SAN JOSE, CA – Apple made its opening statements to jurors Tuesday in Day Two of the Apple v. Samsung trial. The company outlined the motivations behind its lawsuit against Samsung – essentially, it thinks Samsung is a blatant copycat – as well as its defense against Samsung's countersuit in the multi-pronged intellectual property case.

Before the jury was brought in, one juror was dismissed after sharing information on financial and emotional hardship she didn't earlier anticipate. Judge Lucy Koh next provided the remaining nine jurors with additional information on the patent system and the difference between design and utility patents, and then Apple attorney Harold McElhinny kicked off Apple's 90-minute opening statement.

McElhinny was both pleasant and persuasive in his presentation to jurors – he's clearly a practiced storyteller. He started with pictures of what Samsung phones looked like before the iPhone's debut in January 2007, and then showed what they looked like afterwards. McElhinny then provided an overview of Apple's product history, touching on the original Macintosh computer released in 1984 and the best-selling iPod of 2001.

‬"Has anyone paid for these patents before? No one has. No one has paid a penny for these patents.” –Bill Lee, Apple attorney‪‬McElhinny emphasized that the iPhone, which was "not a product that any company has ever made," was a risk for Apple, but ended up paying off in the form of critical praise and awards for design and ingenuity.

"A competitor like Samsung could not make the same kind of phones it made in 2006," McElhinny said. "Samsung had two choices: Accept the challenge of the iPhone, come up with its own designs, and beat Apple fairly in the market, or it could copycat it." He went on to say that "it's easier to copy than innovate."

Slides showing a number of Samsung internal memos and documents provided examples of how Samsung had used the iPhone as a model to improve phones like those in its Galaxy S line.

After McElhinny provided more detail about the "spectrum" of 12 patents involved on Apple's end of the case, a second Apple attorney, Bill Lee, took to the stand to address Samsung's allegations against Apple with regards to Samsung's 3G-related utility pants.

"Has anyone paid for these patents before?" Lee asked. "No one has. No one has paid a penny for these patents." For infringing on its 3G patent, Samsung is demanding $12 for every iPhone and iPad sold. Lee contrasted this amount to the $10 cost of the baseband chip that accomplishes Apple's 3G functionality.

Lee explained that Apple will argue that it is not infringing on any Samsung patents. Lee said that Samsung has declared its 3G-related patents "essential," but, in fact, Apple accomplishes its 3G functionality without infringing on specific Samsung technology.

Lee also made the point that the patents in question deal with old technology – all of the patents were filed before 2007. He said Samsung didn't disclose it held its 3G patents in a timely manner, and didn't take any steps to make such utility patents FRAND (that is, "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory," a legal term).

Apple and Samsung are each accusing the other of intellectual property infringement. According to Apple, Samsung is infringing on design patents pertaining to the iPhone and iPad, as well as voice and search functionality patents. Samsung is accusing Apple of infringing on 3G transmission-related patents.

Yesterday, Apple and Samsung's lawyers completed jury selection for the trial, which is expected to last through most of August.