Print 124 comment(s) - last by nafhan.. on Aug 27 at 4:41 PM

Want to guess which company is breaking out the champagne tonight?

The jury reached a verdict today and they found Samsung guilty on multiple counts of infringing upon Apple design and software patents. While Apple was able to hold Samsung's feet to the fire on the majority of its utility patents, Samsung received no love from the jurors on its countersuit claims.
The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1,051,855,000 USD ($1.05B USD) in damages. Apple owes Samsung absolutely nothing.

Apple CEO Tim Cook [Image Source: Paul Sakuma, Associated Press]

Not surprisingly, both Apple and Samsung have issued statements to the New York Times regarding the decision. First up, 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.
And now we have Samsung, which is clearly not pleased with the outcome of this case:
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.
And even though Microsoft had absolutely nothing to do with this trial (Microsoft can safely sit on the sidelines as a spectator), Bill Cox, senior director of Marketing Communications for Windows Phone, added his two cents in on the decision:

Considering Microsoft’s current position in the smartphone marketplace, we’re not quite sure it's “winning” in this case.

Updated 8/25/2012 @ 2:53am EST
9to5Mac has received an internal memo sent to Apple employees by Apple CEO Tim Cook. In the memo, which features similar wording to the statement issued by Apple after the ruling, Cook describes how taking Samsung to court wasn't about the "patents or money":

Today was an important day for Apple and for innovators everywhere.
Many of you have been closely following the trial against Samsung in San Jose for the past few weeks. We chose legal action very reluctantly and only after repeatedly asking Samsung to stop copying our work. For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values. We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. And we do this to delight our customers, not for competitors to flagrantly copy.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the jury who invested their time in listening to our story. We were thrilled to finally have the opportunity to tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than we knew.
The jury has now spoken. We applaud them for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.
I am very proud of the work that each of you do.
Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens.

Sources: The New York Times, Twitter

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: well
By tayb on 8/25/2012 9:24:28 PM , Rating: 5
3. when exactly has apple ever 'innovated'? as far as i know, they take ideas from others, and then polish them a bit. and i say this as the owner of an MBA, with which i am quite happy. but innovation is something else.

People just have incredibly short memories. Do you not remember the "smartphone" market prior to 2007? It was horrible. Windows Mobile, RIM with trackballs, and Samsung using resistive touch screens with god awful OSes... just to name a few "features" from that time period. Hell, if you wanted a "smart phone" the top of the line models usually came with a stylus. A freaking stylus!!

Android was in development but if you ever saw the early Android builds you would know that it was a RIM clone. They weren't building a touch friendly OS, they were going to take on RIM, and it looked HORRIBLE.

The iPhone changed everything, whether you care to admit it or not. Did the technology exist? Sure. Had anyone put that technology in a phone?? No way. It was literally ground breaking and it brought the other players to their knees. They had nothing, absolutely nothing, to compete with the iPhone. WP7 and Android were created in RESPONSE to the original iPhone. That's innovation. We've all benefited from it.

RE: well
By amanojaku on 8/25/2012 10:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you do have a short memory, limited to only the things Apple does that you like.

First off, LG arguably created the first modern touchscreen smartphone when it introduced the Prada. BEFORE Apple.

Second, the technology to create modern touchscreen smartphones wasn't even available or affordable until 2006. Those breakthroughs were not thanks to Apple, since 100% of the components were made by other companies, including Samsung. Apple submitted designs to the manufacturers, which looked eerily similar to Braun products from the 1960s.

These quotes are awesome:

"Apple lawyers are planning to ask that the two dozen Samsung devices found to have infringed its patents be barred from the U.S. market. Most of those devices are "legacy" products with almost nonexistent new sales in the United States."

"Apple should be paying royalties to Sony for stealing their idea of a rectangular portable music player that requires the user to wear earphones."

"Its okay, when apple trys to enter the TV game Samsung can sue em back left and right for making a tv that looks like a tv."

"As a product design engineer, I find the verdict absurd. No code or engineering was taken from Apple and used by Samsung. It would be like Ford suing GM over the Camaro because the Mustang came first. That's called competition, not theft!"

RE: well
By tayb on 8/26/2012 7:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
The Prada? Seriously? Did you ever use that phone? I did. It's great that it beat the iPhone to the market but the phone sucked. It had a capacitive touch screen....aaaaaaand... that's about the best feature of the phone. The iPhone had a well-built and well-designed OS backing the hardware, the Prada did not. The iPhone also managed to outsell the Prada nearly 7:1 despite costing over three times as much. The Prada was a POS.

RE: well
By Reclaimer77 on 8/26/2012 8:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
LOL I love the logic here. What a bunch of pathetic apologist nonsense.

It's great that it beat the iPhone to the market but the phone sucked.

If it "sucked", so what? Are you 12 or something? Prior art means prior art. Please find me a quote from patent law where prior art doesn't count if it can be subjectively judged as "sucking".

It had a capacitive touch screen

This is relevant how? It's not. Chassis design and rounded edges are relevant, no matter what screen technology is in the chassis.

The iPhone had a well-built and well-designed OS backing the hardware

That's great. Give Apple a cookie. In the meantime you can explain to me how this discounts any damn point he was making. Considering how the first iPhone released with an OS that omitted key features and common place things, it's pretty debatable how "well-built" the OS was until the first few major patches.

The iPhone also managed to outsell the Prada nearly 7:1 despite costing over three times as much.

Another fanboish talking point. I wasn't aware patent law and prior art was on a 'winner take all' basis!

By your logic Samsung shouldn't have been sued, because they outsell the iPhone 3 to 1. BOOM!

RE: well
By amanojaku on 8/26/2012 11:04:40 PM , Rating: 3
Rampant fanboyism exists on all sides, but the Apple side takes it to extremes. I'm curious about one thing, though. I never heard of the Samsung F700 until this case. It came out a month after the original iPhone, and looks just like it, yet Apple didn't include that as a device that broke its design patents, and it's listed in the evidence as a pre-iPhone design. Probably because it was a slider, but still...

As someone else here said, the deck was stacked against Samsung. The jury already knew which way it was ruling on day one of deliberations, which is why the verdict came down so quickly.

What I find intriguing is the way the Samsung emails were interpreted.

“All this time we’ve been paying all our attention to Nokia, and concentrated our efforts on things like Folder (flip phone), Bar (candy bar), Slide (keyboard), yet when our [product] is compared to the unexpected competitor Apple’s iPhone, the difference is truly that of Heaven and Earth,” according to the email. “It’s a crisis of design.”

“Can you show me the document that shows me that there’s a crisis in design compared to Nokia?” (Apple lawyer William) Lee asked (Samsung Chief Strategy Officer Justin) Denison.

“No I can’t,” Denison said.

“The only documents that you can identify from Samsung that refer to a crisis in design… refer to the iPhone,” Lee said.
Basically, Samsung looked to Nokia, then the market leader, as the standard prior to the iPhone, yet Nokia never sued Samsung.

When the iPhone came out, every manufacturer ridiculed the form factor. Without a flip the screen was exposed, and it cracked often. Without the candy bar or slider all keys were virtual, and hard to press accurately. No one thought the iPhone would sell due to those limitations, yet it killed. The "crisis" was the realization that the masses didn't care, they just loved the way it looked.

Funny thing is, iPhone screens still crack, and the keys are still hard to press. I don't know anyone who can type on the damn thing quickly, and everyone I know has the phone in a bumper or sleeve. People say the iPhone is advanced, but the iPhone design is a step BACKWARDS, in my opinion.

RE: well
By BSMonitor on 8/27/2012 10:02:29 AM , Rating: 2
Umm, if the F700 was a sliding keyboard phone, it was much like an iPhone at all. Weird.

RE: well
By daar on 8/26/2012 4:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't matter if Samsung/LG had an awful OS, they were pioneering the availability of touch screens and complex OS to the consumer market.

What Apple did was the same thing but made improvements in both respective areas.

Did LG sue and try to ban the iPhone because they previously had a rectangular phone with touch screen capabilities? No, it was a good product and they (among other companies) decided to learn from it.

Samsung, with the help of Google's OS, introduced the Galaxy line of products which is selling well. Many people have decided to purchase it over Apple products because they feel it does some things better than Apple's products.

Instead of Apple learning and improving their product to match this, like all other companies have done before to reach the point we are at, Apple has decided to sue them out. Absurd.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki