Apple v. Sam­sung has been an inter­est­ing trial to fol­low — see The Verge’s excel­lent cov­er­age for enough details to keep you busy for a day and a half.

The fact that Samsung’s lawyers seem to be as inept as Sam­sung at argu­ing their case is both sad and hilarious:

On the topic of dam­ages, Charles Arthur writes for the Guardian that when rebut­ting Apple’s $2+ bil­lion figure:

Sam­sung argued that Apple, which was strug­gling to keep up with demand for the iPhone 4 from July to Octo­ber of 2010, did not have the capac­ity to have deliv­ered on those addi­tional sales. “Apple couldn’t ser­vice its own cus­tomers with the iPhone 4, but it could ser­vice cus­tomers it didn’t have?” Sam­sung attor­ney Bill Price asked…

This took my breath away. Here’s an oppor­tu­nity to say “These peo­ple chose to buy Sam­sung instead of Apple. We are clearly bring­ing some­thing to the table,” but instead, Price con­cedes “These peo­ple set­tled for Sam­sung because they couldn’t have found an iPhone any­way.” (Sam­sung may well know this for a fact because it’s sup­ply­ing many of the com­po­nents Apple needs to sat­isfy cus­tomer demand; see “hav­ing Apple’s num­ber” above.) It was extremely shortsighted.