U.S. Court Rules Strongly in Apple's Favor in Patent Suit with Samsung Discussion

[Ed Hardy]

It didn't take a jury very long to decide that Samsung's smartphones infringe on some of Apple's patents. The S. Korean company has therefore been ordered to pay over $1 billion in damages.

Read the full content of this Article: U.S. Court Rules Strongly in Apple's Favor in Patent Suit with Samsung

Related Articles:

• Bigger is Better: the Galaxy Note Has Sold Over 10 Million Units
• Apple iPhone 4S vs Samsung Galaxy S III
• Samsung Court Documents Reveal Two Windows Phone 8 Models in the Works
• Apple Vs. Samsung: Case Overview for the Patent Trial of the Century

[Varjak]

I was shocked by the breadth of the decision. I mean can you really patent-protect a rectangle with rounded edges? I mean Palm had a similar look. Same with 'icons.' Really? The iPhone doesn't look much different from those. I can see some of the software stuff though like pinch, and tap to expand, and the 'bounce.' I was blown away; but then again a jury freed O.J. Simpson too.

[rkevwill]

Don't forget, lots of Android device manufacturers already pay significant licensing fees to Microsoft, under threat of litigation from them. Matter of fact, Microsoft makes significantly more from Android than Google does. This whole thing is going to end up in Cross Licensing anyway, eventually. Actually, if you look at the smartphone market right now, the only one thats innovative and different is Microsoft and Nokia! And look at their sales at present.

[questionfear]

@Varjak, I think I read it was less the patent violation itself and more the intent to specifically copy the look, feel, and behavior. Spontaneously designing a similar device is one thing, but the Apple argument was that Samsung wanted their devices to be iPhones.

I don't know enough about the case or patent law to really have an opinion on whether it was justified but I think that's an important part of why the decision is so broad.

On the other hand, all this means is that either way lots of appeals coming soon.

[Hook]

I thought this was a pretty good analysis (though take into account I have no expertise in any aspect of this, so when I call it good I merely mean it makes sense to me).I found some of the quotes a bit much but I liked the analysis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/te...it-magnet.html

I think a lot of things will shake out over time and at the appeals court level.

[Mitlov]

I always hate to Monday-morning-quarterback a trial lawyer's work, but I think Samsung totally screwed up their trial strategy. Instead of focusing on their strong argument (Apple's patents weren't legitimate and what was taken wasn't worthy of IP protection), they lost half their 25 hours and all their credibility with the jury arguing that there hadn't been intentional copying. There had; Samsung's own documents proved it.

I would have liked Samsung to have said "yeah, some elements were taken from the iPhone. That's how technology works. Someone takes a step forward, and others follow. That's why there's tabs and a unified search/URL bar in Safari, that's why there's Android-style notifications in iOS, etc."

[r0k]

Here is the post I typed when this thread started, but got pulled away and didn't hit Post Quick Reply...

It's about time! The Phandroids have been ignoring the design similarities between iOS and Android for years.

Nice article Hook, and they are spot on about how many companies are using patents these days and especially about how technology, like water, will tend to "leak around" any obstacle. How many cars have crank starters? The electric starter began as somebody's patent. In every field, companies find a way to make their products competitive by licensing or working around the other guys' patents.

Update: I found a graphic that helps explain what is going on here...
Apple_Samsung1-380x271.jpg

[Varjak]

I wasn't as tuned into the trial as Mitlov; but I wondered if a mistake like that was made. With a jury trial, it's about convincing the jury, which might have been amenable to an argument that a flat screen, regardless of the corners and other minor aesthetic details is going to be rectangular. Then show 'em plenty of other devices with icons long before the iPhone came out. That closes most of the case. Then Samsung just has to dispense with the 'bounce' and a few other non-substantive OS touches.

The worst thing is that the SIII DOES look a lot like older iPhones (not the new ones); but to me that's hardly a selling point. I don't think people choose the SIII because it looks like an iPhone or that they hope to 'fool' someone. It's not like buying a counterfeit Vuitton bag and passing it off.

QF, the bulk of the case (and thus the damages) seem to be more about the design details and not the OS itself. I forget how many counts out of the total were the OS, but I believe it was the minority of them (again, the 'bounce effect' and the pinch-to-zoom/shrink).

[Hook]

Update: I found a graphic that helps explain what is going on here...
Apple_Samsung1-380x271.jpg

I found one too. ;-)

[rkevwill]

Noooooo, not the Roku!! Thats one of those horror stories we want to forget