. And that, you know, either Samsung has to pay two billion dollars or Apple has to pay however much and have some of its patents invalidated that they think are treasures. You know, I don't think their executives believe that that day will come. And so they're playing this game brinksmanship and they're using the court as a proxy. And I think Judge Coe really sees that. I think she understands that that really what's happening in her courtroom is a proxy for what's happening in a settlement or conference room somewhere in settlement negotiations. And she's really irritated about it. I mean, that's a sense of getting. I mean, do you think they're going to settle before or during deliberations? I yeah, I kind of do at this point. I kind of do. It just it's so dumb. I mean, how can you run one of these companies? If you're Tim Cook in the jury is in deliberations, how can you say we're going to leave it up to the nine guys? Right, Brian, or nine people rather? Yeah, we're going to leave it up to these nine strangers who we don't know to decide the value of our patent portfolio and the value of what Samsung did to us in the past with these other devices. If you're running Samsung, how do you say we're going to let these nine people decide if we have to pay Apple two billion dollars like that to me is great. You know, you made your case, you presented it, you know, the verge ran 100 stories about your internal documents. Like, that's great. And it's all wonderful. But at the end of the day, it just these companies have to continue to compete. And on a broader level, they have to continue to partner. And if they can't figure this out, I mean, I do think it'll be like the last day of deliberation unless the jury goes away for like 10 minutes and they come out and they're like, yep, they did it. Like, I don't know. You know, I could. I mean, I think it would be the best of both worlds if they did, because we get all the fun. We had all the fun that we had. And yet the market doesn't really change that much. You know, there's and I think behavior has changed, like we talked about last week. Yeah. I think things are different between what Samsung is doing now and what they did then. So that's, you know, perhaps a good thing. So I think you still get the change you maybe want. You get some value because I'm sure that there would be some money exchanging hands in any settlement. And and like I said, we got we got to write about the stuff and see all these cool documents. And oddly enough, Apple didn't really I think a lot of people worried they would settle or thought they might settle because they'd be afraid of all these documents. But for the most part, this stuff that we saw was all very interesting, but it's all historical. Well, you know, I I talked to a source of mine, a person who worked on the iPhone, and I said, you had better get ready to relive 2006 before the trial started. You better get ready to relive 2006 because you're going to see every everything that ever happened. I mean, that time of your life is going to be poured over and examined by the press. And we're going to talk about any this person. He she mermaid. Merman could be anyone said to me, that's cool. I want people to know how much hard work we did to make the iPhone because nothing like it existed before. And I think that was the attitude at Apple. I think it's like whatever it's out, you know, we're not talking about the iPhone five. We're not talking about the next iPad. We're talking about it came out three years ago and changed the industry. The have at it. This is here are all of our bad ideas. It didn't change the industry. You know, like I don't think they care. And you know that to me, this this idea that Apple is some like irrational, crazy actor that doesn't know how to run a business and is like purely emotional and operates on passion alone is insane. Thermal nuclear thing. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like, look, so, yeah. So Steve Jobs might have been the CEO of Apple and he might have said, I'm going to blow up Android, spend all the money. But he had to report to a board of directors and he had an army of employees who could say that is stupid. Like, ultimately, that is stupid. And I don't think even even Steve Jobs, I don't think had the power to say we're going to blow all of Apple's enormous amount of cash reserves on killing Android just because I'm mad. I think it's something there are plenty of checks and balances in that system. So, Brian, I know you're going back into the trial, right? You're running out. I need to jump off. Yeah, we're starting up in seven minutes here. So I need to jet. All right. Well, hey, this it's I think next week. It's not five days next week, is it? No, no. We're three days from here on out. And like unless you know, Co is hoping that they're going to the jury is going to be into liberations, you know, next week. So this thing is going to be progressing even quicker. All right. Well, Brian, it's great to have you. We're looking forward to more reports this week from you and we'll have you in the podcast again next week. Absolutely. Thanks a lot, guys. Take care. All right. Take it easy. All right, Matt. Any last you cut off Matt. There's Matt again. Now you got two Brines. That's right. Two Brides is better than one man. Can we get a baton on two Brines? Double Brian? Yeah. Can we file? Matt, can you write something up? So, Matt, let me get some last thoughts before we go. I mean, how do you how do you think Samsung's on the offensive now? Right. They've done invalidity. They're starting to get into their friend patents, all this other stuff. How do you think their offensive case is going to play with the jury? And then we can. Well, I've been I've been trying to get a feel for that from Brian yesterday and today. It sounds like it's really kind of scattered. They were jumping around between kind of their offensive case. Now that they're presenting the primary, doing all the direct examinations, they were jumping between, you know, kind of invalidity, non-infringement, jump back to their offensive case on their patents. And I think now it's kind of settled into just their offensive case today on their patents. And my guess is it's incredibly boring. They have you know, unfortunately, they have to have translators in there for a couple of witnesses. So it's very methodical and dry and slow. Yeah. And I think that doesn't help. And I just learned something from Brian today, which is really bizarre to me, is that as they were as they were questioning, I mean, they were presenting their evidence on these Fram patents, which we know are the case. And that's from the very beginning. I thought that was the biggest snafu that Samsung made is keeping those patents in the case going before a jury. Because first you have Apple presenting their story, their narrative, their copiers and innovators. And then you then you get to the where Apple's defending and then they get to bring that story back up and say, see these bad guys? Now they're trying to throw Fram patents at us, standard patents. It's desperation. So I figured, you know, they would by the end, they would just eliminate those. And that's because there's such a such a wart on their case that I had a hard time believing they would keep it. But then I found out today that for some reason, something's happened in this case. And I'm not sure where if there's been some briefing that we didn't see. But they're the judge. And Samsung is basically keeping Apple from really asking these experts anything about Fram issues. I mean, they're talking about the wireless technology. They're talking about whether it's actually performed by the iPhone and the iPad, which ones. And they're talking about licensing, I think, with Qualcomm and Infineon. But when it gets to actually Apple trying to tell a story about these are Fram patents and are standard and you can't do this with them, it's getting cut off. Really? The judge is cutting them off? Yeah, apparently they're they're objecting and the judge is sustaining the objections on those issues. And I'm not sure if that's because they haven't opened the door enough to it. But I don't know why, because to me, that's I mean, the easy argument for Apple there is we can talk about this all day long because it affects the damages we have to pay on these patents because they're Fram patents. And the percentages are lower and you can talk about what it means to be Fram. Yeah, but for some reason, they're just they haven't been able to get into that story. And that could be huge for Samsung if they can present these paths as kind of normal patents and not really get into the obligations. Yeah, under Fram, I think they can avoid that stigma. Well, but there isn't honestly the legal mechanics of this are so opaque. But, you know, they don't have Apple doesn't have the breach of contract claim at issue here. I mean, it's just a patent infringement claim. It's either you do or you don't. Not you did in for this past. Yeah, you've got to you've got to put the claim in there, though. Right. I mean, it's you either you do infringer patent or you don't. And then the stuff of well, we had to infringe patent or to use the standard or we have a contract with the standards group that you will license the patent to us. That to me, I mean, that's those are alternate claims, aren't they? Yeah. Yeah, but I don't understand. I guess they've tried to actually talk about it. That's that's the weird they've they've they keep trying to go in on this and and Samson's quick to object. And the court's keeping them away from it. Well, and it seems like if you're arguing not infringement, you could also be arguing. Maybe maybe it's a case. OK, now you bring up you bring up your you do cross on. I don't know. To me, it seems like these witnesses would be the witnesses. But maybe it's just because they're experts on infringement. Right. And that's not relative to the to the front. So at some point they'll have somebody up there that can actually testify as to the standards part of it. Yeah. You think Apple's going to put up somebody some old French engineer from from Etsy? Yes. To be like, yeah, that'll be great. All right. Well, Matt, I think we should wrap this up. We've we've gone plenty deep this week. Always a pleasure to have you. Ghost Brian. I'm going to miss you next Wednesday. Crayton. That's next Wednesday. We're doing this again and we'll be cruising towards either a jury or a settlement by then. I would say this case is like three quarters done. I mean, the fact that Cole was trying to still streamline the case more didn't really make sense to me because cases almost done. I think she doesn't want to hand that big sheet of paper to the jury that says here's 50 flames and 20 phones. That's that's got to be it. So we'll see what she does. We'll be tracking that Brian's there. They started again according to his seven minute calculation. And we'll keep you updated for the rest of the week. And we'll be back again with the podcast next Wednesday. So thanks very much for listening. This has been the VirgCast special edition. Apple versus Samsung. Matt, thanks a lot, buddy. Yeah, good times. Well, thanks, Wednesday.