FORTUNE -- Here's an interesting sequence of events, buried between the lines of a Samsung e-mail trail that Apple (AAPL) entered into evidence as part of its big patent infringement suit, now in its third week.
-- Oct. 4, 2011: From Samsung's VP of U.S. sales Mike Pennington to Samsung America CEO Dale Sohn and chief marketing officer Todd Pendleton.
"As you have shared previously, we are unable to battle [Apple] directly in our marketing. If it continues to be Samsung's position to avoid attacking Apple ... can we go to Google and ask them to launch a campaign against Apple..."
-- Oct. 5, 2011: Steve Jobs dies.
-- Oct. 7, 2011: Pendleton to Pennington.
"Hey Michael, We are going to execute what you are recommending in our holiday [Galaxy S2] campaign and go head to head with iPhone 4S."
We now know, thanks to documents Samsung released as part of its defense, that its mockery of Apple's devoted fan base (best lines: "I could never get a Samsung. I'm creative." "Dude, you're a barista.") drove Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller to distraction.
"I can't help but think," he later wrote Apple's ad agency, that "'these guys are feeling it' (like an athlete who can't miss because they are in the zone) while we struggle to nail a compelling brief on iPhone... Something drastic has to change. Fast."
UPDATE: AppleInsider's Daniel Eran Dilger digs a little deeper in Samsung email targeted Steve Jobs' death as "our best opportunity to attack iPhone"
Samsung told the jury -- 8 times -- that Apple never used 3 of the 5 patents.
FORTUNE -- A certain amount of dissembling is part of the art of lawyering. But even FOSS Patents Florian Mueller, in his new role as Apple (AAPL) scold, agrees that Samsung went too far in its opening arguments.
The issue in the first week of the new Apple v. Samsung trial is what Apple meant by the "undisputed fact" in the attached quote, taken from MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Apr 4, 2014 11:46 AM ET
This time, Apple is keeping it simple: Five patents, 10 Samsung devices.
FORTUNE -- One of the things that marked the first Apple v. Samsung patent infringement trial -- and forced a partial retrial -- was its complexity. It involved:
Three kinds of patents: Design, utility and standards essential
Two kinds of trade dress: Registered and unregistered
21 Samsung devices: Both smartphones and tablets with names like Captivate, Indulge, Mesmerize and Vibrant
Three Samsung corporate MORE
A judge can lead two CEOs to water, but she can't make them drink.
FORTUNE -- A big patent infringement trial is looming. The issues are complex; the docket is jammed. The judge orders the two sides to submit a proposal for mediation. The principals -- the CEOs of Apple (AAPL) and Samsung -- set dates. The press excitedly reports them.
That was in April 2012. The talks, not surprisingly, went nowhere. The MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jan 9, 2014 8:32 AM ET
I thought the judge was coming around to Apple's point of view. I was wrong.
FORTUNE -- The benches were hard. The courtroom was over-cooled. The reporting challenges were daunting (no Wi-Fi, no cellphones, no laptops). But the drama that unfolded over three weeks of testimony was compelling, and I was happy to be one of a handful of reporters who sat through the whole thing.
I thought I had a good handle MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jul 11, 2013 8:28 AM ET
The DOJ will rest its case. Apple will present its defense. Summations on Thursday.
FORTUNE -- Eddy Cue, the alleged "ringmaster" of a conspiracy to raise e-book prices in 2010, returns to a Manhattan federal court Monday in the final four days of the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Apple (AAPL).
Having sailed through a grilling Thursday by the government's lawyer, the star witness of U.S.A. v. Apple will complete the friendly MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 17, 2013 5:47 AM ET
Cue was at the center of what the DOJ calls an illegal scheme to fix the price of e-books.
FORTUNE -- Did Apple (AAPL) take advantage of the turmoil in the digital book market in late 2009 to negotiate favorable deals with five of the six biggest book publishers? Or was it, in fact, the "ringmaster" of an illegal conspiracy that reshaped the industry, forced Amazon (AMZN) and other retailers to MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 13, 2013 7:20 AM ET
The tenor of the Apple trial changed dramatically when Amazon took the stand.
FORTUNE -- The lawyers defending Apple (AAPL) in the e-book antitrust case would like nothing better than to make the trial be about Amazon (AMZN), not their client, and on Wednesday they got their chance when Russell Grandinetti took the stand.
In earlier testimony from two publishing executives -- Penguin's David Shanks and Simon & Schuster's Carolyn Reidy -- MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 6, 2013 7:46 AM ET
Day 2 of the Apple antitrust trial focused on Kevin Saul's price-matching provision.
FORTUNE -- Sometime between New Years Day and Jan. 4, 2010, Kevin Saul, one of Apple's (AAPL) in-house attorneys, sat at his office desk in Cupertino and hammered out a paragraph of legalese that the Department of Justice has characterized as the linchpin of Apple's illegal scheme to raise the price of e-books.
The 48-word paragraph ended up, more MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 5, 2013 7:42 AM ET
The outlines of each side's case were clearly laid in Monday's opening arguments.
FORTUNE -- The first rule of law, goes the old lawyers joke, is that if the facts are against you, you argue the law. The second rule is that if the law is against you, you argue the facts.
Based on each side's opening arguments on the first day of U.S.A. v. Apple, it's clear that the Department of MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 4, 2013 8:06 AM ET
|Delinquent IRS employees paid bonuses by the agency|
|Students cry foul over athletes unionizing|
|Is capitalism driving itself out of business?|
|Sandy Hook victim's grandfather launches smart gun campaign|
|Court quizzes Aereo: Do TV streams break the law?|