[kudoboi]

QUOTE

The federal court jury in the patent infringement lawsuit between Apple and Samsung has presented its verdict after deliberating for just 21 hours and 37 minutes following the three week trial. This particular case started with Apple's lawsuit last April and now the jury's decision is that Samsung did infringe on Apple's '381 bounceback patent with all 21 of its products in question. For the '915 patent on pinch-and-zoom, the jury ruled all but three of the devices listed infringed, and more damningly, found that Samsung executives either knew or should have known their products infringed on the listed patents. The jury has also found against Samsung when it comes to Apple's contours on the back of the iPhone and its home screen GUI. The Galaxy Tab, was found not to have infringed upon Apple's iPad design patents. The bad news for Samsung continued however, as the jury decided that not only did it willfully infringe on five of the seven Apple patents, but also upheld their validity when it came to utility, design and trade dress. The final number is $1,049,343,540, after the judge found an issue with how the jury applied damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE and Intercept. The jury also ruled that Apple did not infringe upon Samsung's patents with the iPhone 3G and 3GS, and has awarded it zero dollars in damage.

QUOTE

The jury in Apple v. Samsung dealt a big blow to Samsung by finding that it did infringe on some of the Apple patents at the center of the case, and it didn't have any better news for the company when it came to Samsung's own claims that Apple infringed on some of its patents as well. The jury found that Apple did not infringe on those in all five cases (the so-called utility patents), although it did rule that the patents were valid. That also, of course, means no damages awarded to Samsung.

QUOTE

Samsung: Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple's claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer

QUOTE

Apple: We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right.

QUOTE

Apple brought three utility and four design patents to bear against Samsung. Patent number 7,469,381 is for the bounce back that occurs when you scroll beyond the edge of a webpage or document in iOS. Patent number 7,844,915 is for single-finger scrolling and two-finger zooming, while number 7,864,163 claims tap-to-zoom technology. As for the design patents, D618,677 claims the iPhone's edge-to-edge glass, speaker slot and display border, while D593,087 claims its rounded corners and home button, and D604,305 claims the grid-style icon layout in iOS. The last design patent, D504,889 is for the iPad's edge-to-edge glass, rounded corners, and thin bezel. Apple hit a home run with the '381 bounce-back patent -- the jurors found that all 21 Samsung devices at issue infringed and that Samsung Korea induced its subsidiaries to sell those infringing devices as well. As for the the '915 and '163 zooming and scrolling patents, team Cupertino was also successful, albeit not completely: the jury found that most, but not all of the devices infringed and that Samsung Korea was, once again, guilty of inducement. Apple enjoyed similar success with its design patents, with the jury finding that every Samsung phone at issue infringed the D'305 iOS icon grid patent. Meanwhile, the D'677 edge-to-edge glass patent was infringed upon by every handset except for the Galaxy Ace, and the D'087 rounded corners patent was infringed by the Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, and the Vibrant. The D'889 patent turned out to be Apple's sole loser, as the jury found that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi and 4G LTE didn't infringe the iPad's design. To top things off, the jury found that all of the infringement was willful except for the infringement of the D'087 patent, and that all of Apple's patents are valid.

articles are on engadget and other sites

[Bad.boy!]

My best guess is that we should post opinions in here, so here goes:

Samsung copied Apple, everybody knows that except for some fanboys who don't want to see it. But I think that Samsung should be allowed to copy Apple up to a point. They don't produce the exact same phone, and it has good technology under the hood (unlike crappy Chinese copies). And because of Samsung and other companies Apple doesn't have a complete monopoly. The only good thing that I see in these lawsuits is that Samsung will produce less a like phones.

And about android, it is more or less a copy of the first ios with more features.

[Blackadder.]

I have to agree that original Galaxy S phones bore more than a passing resemblance to an iPhone, bujt some of the phones that they identified as infringing on Apples trade dress had different shapes and even one with a keyboard.

Apple is more than guilty of ripping sh*t off from other companies (hey I wonder where they got the idea for the notification center) so them turning around and doing this pisses me off. Software patents suck, the idea that 'slide-to-unlock' and 'bounce-back scrolling' can be patented is stupid. Other companies would be humbled they helped change the way the tech industry moves, but Apple would rather try and take down all its competitors through increasingly ridiculous legal battles than try and take them on in sales.

I discussed this with a friend, and the main reason we agreed Apple is doing this is cause Samsung (along with Android OEMs) f*cked with their upgrade path. Apple was going to take a long time to add stuff in via software and hardware. Along comes Android and they start taking advantage of new hardware (such as NFC, LTE) forcing Apple to play their hand early. I have to agree with Samsung, this is a loss for the consumer. Where does this madness end? Whilst I agree its not a good idea to blatantly copy other peoples products (the Galaxy S was VERY similar in OS and hardware design) Samsung appears to be trying to shift away from that, the Galaxy Nexus (which was accussed of being a shameless copy by Apple...sigh) and Galaxy S3 could not be mistaken for an iPhone even if you were blind.

It annoys me to no end that Apple continually tries to block Android from using logical features (such as getting an injunction for multi-source searching, something that was around before the iPhone was even announced) whilst pulling them for their own need and claiming how they are still such an innovative company. f*ck you Apple. f*ck you.

[finn4life]

QUOTE

Samsung: Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies.

Very true statement here, since when did apple invent rounded corners? f*cking bullsh*t, and Bounce Back scrolling? Please.
Even if they are copying, this has been happening since the beginning of time and Samsung's guys still have to go out and figure out the coding and how to design these things.

ANd the Nerve of Apple to say this sh*t.

QUOTE

We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right.

it's not like they break into Apple HQ and steal their blue-prints, copying or better "Seeking inspiration" is probably the main thing that drives innovation, because companies will constantly be looking for things that put them ahead of the pack.

Besides if these things were such great ideas in the first place (and other ideas) someone else would have eventually come up with it anyway, it would just have taken far longer and slowed development in the industry.

This is why i don't like Apple, they make good products but in the end they are incredibly greedy, not looking to help anyone but themselves, and yes i know they are a company but they are worse than others, if Apple had it their way and nobody ever decided to follow in their footsteps they would still be selling an iphone 3G spec phone for $600 for the next 5 years.

Samsung has it right, they obviously being a company are focussed on making money too, but they are actually trying to drive competition, in turn consumer choice, and they are really trying to push innovation so that the best possible products can be out there in the world.

Go read their motto's, says a bit about the companies.

QUOTE (Samsung)

inspire the world, create the future

QUOTE (Apple)

Think different.

.

My opinion, Legally i suppose Apple were in the right.
In my eyes they were totally wrong, ridiculous patents and motives only to stunt everyone else rather than better themselves.

YEs i am a Samsung fanboy, but it's not without reason.

[sivispacem]

It really does seem to be a case of a rule for some, and a rule for others. I don't think anyone is going to deny that the original Galaxy bore a passing resemblance to the iPhone, but so did a myriad of other phones. There's only a finite number of shapes you can make a touch-screen phone, and I think it really is a case of Apple complaining about rounded edges in this example. Logically, that's like one car manufacturer suing another because of a vague similarity in profile- and you didn't see Audi and BMW at each others throats when they made the E92 3-series coupe and the A5, which in profile at least were to all intents and purposes pretty much exactly the same.

My view is that the only reason this has gone to court is not because of any actual theft of likeness or intellectual property, but because Samsung has trumped Apple in the recent sales market and Apple don't deal well with being the second-best. So what they've done is used a spurious claim of patent infringement to try and disrupt the competition- hence why they sue Samsung and not HTC, Motorola or any of the other producers who make phones that look like iPhones but don't sell as many as Samsung do.

[Warlord.]

Samsung got pwned.

But really though there is a positive side to this. Now, the innovation that Samsung seems so concerned about can be improved, as instead of copying what Apple does, they'll have to come up with different features for their products.

This is actually a VERY good thing for the consumer, imo.

[finn4life]

QUOTE (Warlord. @ Sunday, Aug 26 2012, 21:42)

Samsung got pwned. But really though there is a positive side to this. Now, the innovation that Samsung seems so concerned about can be improved, as instead of copying what Apple does, they'll have to come up with different features for their products. This is actually a VERY good thing for the consumer, imo.

A fair point that raises, now Samsung has to make square edged phones and the screen cannot cover the face.
Innovation at its best .

QUOTE

My view is that the only reason this has gone to court is not because of any actual theft of likeness or intellectual property, but because Samsung has trumped Apple in the recent sales market and Apple don't deal well with being the second-best. So what they've done is used a spurious claim of patent infringement to try and disrupt the competition- hence why they sue Samsung and not HTC, Motorola or any of the other producers who make phones that look like iPhones but don't sell as many as Samsung do.

We're losing money, quick, sue our rival company.

[Indi]

sh*t so Apple did win? Holy f*ck, 1 billion sure is a pretttty hefty sum, kudos to Apple, to be honest though, Apple are way too rich as it is, that 1 billion I think is too much for just copying the pinch-and-zoom feature.

[Inf3rn0]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57501103...-for-sales-ban/

Apple says this list is only "to address a portion of the immediate, ongoing irreparable harm that Apple is suffering."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57496464...luable-company/

Make of this what you will

[Otter]

I think the worst part about something like this is that it can so easily be spun to paint Samsung and Google like some sort of freedom fighters in the arena of intellectual property. Bull sh*t.

[κενιη]

I hated the case. It was bullsh*t. After the new cell phone market switched to touch screens, apple claimed to be the most innovative company in the world when it was basically just a change in trend powered by innovation in hardware. Now that it was physically feasible to have a giant touch capable, full color screen in a device that could last all day on a charge, it was where the community was going to go. To make it worse, the way things are starting to look is that the jury were either completely retarded and technologically illiterate, paid off, or apple fans...seeing as this was Northern California, I would guess it was a mix of technologically illiterate and apple fans. Once this hits patent court and/or supreme court, I promise you, sh*t will hit the fan for Apple. If you just kept track on what devices were found infringing of patents, how they infringed, and why, you would find it laughable.

Anyways, here is a quick link for how this possibly (in all probability) will not stick:

http://gizmodo.com/5938219/why-the-apple-v...may-not-hold-up

[Waddy]

Not really followed this apart from seeing the 'headlines'
I did read however that Apple but quite a lot of components etc from Samsung? Will this not cause tension in that department too?

[Otter]

Samsung has always maintained an internal division of sorts in that regard. And rightly so, one would imagine, for it's a bit of a conflict of interest if you ask me.

It just kind of sums up a major reason why I'm not really shedding a tear for for Samsung here: they have no real stake in this as far as their "character" goes. There's no "face" of Samsung. Their PR and social media is handled by localised, third party firms. Thats not out of the ordinary but it lacks cohesion and when they knowingly infringe on design patents - while vigorously defending their own - the whole house of cards tumbles down.

There are some things that should remain "unpatented" - but where do we draw that line? If a company becomes famous for taking a sideways leap and, say, inventing a pizza in, i dunno, a spiral... Should they be allowed to sue a competitor that follows suit?

I honestly don't know what I believe in this case. I agree with Samsung's ridiculously hypocritical "stifling innovation" argument but can also see where Apple's coming from. If you can simply make a cheaper version of the coolest technology without paying dues, then we'll all be accepting mediocrity by the bucketload.

[finn4life]

Seems relevant, theoretically could they do this? Would be pretty hilarious.

[κενιη]

You know...that would be great.

[Stinky12]

Seems like the article posted here didn't tell why this lawsuit is ridiculous. Apple won not because of pinch and zoom, they won because of a universal shape. Whoever in the patent office is a moron to have let Apple patent a universal geometric shape and that shape my fellow GTAF member is a RECTANGLE. Apple claim Samsung infringe of their design of a rectangle and those idiot brainwashed jury believed in it thus awarding Apple 1.5B. Well almost all of the thing you have, from TV, laptops, to your microwave are
in rectangular design. Maybe Apple show start suing the whole world instead.
It's also funny that Samsung has to pay 1.5B to Apple, which isn't going to affect them too much as according to wiki, Samsung's 2011 revenue was $247.5 Billion USD. What's ironic is the CPU used in the current iPhones, iPads are made by Samsung. Maybe Samsung will charge 10x as much for a CPU, and while it won't do too much to them, it will affect us the consumer. Just don't be surprise you next phone has a starting price of $1000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A5

[Pagelzilla]

An interesting quote I read: "If Henry Ford had defended his automobile design with this much vigor, where would the auto industry be today?"

or something like that.

[MisterMaster]

dishonest apple ! do not understand something... completely unnecessary.

[illegal_luggage]

QUOTE (Otter @ Tuesday, Aug 28 2012, 07:45)

but can also see where Apple's coming from. If you can simply make a cheaper version of the coolest technology without paying dues, then we'll all be accepting mediocrity by the bucketload.

An American court defending an American company. Seems fair...

As for "copying the coolest tech around", it looks similar because of the round edges and chrome plastic. The Galaxy S is not mediocre, it won awards for being a decent phone. Apple fanboys are butthurt that there are better phones out there which are cheaper.

[Otter]

QUOTE (illegal_luggage @ Wednesday, Aug 29 2012, 13:55)

QUOTE (Otter @ Tuesday, Aug 28 2012, 07:45) but can also see where Apple's coming from.  If you can simply make a cheaper version of the coolest technology without paying dues, then we'll all be accepting mediocrity by the bucketload. An American court defending an American company. Seems fair... As for "copying the coolest tech around", it looks similar because of the round edges and chrome plastic. The Galaxy S is not mediocre, it won awards for being a decent phone. Apple fanboys are butthurt that there are better phones out there which are cheaper.

It seems you're confused about a few things. This was Apple US vs. Samsung Mobile US. Two American faces of two global companies.

Also, I didn't say "mediocre." Considering your glowing endorsement of the Galaxy S as "decent," then I think we're on the same page.

Butthurt fanboys aside (I don't know any happy apple owners who actually give a flying sh*t what the Galaxy looks like) I think it's just corporate dickery on all sides, here.

It's more than an understatement to say that the iPhone resdesigned modern smartphones. Obviously Samsung and others have taken major cues from them. I don't know if this should be legally protected or not. I lean towards no. But there exists a legal system designed to protect such pettiness, and it would be clinically f*cking insane for a company as large as Apple not to pursue legal action.

I can't fault them for taking asserting themselves to the letter of the law. It's a billion bloody dollars, after all. And it's not like Samsung isn't filing exactly the same bloody frivolous lawsuits.

So why all the hate against Apple?