

Jury Reaches Verdict in Apple vs. Samsung Trial - To Be Updated - axxl
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/24/jury-reaches-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung-trial/

======
mrkmcknz
So far the Apple and Samsung updates are just making me angry. I can't believe
that you can patent pinch and zoom and double tap to zoom.

All this story is telling me is just how much the system needs to be reformed.

~~~
podperson
I like juries.

Set aside the details of which particular patent has been claimed -- is this
not a _just_ decision? Is it not _completely_ clear that Samsung copied
Apple's designs to an extent bordering on fraud?

If Samsung were making knockoff purses as similar to Louis Vuitton purses as
many of its phones and tablets (and stores) were to Apple's, its products
would be seized and destroyed. But Samsung isn't a hole-in-the-wall designer
fashion accessory vendor but a multibillion dollar operation.

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
A. Pinch and zoom on surfaces was invented by Microsoft Research years ago.
Almost all of the "technology innovation" claimed by Apple since the Mac has
been stolen/borrowed from other companies.

B. Samsung devices were rounded-rectangle designs WELL before the iPod
existed, and the concept of rounded-rectangle iPad-like devices that played
video existed back in Stanley Kubrick's 2001. Ei ther should invalidate a
"design patent" on such a look -- "black rounded rectangle" is absolutely
insane to claim Apple owns!

~~~
podperson
A. No they didn't. (Samsung didn't even claim this -- they claimed that a
multitouch window resize, which is neither as useful nor as intuitive as
"pinch to zoom" nor actually zooms anything was "pinch to zoom" ... go watch
the video.)

B. If it were simply about "rounded rectangles" you'd be right. But it isn't
and you're wrong.

The letters L and V are not protected, but overlay them and print them on a
handbag and you are in deep shit. (And yes, trademarks and design patents are
different things but work in much the same way and have been used against each
other in lawsuits.)

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
>No they didn't.

OK, pinch to zoom was invented even before Microsoft used it. See:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PixelSense> and
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch>

A big part was the rounded rectangles. Apple claimed it and the jury supported
that claim. That's reprehensible garbage, and no legal system should support
it.

You're revealing yourself as an Apple fanboy; claiming that a rounded
rectangle with black borders (that looks identical to previous years-old
Samsung products!) is now OWNED by Apple is not sane and rational.

The LV logo is distinctive. The shape of the iPad is at least as similar to
products before it as the Samsung products that came later. You can't (or
SHOULDN'T be able to) take ownership of a public domain design just because
you've created a popular product that uses it!

------
tokenadult
I've been following the live blogging from the San Jose Mercury News kindly
posted by another HN participant:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4429940>

Direct link to the live blogging is

[http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_21356424/live-blog-
verdict-a...](http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_21356424/live-blog-verdict-
apple-samsung-patent-trial)

"Jury finds on bounce back patent that Samsung infringed Apple on all the
devices in play, smartphones and tabs"

"On the "pinch and zoom" patent, jury also finds Samsung infringed Apple
patents on the menu of smartphones and tablets..with just a few exceptions."

"On tap and zoom, jury finds infringement for tap and zoom feature on most of
the smartphones and tablets, although no on a few, such as Nexus S 4G...split
this one up by various devices, but largely in favor of Apple"

"Jury also finds for Apple on charge Samsung "knew or should have known" it
was inducing its telecommunications and electronics divisions to infringe"

"Apple blitzing Samsung so far, jury now finds infringed design of iPhone
contours, etc."

"Some products of Samsung being spared the gallows, but not many so far"

"Jury finds Samsung infringed Apple graphical interface on iPhone....so much
for those differences Samsung argued for"

------
bornhuetter
A sad day for consumers everywhere, regardless of what technology they prefer.
The continuing validity of patents such as "pinch to zoom on a phone" is
disastrous for the industry and will just serve to make everyone's products
worse.

------
elektronaut
Live coverage on The Verge: <http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-
live/>

------
antihero
Ideal verdict: "The Judge presides that both parties should just FUCK OFF and
make decent phones."

~~~
wmf
Unfortunately Posner couldn't get himself assigned to this case.

------
vhf
Oh god, the comments are sad. Not HN's comments, the link's comments.

[http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15520468#post15...](http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15520468#post15520468)

~~~
Spooky23
Mac forum comments often approach YouTube comments in terms of awfulness. Its
a really strange phenomenon.

------
DrHankPym
So, who's next? Gestures seems pretty common on most mobile devices, and I'm
guessing this opens the door for Apple to be able to sue them all, right?

~~~
taligent
They don't need to. This sent a big warning to all the Android OEMs not to
copy the iPhone.

And that is what Apple wanted. Not money.

~~~
bornhuetter
I think we can all agree that Apple's intention was to stifle competition, not
to get money. The problem is that Android already have to go out of their way
to "innovate around" obvious design decisions. This makes things even harder.
There is a good chance things will go the other way too, and it will make it
harder for Apple to keep up with Android as they introduce new features.

I can't see this being good for anyone except Apple shareholders, and in the
long run I'm not sure it will even be good for them.

~~~
taligent
No. Apple's intention was to put as much of a gap between what the iPhone
looks and feels like and what Android looks and feels like.

Whether that stifles competition is a separate issue.

~~~
baaks
You know Apple's intentions pretty well! Are you a C-level executive there? Or
are you just speculating the exact same as he is?

------
olalonde
Considering that Apple is a beloved American company and Samsung a relatively
obscure Korean company, isn't anyone else skeptical that a jury strictly
composed of US citizens can be truly impartial in this case?

------
podperson
If Apple is smart they'll donate their winnings (or pledge to donate them) to
a universally laudable cause, like MSF. They don't need the money, this was
never about the money, and this will underline the point.

~~~
danilocampos
I'm not sure I agree. Apple was pushed into acting as an outsourced R&D and
marketing consultancy for their business partner, Samsung. They're entitled to
a fee for their services, especially given the success Samsung has enjoyed as
a result.

------
stock_toaster
thank goodness patent exhaustion was upheld.

~~~
taligent
Absolutely. This is wonderful news for those that care about standards.

------
anu_gupta
Looks like Apple have crushed Samsung.

~~~
coin
Should be a nice boost for Apple's stock price Monday.

~~~
chollida1
Really?

I don't think any one seriously expects Samsung to not be able to sell phones
because of this so there won't be a bump due to analysts expect apple to steal
Samsung customers.

And AAPL US Equity has about 1 Billion shares outstanding so the reward, if it
gets paid and it probably won't, will come out to a one time boost of $1 per
share.

So if a $1 rise int he stock price is considered a nice boost then I guess
AAPL's stock should have a nice boost on Monday.

~~~
coin
AAPL is up $12 this morning.

------
Nerdfest
I think this is one of the most disappointing verdicts since the OJ trial.

------
protomyth
I get the feeling whoever comes up with the best graphic / table of the
verdict will get a lot of play. The live streams are really hard to follow on
what is what.

------
bond
1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand dollars... Wow

~~~
thought_alarm
Meh. So they have one lean quarter.

RIM had to pay $650,000,000 to a patent troll with no products, for violating
a patent that no one had seen before. By comparison, considering the massive
size of the companies involved and the brazen copying and infringement, the
Samsung verdict would seem light.

------
at-fates-hands
I'm actually surprised of such a lopsided victory. I've been following this
pretty close and felt like Apple has really overstepped their bounds.

Of course it won't matter. Samsung will keep this going for a while on appeal
until they win and then Apple will appeal. I don't see a clear victory for
either company for a long, long, time.

~~~
luriel
As usual the only ones that will really win from this insanity in the long
term are the lawyers.

And even the lawyers will not win as much as they think, because they will
have set back technological progress decades behind.

------
dakrisht
Looks like Apple won this one

~~~
r00fus
The appeal is guaranteed to be requested from Samsung, and will likely be
granted due to the behavior of the judge.

This one is going to go well into extra innings. The question is whether there
will be a timely injunction of Apple's likely attempt to cut off Samsing's
sales of infringing products in the US.

~~~
neurotech1
Judge Koh could learn from Posner. Tell them both to "figure it out" and cross
license. If that doesn't work, "Get out of my courtroom" would. If I was
Samsung CEO. I would cease shipping components to Apple tomorrow, then file a
anti-competitive practices lawsuit against Apple.

------
snowwrestler
Wow, crazy result. I feel [to be updated with an edit later]!

