Apple wins big: Samsung ordered to pay $1.05 billion in damages

Just yesterday I reported that a South Korean court had found Apple and Samsung both guilty of infringing each other’s patents, and claimed that in a good patent war no one wins. Turns out I was wrong. Big time. A few hours after that story posted, news reached us that the jury in the American leg of the global Apple vs. Samsung battle returned a verdict, and a damning one for Samsung.

After taking less than three days to deliberate the case, the jury found that Samsung copied from Apple, rejected all of Samsung’s own counter claims, and awarded the American company $1.05 billion in damages.


The jury agreed with the Cupertino, Calif.-based corporation that Samsung’s mobile handsets copy elements from the iPhone, including how it displays text and icons, and that Samsung copies the bounce-back response in iOS (something that the South Korean court also found earlier), and infringed Apple’s tap-to-zoom, one-finger-to-scroll, two-to-pinch and zoom navigation features. The jury also said that Samsung willfully stolen design elements from Apple, and that is the basis for the damages award.

The jury didn’t agree that Samsung copies Apple’s rectangular iPad design, however, which will be scant consolation to the South Korean firm. The Verge has the final jury form up on its site right now.

No doubt because the jury delivered the verdict so speedily, and because the case was so involved, there was a little late drama when inconsistences were found in the jury form (with damages awarded for non-infringements), leading to the amount Samsung has to pay being reduced by $2 million.

Following the verdict, Apple issued statement:

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 trial 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.

Samsung’s statement focuses on the effects the verdict will have on the consumer, rather than itself:

[The] 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.

Of course, despite this big win for Apple, which will likely see some of Samsung’s competing products banned at least temporarily in the US, the game is far from over. Following the verdict a Samsung spokesman said, "We will move immediately to file post-verdict motions to overturn this decision in this court and if we are not successful, we will appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals."

However you view the news -- as a huge win for Apple or a massive loss for Samsung and consumer choice -- there’s no question this result will have massive ramifications for the smart device sector, and give Apple some considerable clout in its on-going battles with other Android manufacturers.

As if Apple didn’t have enough to celebrate about, the news caused its stock to soar, reaching an all-time high of $675.11 in after-hours trading.

Photo Credit: VIPDesignUSA/Shutterstock

78 Responses to Apple wins big: Samsung ordered to pay $1.05 billion in damages

  1. WebWarp says:

    The biggest problem with this is really the fact that we now across the globe have different rulings in basicly the same cases.. Something is wrong, they can't all be right ? Sure makes it hard to be a company if the regulation and laws is not the same for patents across the globe ..

    • skruis says:

      Probably best to assemble a set of requirements composed of the various restrictions in each of the countries you plan to make your product available to and stick to that.

  2. NoOneImportant says:

    No surprise a US court issue a judgement in favor of a US company. it's a no brainer for the jury.

    Who is apple going to sue next, LG maybe (another korean company)?
    Apple could just tell them, do you want to end up like samsung, or would you like to just hand over hundreds of million peacefully?

    • Peter says:

      It was a fair decision. and it was not a no brainer, initial damage asked was 2.5
      billion dollors. they went through 700 cases against samsung and rejected many
      of those. Samsung copied and made billions of dollors. so that's fair? If you
      were an inventor do you like others to copy it and make more profit than you?

      • Snidleywhiplash says:

        Not over yet for Samsung. Remember they were found "willful". That means Apple will be allowed to request more than the 1bill or the judge could as well.

      • CA says:

        Samsung could have agreed to Apple's licensing terms, and paid less than half-billion... BUT NOOOOO they wanted to gamble, and the lost!!!

      • CA says:

        THANK YOU!!!!

        Geez these geeks are so stoopid and being like sore losers!
        A jury of American peers found samsung to be guilty of ripping off Apple, PERIOD!!!!!

        Get over it! No matter how juvenile your illogical thought process is, it wont change the fact that rational, mature, professional, experienced Americans found samsung ripped off Apple, PERIOD.

        Samsung can appeal all they want but they have little basis now... And im sure if they keep fighting Apple will start to ask for more.

    • view2share says:

      Google may be next. Samsung had their day in court, and lost. It is what it is. If you have an issue to take up with the patent rules, that would be where to direct your angst.

    • CA says:

      hey genius, samsung also lost in its home country...

      except there Apple also lost giving the koreans some face to save!

  3. ilev says:

    This the second win for Apple on Friday. Apple won against Google/Motorola as well.

    Apple cleared of infringing Motorola patents,
    avoids U.S. import ban

    The U.S. International Trade Commission on Friday
    completed its review of a Motorola complaint from
    April, ruling against an import ban on Apple's
    iPhone and iPad after finding the devices do not
    infringe on certain wireless technology patents
    owned by the Google subsidiary.

    Although not as substantial as Friday's Apple v.
    Samsung outcome, the six-member Commission at the
    top of the ITC cleared Apple of infringing on three
    declared standards-essential Motorola patents, but
    held off on another as it completed its review of
    an earlier initial determination.

  4. woe says:

    Very glad to here this. Samsung has been doing this stuff long before Apple. Samsung now has the financial might to take anyone's invention, say from a small company, mass produce it and drive the original inventor out of business. Hopefully this 1 BILLION dollar judgement will make them think twice in the future.

    A great big FU to Google as well, trying to use the Motorola angle as well to get at Apple.

    My only disappointment is that Joe Wilcox did not have to write this. We got all of his BULL SHIT about evil Apple, but not him eating a BIG FAT slice of humble pie.

    • glenn says:

      If Samsung decide to stop making the A5 processor for Apple, it will take some time (like 6 months to a year) for Apple to bring a new fab online. It's not like the other 32nm and 22nm fabs have extra capacity just waiting for another customer to stop by. Apple are probably preparing for that possibility because Samsung could decide to stop making the A5 even though it would cost them a great deal.

      It's a nuclear option that would cripple BOTH companies for some time.

      • co4nd says:

        First it's most likely Samsung is under contract to make the processor, pulling out would incur penalties. Second they like to make money, and I'm sure the chip fabrication business is very profitable for them, and finally no third party company would ever trust Samsung to make chips for them if they did this.

      • CA says:

        OMG I just teared up being so proud!

        LOL... JK but in reality, this is THE BEST post I have seen here today.

        So much logic and common sense all wrapped up in a pretty comment with a bow!

      • Info Dave says:

        @TechnologyRules:disqus Yet the comment gets down votes. I don't understand this. @betanews-3fde502aa65e2ce159a2a255ac96f632:disqus got the same treatment. Makes me very leery of the population at large.

      • 1DaveN says:

        I think it's more likely that Apple would change processor vendors than that Samsung would turn away Apple's money. Either way, without Samsung, there's only one place for Apple to go for processors, and that's Intel - a company they seemingly already have a good relationship with. I agree that Intel couldn't start banging out processors on day 1, but regardless, if Apple and Samsung break up, Intel's the only company ready and willing to be there for the rebound.

      • woe says:

        There would be plenty of places to make them and they would line up to do it if they ditched Samsung.

      • glenn says:


        (First, a disclaimer. I am currently employed as an engineer at a major semiconductor house.)

        "There would be plenty of places to make them and they would line up to do it if they ditched Samsung."

        That's not quite true. 90%+ of the semiconductor companies in the world are fabless, meaning they have little or no capability of manufacturing the latest, smallest geometries in large volumes. EVERYBODY in the semiconductor business knows this and it has been this way for at least the last 10 years.

        You might say that AMD, Texas Instruments, Nvidia, Via, Marvell,
        Qualcom, etc are big semiconductor houses that must have their own fab. It's true that they may have some production capability but much or most of their chips are made at what's known in the industry as a foundry.

        There are only a handful of fab companies in the world since it costs
        up to $3 billion dollars and up to a year to bring up a state of the art
        fab. TSMC, USMC, Global Foundries, and Samsung are major players in the foundry business. TSMC is by far the largest with more revenue than the next 13 largest foundries combined. Samsung is a distant 4th with 1/7 of TSMC's revenue. The top two foundries are Taiwanese corporations and 6 out of the top 14 are Chinese or Taiwanese. TSMC has invested over $9 billion bringing up a new fab this year.

        Every advance in IC processing technology, ie, moving from 32nm to 22nm geometries REQUIRES the building of a new fab. This is the main reason why foundries exist, very few companies can sustain this level of investment.

        Intel is the only major semiconductor manufacturer to fab the latest and greatest technology and the ability to supply the massive volumes in the processor market. Mainly because they have the expertise AND money to build a captive fab. But even Intel outsources some production foundries.

        Apple has probably already started the process of bringing up a new supplier for their chips since this would allow them to move away from Samsung. Apple is in the in-enviable position of having a supplier as a direct competitor in the smartphone and tablet markets. If Samsung were to raise prices or delay shipments, Apple would have no choice but to temporarily raise prices OR reduce their profit margins.

      • woe says:

        Specifically I was talking about these two "TSMC, USMC" and I know they have been doing this stuff for a very long time. I also know there are others, TI ,Intel, AMD etc.

        The point is that if Samsung was to get STUPID and quit making A5.x's for Apple the others would pickup the slack for one simple reason.......HORDES of money. Apple does make a few devices and these others would like to get that business.

        Also if they did the demand for Apple products would go even higher than it is today because consumers would fear they could not get them and supply would be short fueling the craziness.

      • glenn says:


        All good points. Not saying that Samsung would be that stupid, but Apple would be equally stupid NOT to move away from Samsung.

        You say that oodles of money can be made supplying chips to Apple. It's not all that rosy. Apple squeezes their suppliers for every penny and we don't make all that much per chip. Everyone knows how much the silicon costs and the approximate yield so it's not rocket science for Apple to determine the bare minimum a supplier is will to accept. Apple is also notorious for switching vendors just to save a few pennies.

        Doing business with Apple is a bit like having a gun to your head.

      • 1DaveN says:

        You can google up a zillion articles all saying similar things - apparently there are only four possibilities: Samsung, TI, TMSC, and Intel. All of them have negatives - TMSC has contracts with anyone and everyone, so Apple would just be another job in the queue. The negative to Intel is their relationship with lots of Apple competitors, but given the current situation with Samsung, that might be less of an issue today than it once was.

      • CA says:


        SCAMSUNG operates multiple lines of business.

        Much like Sony, the scamsung components suppliers, mobile division, appliacnes division, and small electronic division operate ALMOST entirely independent of each other.

        this is why this weekends emergency meeting by scamsung was held WITHOUT the CEO because the CEO of scamsung is more concerned with the components supply division which brings in more profit. The scamsung folks emphasized the solidity of their "internal firewall" to appease Apple ans secure their trust to stay in business!

        Unlike emotional juvenile STOOPID fandroid geeks abaundant on this site, these guys in suits ARE NOT STOOPID, and being well versed in Business 101, make it clear that PROFIT, is the objective. NOT fanboyism!!!!

      • CA says:

        Dont forget Apple does not just fax over an order once per week.

        Apple IS WELL KNOWN for paying $$BILLION$$ up front ahead of production to secure the best price and there are ironclad "CONTRACT" which minimize if not eliminate "risk" for both parties engaging in multi-billion dollar contract deals.

        This is far from a typical vendor/supplier deal...

      • glenn says:


        It looks like TSMC is very skittish about supplying Apple with A5 chips. The just turned down an of $1 billions from Apple and Qualcomm. They cited reservations of building a single customer fab.

        As I said below, dealing with Apple is like having a gun to your head.

      • rebradley says:

        Perhaps that explains Apple inability to get a 4G phone out. People have been waiting for the iPhone 5 for over a year while others are now on their 2d generation 4Gs.

      • CA says:

        if you really think thats why Apple doesnt have a 4G phone then you really should NEVER comment on tech blogs again!

        sheesh talk about brain deficiency!
        Unless you are under 18 years old, there is no excuse for a comment that delusional!

      • Bob Grant says:

        You're right... It's because Apple can't come up with anything to compete with the new Android phones.

      • CA says:

        Good point... but you forget that Samsung/Apple have whats called a "contract" where breach of that "contract" would results in a lawsuit based on black and white violations, and not "feel of design", which would cost scamsung A LOT more than that $1 billion they lost Friday.

      • CA says:

        Taiwan semiconductor would be a viable option... and given apple's 100+ BILLION$... It would be a few signatures from Tim Cook, even if that!

      • CA says:

        No genius... not gonna happen.

        It would be called "BREACH OF CONTRACT"

        And if you read more news, instead of talking out of your but hole, you would find out that Scamsung held an emergency meeting this weekend WITHOUT THE CEO of SCAMSUNG because they dont want to hurt the component supplier side of scamsung and they stressed to the public that scamsung has "an internal firewall" separating the phone division from the component division...

        M0R0N translation: scamsung being a company for profit, is NOT STOOPID like most of its geek fandroid faithful, and realizes that Apple adds double-digit billions of revenue to its bottom line, and its not worth risking that income.

    • CA says:

      I was searching for Joe Thrilcox to throw out MORE BULL "S" about Apple.

      But it never came. I even EMAILED JOE DIRECTLY, only to be ignored. I supposed Joe Thrilcox is not done crying yet. Maybe he even had a heart attack!

      Or maybe he is finally to ashamed of his biased opinions and baseless arguments about Apple now that Silicon Valley peers ranging from engineers, patent holders, legal aides and workers, and other technical and business professionals HAVE DECLARED SAMSUNG RIPPED OFF APPLE! PERIOD. NO Q ABOUT IT!

      I think it is too overwhelming for mr thrilcox.
      he cant handle it. As childish as it seems, I would LOVE to stand in front of Joe, point my figner at him, laugh scream and jump up and around uncontrolably taunting him for ALL his BS articles against Apple which have now been invalidated by a JURY of AMERICAN PEERS!!!!!!!!!
      Kinda how when your fav football team kicks but on your friends football team after he talked smack all weekend.... yeahh kinda like that!!!!!!!!

  5. skruis says:

    The law is the law and patents are patents. In a legal case, that's all that matters. Sure, I agree with the idea that's it kind of pointless to patent rectangles with rounded corners as Samsung said but there was much more to the depth of 'copying' than that simple description. Even if it came down to something as simple as rectangles with rounded corners, if such a basic and simple thing is patented, you better either license the IP from the patent holder or invalidate the patent before you start mass producing potentially infringing products. If you're not willing to redefine the framework and content of that framework (patent system and patents) then you better do your best to work within the rules of that same framework and in this case, that means paying the license fees before it turns into a legal judgment with damages awarded. Samsung made mistakes along the way whether it's actually copying or perceivably copying and now they literally have to pay for them.

    • beautox says:

      It was never as simple as rectangles. That was some garbage put out by Samsung to make out that they were being hard done by. And it was picked up with gusto by the press and androidati.

    • CA says:

      Excellent argument... If samsung doesnt like the American patent system, then dont do business here.

      You dont see Apple going abroad and telling local governments what is right and wrong. Apple will play by the rules, and when they break the rules and get caught, they pay up and shut up.

      But not scamsung.... no they want to keep pushing the issue!

      • skruis says:

        Well, I don't mean that Samsung shouldn't do business here. I buy some Samsung products. I mean that if you are going to do business anywhere, that you either try to change the local system if you're dissatisfied with it or that you accept it for what it is and work within the framework. If someone has a ridiculous patent, challenge it. Maybe you lose. Maybe you win but it would make much more sense to invalidate the patent and perhaps adjust your product before you mass produce your potentially infringing devices.
        But there seems to be more to this than just "you violated my patents, pay up." Apple seemed to want to make an example by not settling out of court and they did that. Samsung made themselves a target and the patent system allowed Apple to go after them. So despite the fact that the law is the law, there will be some bad blood just because of the way things were handled. I can understand people being dissatisfied with Apple for taking the process through to a judgement but I can't agree with criticizing Apple for monetizing it's IP. That's good business.

  6. ToeKneeC67 says:

    Samsung can bite me. I don't have an iPhone but know the first thing people said when Samsung Android phones came out, was wow, an iPhone knockoff (or clone). Anyone in business knows most Asian companies don't stand by contracts or patents (this has been said many times on Bloomberg Radio). Others are innovating, work out patent deals or simply know how much to copy and at a slower pace. It didn't help that the Android OS with it's skin looks so much like an iPhone too.

    And for all the people below bashing US laws - we earn it, we spend billions of dollars and tons of man hours coming up with things (including medicine). It's not that we are smarter, as we hire people from around the world. Hope one day you come up with an awesome idea that cost you everything to have it stolen.

    On that, can't wait to trade in my Samsung S III for a new Windows Phone 8 (oh...a stable OS that doesn't look like an iPhone).

    • CA says:

      Isnt that Amazing... Nokia made a rectangular phone THAT LOOKS NOTHING LIKE AN IPHONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      OMG how is that possible... I mean I thought scamsung said the iPhone was the only way to make a phone. I guess copying is the only way scamsung could make a phone!

  7. smarterthanuare says:

    If this ruling was mainly about software patents then why are other compnies allowed tom

  8. smarterthanuare says:

    Well, at least Motorola is allowed to use the software features that Samsung is now banned from using. Motorola is also allowed to make thin rectangular phones with rounded corners too.

  9. Claudinho69 says:

    can somebody enlighten me , might be a dumb question, but isn't a lot of things apple sued for was made by android not samsung?

  10. rebradley says:

    If it wasn't obvious before, there is no doubt that Apple is just another huge evil international corporation. I think lots of fabricators will think twice before they produce parts for Apple. Third rate fabricators that employ virtual slave labor very low standards of quality will will pick up the business. But what does Apple care. Their products are already made to self-destruct after a couple years and Apple has cultivated a clique of kool-aid drinkers that enjoy being patronized. What has become of the great company that Steve Jobs built? Now Apple is nothing but lawyers and former yes-men that wouldn't know an original idea if it hit them in the face. Sad, I miss Steve Jobs.

    • beautox says:

      Actually it's Samsung that's evil, but don't let facts get in the way of your cherished beliefs.

      • rebradley says:

        @betanews-967e9762cd256961572df916205f2eaf:disqus if you can see beyond your walled garden, you'll see that I said nothing about Samsung. Yes Samsung is no better than Apple but then again they aren't a one trick pony and can survive without a smartphone. Apple on the other hand couldn't and can't even produce the long awaited iPhone 5 (which everyone thought would come out the summer of 2011) while it's multifaceted competitors are on their 2d generation 4G phones. Those are the facts. And yes Apple is now and Evil Corporation. I miss Steve Jobs.

      • ThKal says:

        Apple a one trick pony? They produced at least four revolutions: Mac, iTunes and iPod, iPhone, and iPad. And they keep introducing one iPhone a year. They don't care about 4G until they can produce a 4G phone that doesn't kill your battery and that works all over the world.

      • CA says:

        I dont bother trying to explain to these mental midgets...

        They have a brain defect which prevents LOGIC from forming.

    • CA says:

      If you think fabricators will think twice you are severely handicapped in BRAIN FUNCTION!!!

      Businesses operate for one reason only... PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Business 101... anyone thinking otherwise IS A LITERAL STOOPID M0R0N bafoon!!!!

  11. Snidleywhiplash says:

    Something to realize all. Willful intent is what was found in the judgement too. That means Apple or the judge can increase the damages by up to 3x.

  12. brunul says:

    I mean, really, a lot of you just can’t concede that you’re delusional! Don’t want to admit it, you can't, you won't but justice was served today and Apple deserves this victory 100%.

    In 2008, I bought the Samsung Instinct because Bell Canada didn't have the iPhone; Rogers did and I was a Bell customer. And the first thing that came to mind when I started using the Instinct was how evident Samsung copied the iPhone 3G. Like, an absolute a very bad way, bad icons, shitty apps and crappy battery life. 

    Since then, things have changed dramatically, at least, and Android is a very decent clone. I know cuz I own a HTC One X and love it… BUT that is exactly what Android is: a copycat. And Google, Samsung, Motorola, LG, Sony Ericsson, HTC and others are, without question, all copycats. And admittedly they all owe something to Apple. 

    • CA says:

      THANK YOU!!!

      OMG I could kiss you right now!!! Im shocked that there are actualyl some reational posts on here for this article. I thought it would be the usual rants and F* Apple comments.....

      Now while it is obvious google took the idea from Apple with android, I truly believe that some phones from MS/Nokia and HTC have made a good effort to avoid ripping off Apple designs!



      CHANGE IT!

  13. Blad3force says:

    Samsung copied Apple's inventions, simples! Google next...

  14. ryobanoken says:

    "It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners" Well said. I know! make triangle samsung tablets with sharp blade corners just to avoid making harmless round corners.

    So to avoid infringing copyright Samsung should purposely make thick round phones with displays upside down? May be fist-smash-zoom? or dual-elbow-pinch to zoom?
    May be place text vertically on left of the app icons.

    • CA says:

      or maybe swipe corner to corner to zoom, or tap and hold to zoom, maybe make a REAL rectangle instead of copying Apple' iconic rounded rectangle...

      Its funny how HTC and MS/Nokia can make phone that look nothing like iPhones, but samsung's phone just magically turned up identical to iPhone 3G/S ALSO magically OVERNIGHT AFTER the iPhone was launched!

  15. scophi says:

    Two issues for me:

    1) I'm not sure a patent trial should be a jury trial. Patents are very specific documents. It would have been better to have a bench trial that submitted expert opinions from designers and engineers. This is not a touchy-feely case, so a group of average citizens is not what you need.

    2) A juror recently stated that they wanted to "send a message" to other companies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the courts were supposed to deliver consistent and equitable rulings...not use a person or a company to make an example of. That's something a mob boss would do. Again, a good reason why a patent trial shouldn't be a jury trial.

    • ToeKneeC67 says:

      To your point on number one, they had a thing on the news about this. As I thought the same thing. As a lot of this suit came down to design a jury, which are consumers, could determine if Samsung's design was so close it could 'confuse' an average shopper thinking that they are getting an iPhone equal (clone....which was different then knockoff).

      • scophi says:

        I suppose that makes sense.

        But doesn't it seem odd, then, that a patent application should be so darn specific, yet when a dispute comes up we leave it up to random consumer preferences?

        Hmm. The legal world ever eludes me.

      • mshulman says:

        I think that's a ridiculous reason though - If a consumer thinks they are so close then they are idiots. Even if the products looks close, think the box saying Samsung instead of Apple might be a clue??

      • ThKal says:

        Aren't both an HP laptop and a Dell laptop just variances of the same product (a Windows laptop) but made by different companies? Why wouldn't someone assume that both Apple and Samsung make iPhones when they look so similar?

      • mshulman says:

        I guess you are right. Here in the US, people are not responsible for their actions, so we shouldn't blame someone if they buy a device thinking its an iphone or ipad but really isn't. Let's blame Samsung.

        I stand corrected.. end sarcasm..

      • skruis says:

        That still doesn't seem right though. If they wanted to answer the question: is it too close for consumers to tell the difference? I would think that the answer would more applicable as evidence than an implied verdict.

  16. Andreas says:

    There is this notion that Apple are great innovators, (spend 2.4$ billion on R&D compared to Samsungs 9.1$ billion in 2011) or like Steve Jobs said "We have invented multitouch". Further from the truth you cannot get. Multitouch was already in progress during the 80´s. Apple patented a small fraction of it. A good move to be able to sue other companies but hardly an invention that Apple produced themselves. Apple is great at taking different techniques that has been evolving for decades and assembling them in a good-looking package. Credit where credit is due.

    Few people except the ones who stays up-to-date with tech, knows that Samsung produces many vital parts of an iPhone. Like 25% of the price goes into Samsungs pocket. Thats how interlocked many of these smartphone-companies are. They create together to give us better products. Trials like this one makes me wanna puke, taking another company to court just because you patented something other companies before you have invented. The pantentsystem in the U.S is screwed but i cant help to dispise Apple a little bit for actually making the most of it. I think they feel threathend now that Android and Samungs is blowing way past them market-wise at a tremendous pace.

    The part that bothers me the most though is that people have a tendency to think Apple is some sort of saint who doesnt steal from other companies.All companies look at other ones to evolve their own products.For example just a couple, there´s many more.

    Even though i own an iPhone 4 myself, im more and more starting to lean towards Android due to the simple fact that the iPhone 4 & 4S is basically the same phone as the original iPhone, with a few new additions. Android on the other hand is evolving their OS and phones at a way more rapid pace, and the hardware has to keep up to be able to handle all the new improvements.

    • ThKal says:

      So you prefer to have to learn a new UI every 2 years instead of having something that doesn't change for change's sake but evolves slowly like OS X or iOS?

      • Bob Grant says:

        The UI between 2.2 and 4.0 is extremely similar... It's like going from Windows 2000 to Windows XP.

        Is it really so hard to learn to use different colored or shaped icons? Or maybe it's the better graphics and improved performance...

  17. Jyzz R. Makker says:

    fuck apple

  18. romath says:

    Seems Samsung screwed up big time, before the testimony even started:

  19. jfplopes says:

    According to the patent law, patents were created "to promote innovation".
    Is the patent law promoting innovation or protecting large companies capable of crushing smaller ways using the legal system against them?
    I don't side with eighter Apple or Samsung. They both are big companies capable of handling this legal processes.
    But if company A wins a process like this against company B and thus become the only ones that leggaly can use "touch-to-scroll" in their products,
    how will this promote innovation?

    • woe says:

      Easy if Joe Inventor that does not have the financial might of Apple or Samsung invents something and then gets a patent for it Joe is protected.

      With out such protection Joe might just "eff it Samsung will just steal it and make a ton of money off MY INVENTION so I am not going to waste the time".

      Samsung has been ripping off companies IP for a long time before Apple. Sony took them to court many times, but in Asian countries patent law does not mean much of anything.

  20. SjonkelMack says:

    For the ones who think Ipad was first - or Samsung hasnt copied anything....

    A FreePad was in sale in Norway december 2000 - long before any Ipad was on the market. They went bankrupt pretty fast, but still...
    Freepad had touch screen, wireless (dect/ISND), usb, e-mail client, fax ;), Opera, linux OS
    The cylinder was the battery - NiCd...

  21. ashtonxander says:

    I think Raz Silberman is correct with companies who are now on top. Most of them have broken rules. Silberman said "
    Samsung could also win some public relations points by apologizing to Apple. But it doesn’t have to. All the company has to do is keep making money and its shareholders will be happy." I know you want to read further, click

  22. mshulman says:

    While its not really related to the case, I think the biggest issue with patents involving technology is that they last far too long.

    Invent the tire and patent it and 20 years later, it's still in use. Patent something in the technology world and 2 years or so later, its been replaced. Seems to me the whole system is just plain broken.

    • skruis says:

      I don't think the system is broken. I just think the implementation of the system is poor. The idea behind it: to protect innovation is a good one but the way that the patent system has been supported and abused recently is not very good. As anything, system's, much like our system of government can be modified by amendments and new laws, should be improved upon as time goes by. The patent system needs tweaks and the patent office determine what patents are granted needs to be a bit more restrictive in the patents they grant but I don't think the system itself is broken...just that it's easily misused.

      • mshulman says:

        I think when you can patent single finger scrolling, something is broken. After all, when you move to touch, how difficult is it to translate sliding a scroll wheel with a mouse to sliding your finger across a screen?

        I suppose I could get a patent for shutting down a computer by a 4 finger tap to the screen?

      • skruis says:

        Right, I agree but it's not 'broken' per's just that that particular patent really shouldn't have been granted or at the very least, easily overridden due to 'generality'.

  23. dma770 says:

    Patent laws are very important at protecting an inventor's ideas. however i think their should be a clear classification on ideas. if an idea is a way of using something it should not be patentable. scroll by touch is one of those that should not be patented. rather the core of the function. such as having the 4 icon doc, how the app draw idea is basically the same. i my self is a andriod fan, and agree samsung copy a lot of the ideas from Apple. than again, apple copied from motorola. my first touch phone prior to iphone is motorola. UI is a bit different but function is the same (not nearly as polished as iphone but touch to scroll was there).

© 1998-2020 BetaNews, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy - Cookie Policy.