
Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes - irunbackwards
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/apple-wins-patent-ruling-as-jury-finds-samsung-infringes/
======
programminggeek
This is both unsurprising and somewhat meaningless as there will be an appeals
process that will last for months and possibly years.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that Samsung made their
products to look like Apple products. They changed their icon styles and other
UI elements away from Android standards to match the Apple style.

Some of the things Apple invented and patented on like pinch to zoom and so on
Samsung used or copied via Android and or their own UI skin on top of Android.

You just have to look at Windows Phone 7 or Windows 8 or Web OS or Blackberry
to realize that you don't have to copy Apple to make a good or great
smartphone. Samsung is much closer with the Galaxy S3, too bad they are still
cranking out iPad clones with the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the like.

~~~
cageface
Apple has done a good job of persuading people that this case was about
protecting innovation and about Samsung's specific alleged infringements of
their patents. But this is nothing more than a smoke screen for their ongoing
proxy war on Android.

They've refused to compete with Android on price, features, and form factors
and the market has punished them for it. Expect more attacks on Android
seeking ridiculous damages for non-essential details of mobile UI design.

However, I strongly suspect Apple is going to regret these tactics in the long
run. Once the tiger is out of the cage there's no telling who he will bite.

~~~
ellyagg
Apart from the specifics of this or any other court case involving Apple
attacking Samsung, I find the desire to defend Samsung odd. Obviously they
copied Apple as much as they felt they could get away with. They did this
because it was a very conservative way to make a lot of money.

This isn't an admirable strategy. It's annoying. It's precisely the strategy
that major movie studios use to give us one boring, risk-free "blockbuster"
after another. The other day I read a history of the making of White Men Can't
Jump:

[http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8266665/an-oral-
history-...](http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8266665/an-oral-history-ron-
shelton-basketball-comedy-white-men-jump)

The head of Fox at the time, Joe Roth, mentions, "That movie wouldn't get made
today. Us moviemaking guys, the studios, have less courage to make a movie
like that today with the kind of racial, sexual overtones." It's sad. I would
appreciate a big budget movie studio that did not consistently churn out the
safest derivative crap they can.

I do appreciate that there's one consumer electronics company that attempts
and succeeds at novel, high risk products. Of course, there's a good chance
that risk taking spark died recently, but I have appreciated its presence
until now.

Maybe patents are bad, but I don't think is a case where that stance holds
much emotional appeal other than to those who like to see Apple lose. Most
people think Samsung clearly did something shady here and deserves to be
punished.

~~~
cageface
I don't have any particular loyalty to Samsung but these cases set a chilling
precedent for the platform that looks likely to dominate the computing
industry for at least the next decade. There's much more at stake here than a
few billion dollars and a few icons and scrolling techniques.

If this continues we're going to spend the next decade tiptoeing around every
trivial implementation detail of mobile UI instead of boldly exploring new
ideas. Apple's successful use of the broken patent system sends exactly the
wrong signal.

~~~
angryasian
Not only that, its going to set innovating in the mobile space back even
farther. While Apple outlines every decision meticulously for planned
obsolescence, Google and others take a more throw something out there, see if
it works and run with it approach. With both strongly competing it pushes the
entire industry forward faster.

~~~
forensic
It's easy to argue that they aren't competing. Apple innovates in their sphere
of innovation, their competitors copy them and produce cheap knock-offs
attempting to cash in Apple's R&D.

It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other
companies just copy them and try to win on price.

It would be competition if Google tried to out-do Apple, but they don't.

Samsung doesn't compete with Apple either. They are more similar to
counterfeiters who sell black-market Oakley, Nike, and Prada stuff in
alleyways.

Competition would be if Samsung improves on Apple's designs to create
something superior.

~~~
creamyhorror
> Samsung doesn't compete with Apple either. They are more similar to
> counterfeiters who sell black-market Oakley, Nike, and Prada stuff in
> alleyways.

My goodness. Samsung designs may imitate Apple's to some debatable extent, but
they're not labeling their products with an Apple logo. The way I see it, TV
makers imitate each others' designs and features all the time, and so do car
makers and fridge makers.

> It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other
> companies just copy them and try to win on price.

Your generalisation is extreme. Surely Samsung, HTC, Sony, LG, etc. do
innovate (with reference to their legacy in the wider field of electronics)?

And they are _certainly_ competing. The very definition of competition is to
sell a product that is a _close substitute_ for another. Your assertion seems
to make innovation the only thing that matters for competition, which it
isn't.

Society would be better off generally if competition (of all forms) increased
in more markets.

~~~
blaines
> > It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other
> companies just copy them and try to win on price.

Zipcar. I just paid $137.39 for an Audi Q5. Audi can't do that. Price is
usually the result of innovation, the tip of the iceberg. Otherwise we'd
wouldn't be driving cars or, hopefully soon, flying into space. If anyone
offers an iPhone 5 cheaper than Apple I'm sold! Better yet, make a phone
better than the iPhone AND sell it cheaper!

~~~
forensic
There's a difference between charging a lower price because you have
innovated, and charging a lower price because someone else paid for your R&D.

Samsung is able to charge less money because they didn't have to pay for R&D,
market testing, etc. They just copied a successful product.

------
lubos
I was shocked to learn this case is basically being decided by people who have
no idea what they are really deciding on.

Here is the jury according to techcrunch

1\. An electrical engineer 2\. A homemaker 3\. A construction worker 4\. A
young unemployed man who likes video games 5\. An insurance agent 6\. An ex-
Navy avionics technician 7\. A store operations manager for a cycling retailer
8\. A project manager for wireless carrier AT&T 9\. A benefits and payroll
manager who works with startups

<http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/21/apple-samsung/>

Only in America?? And how many of those people are biased because they just
love Steve Jobs and Apple products. I know for sure, my mom loves her Mac and
she wouldn't think twice who is right and who is wrong in this case.

~~~
brg
You seem to vastly underestimate the intelligence of the average person, and
you fail to realize how serious people take jury duty once they have been
picked.

It is important to realize that a jury trial is a seminar for the jury. It is
given by two opposing sides to a disinterested party tasked to make a
decision. If either side fails to inform the jury of the enormity or
ramifications of their decision, it is the fault of that side.

~~~
MartinCron
And how serious the lawyers are with jury selection. Each side does a lot of
scrutiny to get a sense of biases and ability to grasp the subject.

It's easy to complain about the verdict, but taking pot-shots at the jury is
so cheap.

------
Steko
This is a good result.

Samsung copies for a living like many companies. Much of the copying is legal.
Sometimes they push it too far. One smoking gun in this case was the Google
told Samsung to change their designs. They didn't. They reaped the benefits in
terms of higher sales and now they can reap the bad side of that too.

On net it has still been profitable from Samsung. Samsung lost but it hasn't
been shut down or anything. In fact Apple is paying Nokia much more then
Samsung will end up paying Apple. People crying that the sky is falling have
missed this reality.

No damages for the overbroad ipad design patent. This seems like a good result
as much of the complaining seemed to be about the "rectangle patent" people
thought Apple had. I think the EU Registered Design for the iPad is much more
specific and more in line with what people think of as trade dress. Samsung
didn't really make any money in the tablet arena anyway.

~~~
veemjeem
I don't understand the mindset of companies in the eastern hemisphere. I feel
like the majority of companies in china / korea thrive by copying other
successful company products to survive. It's more blatant in china, but it
still happens in korea / japan. I feel like there must be some underlying
cultural thing that promotes this kind of behavior -- nobody feels like
they're doing the wrong thing.

~~~
Steko
People that pirate Gucci bags or Rolex watches know there's a law against it
but there's lot of rules we take for granted. People that buy the stuff know
too.

Do we stop watching a YT clip that we know is actual copyright infringement?
I'll venture that most of us don't. I suppose most of us rationalize our
behavior by saying the laws are excessive. I imagine the people who buy and
sell pirate goods do something similar.

While copying electronics is more common in Asia it's not like Japan or China
or Korea don't innovate or that the West isn't similarly full of copycats
(look at the Samwer brothers or the generic products in your supermarket).

And that also misses the point that Samsung and other copyists do a lot of
good for consumers by copying innovations, pushing prices down. In some
industries the people that actually innovate do need some protections so that
they can keep making those investments. Much like in actual piracy there's a
risk reward element to copying as a business model and I'm sure that's all
part of the calculus that Samsung does with their products. Like the factory
that breaks environmental or labor laws -- they pay up sometimes but in the
end they do it because they still come out ahead.

------
shawnee_
If Lucy Koh is so intent on protecting the singularity of one corporate
interest over what is so obviously good for the general public, she should
_not_ be a Federal District Judge. She should still be in private practice.

We need Federal District Judges who are willing to work for the good of
consumers, which involves protecting a market where competition can thrive.

Consumers benefit when there is more than one separate branch iterating
outward and improving something very basic. A lightweight touchscreen
rectangle is about as basic as it gets.

If Apple was a tire company, Lucy Koh just gave it the unearned "right" to
patent every kind of tire tread imaginable.

[EDIT] -- Yes, I realize the decision was made by a jury. Firstly: The
original case presented to her was a puff of smoke which should never have
gone to trial in the first place. Secondly: Fast-tracking this case helped
Apple (which had pre-prepared its mountain of baloney paperwork) and very much
hurt Samsung (which understandably probably didn't have enough time to
scramble and dispute every instance of baloney in the mountain of paperwork).
Thirdly: Koh diallowed a key testimony: [http://www.droiddog.com/android-
blog/2012/08/judge-lucy-koh-...](http://www.droiddog.com/android-
blog/2012/08/judge-lucy-koh-bans-key-samsung-designer-from-testifying-in-
apple-vs-samsung-case/) which would have helped the jury make a more informed
decision.

~~~
nikic
I don't think that this is the judges fault. The law (at least to some degree)
dictates the decision. If that decision is not good for the general public,
then it is the law that needs change. (And we all agree that it does.)

~~~
angryasian
she did make many decisions through out the trial as to what was admissible
and not admissible , so she did effect the outcome.

~~~
mbreese
By that argument, Samsung's lawyers are more at fault by not following the
predefined rules for submitting evidence. In this case, the judge setup the
rules, and it was up to the parties to play by them.

~~~
angryasian
its hard to follow the rules when the judge defines them as they go along. If
you followed it, sometimes decisions are left ad hoc up to the judge.

------
sriramk
The big winner, apart from Apple, is Microsoft. If you're a hardware
manufacturer, your choices are

1\. You go with Android and have both Apple and Microsoft come after you.

2\. You go with Windows Phone.

I suspect the Windows Phone team is breaking open some champagne now.

~~~
azakai
No, you can also make an Android phone. You just need to avoid infringing
these specific patents either by removing functionality or implementing it in
another way.

This lawsuit did not find that "Android" helplessly infringes Apple patents in
all cases. Just that the combination of Android, Samsung's software
modifications to Android, and Samsung hardware, together infringed several
very specific Apple patents.

~~~
MattLaroche
I haven't been following this closely, but if I understand correctly, the jury
found against Samsung on the Nexus S. That is a Google phone built straight
from Android and with no specific Samsung code at the UI level.

(Don't think a disclaimer is necessary in this case, but I used to work at
Google. Not on Android.)

~~~
nikcub
That is correct. The case is much more nuanced than suggested. This case was
Samsung and Google by proxy vs Apple

~~~
sahaj
The case was only against the Nexus S 4G - the Sprint version - which hasn't
been updated to Android 4.1. The AT&T version was not part of the case.
Android 4.1 removed infringing features.

~~~
orangecat
I hope that's true, do you have a source? It would be a nice silver lining if
this ruling resulted in manufacturers sticking closer to stock Android and
moving to the latest versions more quickly.

------
lenkite
So lets look at some of the infringing patents that the news articles are
quoting...

381 patent: "rubber band" effect where a page "bounces" when a user scrolls to
the bottom

I personally had written JS bounce-back product picture slide-shows for a
shopping cart in 2003/2004 using the horrible browser APIs of that era...wish
I had patented that..1 billion..yum. I am quite certain hundreds of people
have coded bounce-back animations before even iPhone 1.0.

915 patent: Pinch to Zoom. Isn't this the natural translation of how one drags
handlebars in opposite directions in order to zoom-in ? I am quite certain
there would be prior art by a lot of CAD software.

163 patent: "Double tap to enlarge/zoom". _facepalm_. Just about everyone does
this on the PC using a mouse. How can one even file a patent for this ?

D '305 patent: "Grid of rounded square icons" -> The joke of the decade. What
has every desktop OS being doing since the 90s ???

This is extremely upsetting. Is this what civilization is coming to ? If
things continue this way, the working population of the world will be employed
as patent lawyers squabbling all the time in courts.

~~~
rayiner
You realize there is more to a patent claim than the heading?

------
aaronbrethorst
From: <http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/>

"No across the board. Not a single [patent] proven invalid by Samsung."

that's big.

edit: "Damages from Apple to Samsung: zero." (edit2: oops, dumb typo)

~~~
manaskarekar
.. pile of poop?

I haven't followed the case closely and leaving aside whether or not Samsung
copied from Apple, we just all lost.

Were there not a few prior art arguments and all that? Samsung couldn't
invalidate any of those?!

This is depressing.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Despite being an AAPL shareholder, I agree 100%.

------
ojiikun
You know those 45% of HN readers that use a Mac?

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4422121>

Time to start voting with your $$ against AAPL. They are part of the problem,
not part of the innovation.

~~~
veidr
I try to do this, just because I viscerally dislike Apple specifically and the
increasing hegemony of corporations over individuals in general, but it is
really hard to stick with because Apple simply makes the best fucking
products.

I bought a Galaxy Nexus, and it's a lot better than previous Android phones,
but it just sucks too much to rely on so I carry two phones. I bought a Nexus
7, which I actually like more than the current iPad, but that is mostly form-
factor thing; a 7-inch iPad would relegate the Nexus 7 to the shelf.

So I can decide to use these slightly shittier devices and 'punish' Apple, but
it doesn't feel worthwhile, because in doing so I also have to punish _myself_
, and Apple isn't the actual underlying problem.

In this case, it is the dysfunctional patent system. In another recent case
where Apple was the villian, the issue was the diminishment of the rights of
individual citizens in favor of protecting the interests of multinational
corporations: when Apple actively lobbied to make jailbreaking illegal.

That was a case where the actual underlying system was resolved in favor of
the good guys (per my worldview, and that of most HN readers I presume). The
law of the land was changed, and the problem was solved/averted.

Fixing the patent system seems like a herculean task, probably much harder
than protecting our legal right to crack shitty DRM and usage restrictions on
devices we own, but I think it is still the right place to focus. Apple may be
the latest Oracle/SCO/AssholeCorp, but as long as the underlying legal system
is completely fucked, even if Apple disappeared there would just be another
corporation that came along and started doing the same shit.

~~~
MordinSolus
Essentially, the problem is with the government, not Apple. I don't dislike
Apple for what they are doing; they are doing what any self-interested company
would do.

------
alberich
American patent system is weird. Why is it fair for someone to patent "what"
you do, what should be fair to patent is "how" you make this thing viable
(e.g. the algorithms used, or something like that)?

As long as you don't use the mechanisms of your competition, you should be
allowed to mimic the features present on other competitors' devices.

Considering this, it seems clear that Samsung would lose the dispute anyway.

~~~
jcdavis
> you should be allowed to mimic the features present on other competitors'
> devices.

To play the devil's advocate (as someone who hasn't taken a position on this
ruling, but hates software patents in general):

Why? Apple appears to have spent a lot of time and effort on small details.
Why does Samsung get to just copy that with far less time and effort invested?
With design, the "how" is a crapton of iteration and careful thought. There
may or may not be prior art in a lot of these examples (don't know enough to
say), but where there isn't, why does Samsung automatically get to copy it for
free? If these things are so obvious and trivial, why weren't they doing them
before?

~~~
alberich
I agree that Apple should be able to protect what is looks like, not what it
works like.

Sure this is a point of view (after all, the american patent system didn't
come up out of nowhere). I believe that if you let people to patent things
like 2-click buy, finger gestures, and stuff like that, you just close the
door for competition. You effectively prohibit people of making things like
that, because even though you come up with a completely different mechanism to
provide the same interactive interface, you have to pay for an abstract idea.

Maybe Samsung should be able to copy it (the concept) for free because that is
what is called competition. In an ideal scenario, to stay ahead in competition
you should continuously come up with new and better ideas. If you competitors
suck so badly that they must copy you everytime, you'll stay ahead anyway.

~~~
ahoyhere
Copying is competition in the same way that, if you want to attract your
friend's girlfriend, you should buy copies of your friend's entire wardrobe
and dress like your friend, talk like your friend, and walk like your friend.

------
olivercameron
"It works like magic...far more accurate than any interface ever shipped...
multi-finger gestures, and boy have we patented it!" Steve Jobs in 2007[1]

1\. <https://twitter.com/tconrad/status/239136435603652609>

------
lazyoaf
This isn't right.... This is a terrible day for fair competition.

~~~
gridspy
Are you saying that Patents prevent fair competition? Isn't that the point of
patents?

~~~
Karunamon
>Are you saying that Patents prevent fair competition?

Absolutely and unquestionably. I've seem them more used recently to bully and
to harass by companies who'd rather litigate than innovate.

~~~
sseveran
Well the point of the patent is that you can sue people who infringe on it.
Why can't someone do both? Apple clearly has done both here.

------
Maascamp
No matter how you cut it, this whole trial was a loss for technology.

------
forgottenpaswrd
So basically this means that if you are an independent developer and make an
app that displays a graph your finger could edit you have to pay Apple for
Twenty years!!

So this means that appart from the 30% cut of the Apple store, most of your
profits go to Apple or MS who are going to dedicate the money to buy more
monopolies(patents).

Or alternatively the US system(where nobody works anymore, you could only
survive in finance, marketing, law or politics) collapses from within and some
other country take its place.

------
freditup
Interestingly, TechCrunch ([http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/hang-on-a-minute-
jurors-awa...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/hang-on-a-minute-jurors-
awarded-apple-damages-without-finding-infringements/)) reports that some of
the damages awarded to Apple were awarded without finding any patent
infringements. In other words, the jury's report was quite a bit sloppy (maybe
rushed?). Anyway, undoubtedly this will all be appealed, and the case could
turn any direction.

A personal question - what is the double tap to zoom patent all about? It
hardly seems to me, personally that that should be patentable. Just as there's
no way, Google should be able to patent something like 'double-click to zoom'
on Google Maps.

------
kapitalx
This would have been a great case for Jury Nullification and send a message
about software patent laws.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification>

~~~
eikaterine
Yeah, that would have been pretty interesting. I don't know that most of the
people on that jury had a strong opinion on the problems with our software
patent laws though.

------
chairsofter
What a joke! The jury rushed through this so quickly and uncaringly that there
are glaring errors in their verdict. Look at the edit at the bottom of the
article:

[http://briefmobile.com/jury-comes-to-verdict-in-apple-vs-
sam...](http://briefmobile.com/jury-comes-to-verdict-in-apple-vs-
samsung?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+briefmobile+%28BriefMobile%29&utm_content=FaceBook)

~~~
forensic
welcome to the legal system. every verdict is rife with errors, committed by
judges, lawyers, juries, police, everyone

~~~
bas
Is your code bug-free? Pot. Kettle. Black.

~~~
forensic
Of course not. I accept and expect an infallible reality, it is the commenter
I responded to who is shocked.

------
linuxhansl
That's what you get from having lay people (with no training in either
software development, UI design, etc) making decisions like this.

These patents are quite obviously ridiculous.

381 patent: "rubber band" effect 915 patent: Pinch to Zoom 163 patent: "Double
tap to enlarge/zoom" D '305 patent: "Grid of rounded square icons"

 _This_ is supposed to be what sets off iPhones from competition?!

W.T.F.? How did we get to this?

I can see Dr. Evil saying "One Biiiillion Dollars".

~~~
rayiner
This kind of comment is what you get when you have non-lawyers try to
interpret patent litigation...

~~~
linuxhansl
Nice. Maybe you want to read this:
<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120824175815101>

~~~
rayiner
It's just a summary of the jury's verdict. It doesn't discuss the merits of
the claims at all.

~~~
linuxhansl
Sigh... Did you read all the way to "Update 3".

------
aaronbrethorst
damages: 1.051 billion dollars. WOW.

<http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/>

~~~
jballanc
And yet, that's essentially a rounding error on Apple's bank account
balance...

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Totally, but not for Samsung. That's almost 10% of their net profit last year.

This is going to scare the shit out of every Android handset maker out there.

~~~
enraged_camel
Which in my opinion is a good thing. Everyone should think twice before
blatantly imitating the result of other people's investments and hard work.

Edit: the downvotes do not surprise me. HN has a very anti-Apple slant.

~~~
r00fus
If you think your downvotes are due to an anti-apple bias, you might want to
reword your banal dismissal into meaningful critique of the situation. If HN
has a bias, it's towards Apple (which is completely understandable given the
state of mobile adoption by startups).

~~~
enraged_camel
Banal dismissal? Excuse me? How else would you describe what Samsung did, if
not as "imitation"? Their own product engineers recommended shamelessly
_copying_ Aplle's design to make Samsung phones look identical.

~~~
r00fus
My earlier suggestion upthread explained in 4 words: _more light, less heat_.

------
josteink
Today Apple went down in history as the biggest patent-troll of all time,
stiffling innovation and competition like nobody has ever done before.

If you are a software-developer you should recognize the fundamental threat
which Apple represents to your profession.

Boycott Apple if you want to be able to stay in business in the long term
future. Throw away your Macbooks, iPhones and iPads. Ditch your iTunes and
iTunes account. Get rid of everything Apple. All of it.

Be vocal about your code of ethical software conduct and how that prohibits
involving anything made by Apple into anything you ever do.

------
danmaz74
Double tap to zoom, now, that's real innovation!

~~~
bane
Apple is now officially "innovating" in the same way Microsoft was
"innovating" in the 90s...which is to say almost not at all.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
Which makes me wonder.. does anyone currently hold or has, at any point in the
history of personal computers, held a patent for a double-click of the mouse
to activate or execute programs? The double tap to zoom seems very analogous
to that.

------
aganek
Judge rules Samsung owes Apple roughly one 'Instagram' in damages.

~~~
jfb
Which is decimal dust to Apple, less so to Samsung. The real value to Apple
here is that Samsung was found to be infringing. That's going to mean a much
tougher row for Samsung to hoe, even as the appeal is almost certainly being
filed as we speak.

------
sriramk
If you're a startup and even if you're philosophically opposed to software
patents, think about hiring a good IP law firm and filing for your core IP.
What these trials and massive licensing deals are showing that patents could
make a world of difference to your options as a tech company.

~~~
jfb
I've been kicking around a business idea related to patent licensing for small
companies -- acting as a market maker for companies to offer their patents for
license for a fixed price and term. I'm no great fan of the way the IP laws
work in the US, but I don't perceive much real noise for change from the
people who have the ability to do so, so might as well provide a sane service
to minimize the chances of some poor dumb bastard getting sued out of her
shorts for unknowingly infringing on some dumb-ass software patent. This
decision is mostly just ammo for the pro- side of my brain.

------
aristidb
I'm confused. How can it be that Apple supposedly infringes _none_ of
Samsung's patents?

~~~
josephlord
I'm not sure if that was decided. The jury decided the patents were exhausted
because Apple's suppliers had already been licensed. (Qualcomm I think).

It is the general case that you can't demand two licenses for the same patent
in the same product. If the 3G chip has a license then so does the phone it is
built into.

------
ChuckMcM
If nothing else, the fallout will be interesting to watch. The tablets didn't
infringe though. Found that an interesting bit, just the phones.

~~~
shreyansj
Yeah, although the Samsung tablets did got banned in EU by a German court.

------
w1ntermute
I don't give two fucks about TouchWiz specific-stuff (in fact, this might
encourage Android OEMs to stick with stock Android), but what impact will this
have on stock Android? It would really suck to have to depend on 3rd party
ROMs for things like pinch to zoom and tap to zoom because Google was forced
to remove it from Android.

------
fsniper
From now on we should call rotary dial phones the new Apple free smartphones.

------
logical42
goodbye innovation

------
RichardButler
I wonder if this will actually end up hurting Apple's bottom line in the end.
Samsung is one of Apples largest hardware providers and one of the few that
can produce screens of sufficient resolution for Apple's retina displays.
Wouldn't be surprised if Samsung recoups their loses just by raising their
hardware prices.

~~~
wmf
If Samsung tried to raise prices for components, Apple would just buy those
components somewhere else, causing Samsung's revenue to tank. Just look at
what happened to PortalPlayer.

~~~
RichardButler
Samsung is the only producer of screens that can meet the quality and quantity
requirements of apple. I remember hearing they even had problems keeping up
with the demand. I seriously doubt Apple could come up with another supplier.

------
kooshball
How does the verdict affect Samsung's ability to sell additional phones in the
future?

~~~
chairsofter
"Import ban and threat of further litigation, what's that???"

------
ehosca
and the end of Apple begins....

------
kenster07
Samsung and Apple fandom aside, patenting a smartphone UI is patently absurd.

------
barista
It feels good when the judgments reflect what is a common sense to a
reasonable person. Glad the common sense prevailed here. It was obvious that
the android devices were copied from iPhones.

~~~
gsibble
I think that's what's so frustrating to me as an engineer. Samsung's
technology patents were clearly violated, but did not win in court. Why?
Perhaps because they aren't common sense. They are complex and intricate. THAT
is what patents should be about. Not common sense.

~~~
mratzloff
This is my understanding of events:

Samsung had a contract with Qualcomm that said they wouldn't sue Qualcomm or,
critically, any of its customers over use of the 3G patents. Apple bought
chips from Qualcomm.

Samsung wanted ammunition to countersue Apple over its patent claims, so they
rescinded the contract with Qualcomm. Apple then approached Samsung offering
to pay a fair and reasonable amount for a license. Samsung thought they should
pay much more. Apple disagreed and continued to use the chips, which was their
sole violation as far as I can tell.

The Dutch ruling basically forced Samsung to accept fair and reasonable
licensing fees from Apple, and the US court today said Samsung was infringing
on many of Apple's design patents.

If I'm wrong, please correct where I'm wrong, but I don't understand how you
are letting Samsung off the hook. Design patents are not necessarily common
sense, just as hardware design is not necessarily "complex and intricate" to
someone familiar with hardware design.

Patents don't need to be complex and intricate. They simply need to be non-
obvious, useful, original, and not on the list of things that aren't
patentable (music, literature, etc.).

------
delllapssuck
In the 1990's it was copyright. Now its patent. What next?

All Apple does is whine. Even when they are winning.

Their internal memo/public statement goes so far as to say "it's not about
patents and money". Yes, I do believe you Mr. Cook. It's about a bunch of
morally inept emotionally underdeveloped overgrown children.

Apple is above "copying". Went they want to cut corners (pun intended) and get
to market quickly, they _steal_.

Welcome to the IT industry.

