Samsung vs. Apple verdict in a nutshell


31 Responses to “Samsung vs. Apple verdict in a nutshell”

  1. pizzicato says:

    The lawyers won, IMHO, everyone else loses, even Microsoft paid up. 

  2. Brainspore says:

    …the real winner’s name begins with “M” and ends with “icrosoft.”

    You mean Matthew LeFicrosoft? That guy’s a douche!

  3. Alan Goates says:

    How is a single item out of the whole slew of references in that article “a common refrain”?

    • ChicagoD says:

      I was about to ask the same thing. Even that one article was a pretty half-assed analysis that sort of said, well, that Microsoft is clever, so this might help them.

  4. Sten Turpin says:

    Yes, perhaps WP will seize this opportunity and spike up to 2% of the market, nearly besting RIM’s 3%. source:

  5. The Chemist says:

    Forget about innovation. If someone half-thought it, you’ll need to invest a fortune just to come out in the black.

    • lecti says:

      Let’s cut the melodrama out of this.

      Hardware has always been an expensive venture.  This lawsuit is about Samsung copying another company’s handset wholesale, and *nothing* to do with their innovation.

      • The Chemist says:

        What melodrama? Look at how patent law works in this country.

        • lecti says:

          That argument applies only to patent trolls.  Apple actually made the phone that Samsung copied.  Let’s not mix the two together to validate KIRFers.

          Also, this lawsuit has a lot to do with trade dress than just patents.

          • I Kid says:

            Sounds like you were on the jury, your complete ignorance of prior art must’ve made you the foreman!

          • lecti says:

            “Sounds like you were on the jury, your complete ignorance of prior art must’ve made you the foreman!”


            I know what you are trying to say, but read the actual thread if you want to sound clever.

      • MythicalMe says:

         Um, no. While Samsung argued about rectangles with rounded corners, it wasn’t about hardware. It was about the Android OS being made to look a lot like iOS including the aforementioned pinch to zoom and bounce back gestures. That’s software, and the US is one of the few places that allow software patents.

        As much as I dislike Apple for the monopolistic whore it is, in this case they might be right, the user interfaces are the same, but the hardware is not. There are many ways that Samsung could have rejiggered the user interface so that it didn’t infringe, but they chose not to.

        Lastly, I have a Samsung cell phone right now. It’s a piece of crap. I don’t like it as a phone and the side buttons are not flush so easily depressed accidentally. Also, the touch screen is always on and when pocketed will drain the battery quickly. It’s a lithium ion battery and has become very hot at times. Also, when the battery is less than 80% full, sending and receiving SMS may not work until the phone is charged, powered off and on again.

        I won’t be buying a Samsung cell phone again.

        • GyroMagician says:

          So the outcome is okay because you don’t like your phone? Have you thought about maybe changing your phone? A smart person would get themselves down to the phone shop quick, before iphones become compulsory.

          • MythicalMe says:

             Perhaps in the US it is easy to switch phones and providers, but I don’t have an unlimited income and am stuck with the phone for 3 years, otherwise I would change.

            As for your iPhone remark, there are other alternatives to Apple and Samsung.

      • Martijn says:

        If it had been about copying the iPhone wholesale, Samsung would have won, because they didn’t. It’s about stuff like rounded corners and what icons look like, irrespective of whatever actual technology is underneath it.

        While I think this verdict is ridiculous, I do think that the original Samsung Galaxy should have been banned right away. That truly was intentionally designed to look exactly like an iPhone, and therefore confusing to consumers (which is what should really count). Later models were clearly different and therefore fine.

  6. haineux says:

    You know, I think there’s a bet going on between certain lawmakers and certain tech industry pundits to see who can be more outrageous before they are no longer paid attention to.

  7. nyamjoe says:

    Google reacts to the verdict saying that the patent and I quote “do not relate to the core Android operating system ” and that the entire mobile industry has been “building on ideas that have been around for decades” source:

  8. vonbobo says:

    Anyone else considering hastening their decision to buy a Samsung in the near future?

    • Warren_Terra says:

      I’m very happy with my Samsung, but at this very moment it’s “Finalizing Android Update” that I know nothing about (it’s a year old, and Sprint updated it from Android 3.2 to 4.0 a week or two ago), so under the circumstances I’m a bit worried whether the update removes methods found to be infringing.

    • Only in the same way I’m tempted to buy a fake Rolex.

  9. Daneel says:

    Screw Microsoft. I’m still bitter about the N9.

  10. Scurra says:

    I’m still having trouble understanding what the case was about, other than Apple waving some papers around saying they had “legal ownership” in the US of what are mostly common concepts, and therefore the US court was forced to agree with them, no matter how patently ridiculous (pun intended) the whole business was.  
    Courts in other countries have come to different conclusions (I think I have more respect for the South Korean ruling this week which basically told them both to fsck off.  And even the judge in this case tried to do the same.)

    • pjcamp says:

       That’s about the size of it.

      Apple’s greatest genius is at self destruction. Apparently, Samsung’s is too.

    • Warren_Terra says:

      I know nothing about the South Korean case … but with an American jury ruling in favor of Apple’s claims and a South Korean court (jury? judge? I dunno) ruling in favor of Samsung’s claims, I can’t help but whether home-team bias played a role in both instances.

      (disclaimer: I, an American, happen personally to be against the aspects of Apple’s claims that I’ve heard about, while not having paid a lot of attention)

  11. Daemonworks says:

    This verdict is completely immaterial. Even if the jurists didn’t blow off the judges instructions, Samsung retains grounds for appeal.

  12. Warren_Terra says:

    I haven’t looked into the details of the case. The bits I’ve overheard on the news sound a little ridiculous. The idea that you can “own” pinch-to-zoom, drag-past-to-load-more, or drag-to-unlock seems risible.

    • pjcamp says:

       It is, and Groklaw is making a reasonable case that this was an out of control jury. So far, they have publicly declared that they didn’t bother with the judge’s instructions, followed the emotional reaction of the jury foreman (an engineer worried about his own IP), and tried to punish Samsung financially, in violation of the law (which says try to approximate making the plaintiff whole instead). Along the way, they also managed to fine Samsung for things for which they had already found them not liable.

      If any jury claims they can even understand, let alone decide, 700 questions in 21 hours, they are lying.

  13. skyhawk1 says:

    The bulls-eye is moving towards Android. I’m not buying that Apple won’t turn on it next.

Leave a Reply