Kare in the cross hairs
During his time with Kare, Samsung attorney Verhoeven turned on a Samsung phone. Before the applications page Kare said she spent time analyzing popped up, several screens displaying distinct Samsung markers - like the company's logo - appeared.
Verhoeven's point was that by the time a consumer got to the applications, they'd recognize they weren't using an iPhone.
Kare responded by saying she's not a consumer expert and hasn't studied "startup experience."
App by app, Verhoeven would dissect Samsung's features and icons, causing Kare to concede the differences or omissions between the two phones on specifics, like Samsung's calendar icon.
Article continues below
Verhoeven ended his time with Kare by striking where Samsung hopes to sway the jury into taking Apple's expert witness testimony with a grain of salt - at how much she's getting paid.
Kare said she's made about $80,000 on the case thus far at a rate of $550 an hour…just another hired Apple gun in Samsung's eyes.
Apple's next witness was Russell Winer, a marketing expert and New York University's Stern School of Business marketing chair.
Winer came right out in discussing the market dilution that occurs when there is customer confusion about products.
He made the claim Samsung set Apple's products - which he described as having appearances that are some of the "most distinctive in the world" - in its sites and tried to emulate them.
After being shown an internal Samsung document saying the iPad is "still the most recognized product on the market," leading it to design the Galaxy 10.1 because the company viewed the competing tablet as a product to be emulated.
Samsung's emulation, Winer concluded, led to market dilution, therefore harming Apple's ability to make money. The iPad, he said later, has a clear place in the market, while the Galaxy Tab dimished Apple's marketing strategy.
Verhoeven began his cross-examination by pointing out Winer has made $50,000 as an Apple expert thus far, bringing the bill for Apple's three expert witnesses to about $200,000.
He then sliced into Winer's assertions, saying the expert's theories have no data from Apple to back them up.
Finding 'secondary meaning'
Tuesday's last witness was Hal Poret, a researcher at ORC International. Poret, tasked with determining whether the iPhone and iPad have a "secondary meaning" for consumers, prepared a survey for Apple.
Poret's survey found that 60 percent of those asked associated the look of the iPhone with Apple, while between 57 and 75 percent associated the look of a tablet with the iPad.
"It would basically mean that people have come to know the look of the iPhone so that when they look at it they can tell it's an iPhone just by looking at it," Poret said.
Upon cross-examination, a Samsung attorney pressed Poret about the time frame the survey was taken, suggesting the results would be different at different times.
In response, Poret told the lawyer, "I can tell you're confused."