Jury verdict form from Apple v. Samsung patent trial is released
adding fun for the user". That was followed by the '915 patent which is for "touch-to-zoom" using two fingers to stretch out or compress an image on a screen. All smartphones have this feature now, but the jury said that all but two Samsung devices infringed on this patent. We can recall when the Motorola DROID launched without this feature (which eventually was added in a subsequent software update).
Speaking of zooming, the jury found that 13 Samsung models infringed on the '163 Tap-to-zoom patent which covers a one tap zooming process. 5 devices from Samsung were found not to have infringed on this patent. The 'D677 and 'D087 patents cover design elements (thus the 'D' prefix) on the Apple iPhone such as the bezel and the layout of the phone. Patent 'D889 covered the industrial design of a tablet. None of Samsung's tablets were found by the jury to infringe on Apple's design patents while half of Samsung handsets were found to violate Apple's design patents.
Samsung called the verdict a loss for the American consumer while Apple said it shows that "stealing isn't right." Samsung will seek a ruling from Judge Koh to overturn the verdict, a ploy that very rarely works. If that fails, Samsung will seek an appeal.
1. zhypher_23 (Posts: 195; Member since: 04 Jun 2012)
You've got lucky this time Apple, just wait when you face w/ Google.
6. neutralguy (Posts: 1152; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
I think the jury had mistakes putting checks on apple, they thought it was samsung, vice versa.(as what apple claims, hahaha)
19. smartphone (Posts: 160; Member since: 21 Oct 2011)
And the verdict didn't mention the amount Apple paid to the witnesses, patent officials and the judges, since apple had won the case they should claim this expenditure too in the ruling.
23. Jay_F (Posts: 236; Member since: 29 Nov 2011)
Yea OMG RIGHT!!! Apple totally paid EVERYBODY OFF!!!
32. smartphone (Posts: 160; Member since: 21 Oct 2011)
There is post on phonearena where the witness says he was paid 75k by apple for the testimony.
They were awarded patent of device resembling google glass the next day google showed a working prototype.
They were awarded patent for capacitive touch embeded in LCD screen itself reducing the gap when Samsung superamoled already does that.
Judge Lucy is huge apple fan and please tell me that the fact Apple is an American company doesn't affect their decision, when the so called apple patents are rejected in almost every European country.
So it was a possibility apple@$$.
28. richardyarrell2011 (banned) (Posts: 510; Member since: 16 Mar 2011)
10. dickwyn (Posts: 608; Member since: 07 May 2012)
just wait for the one against motorola mobility it is the closest to google
29. neutralguy (Posts: 1152; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
Oh look what i just found. FROM THE MOUTH OF ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF APPLE COMPUTERS.
2. Sniggly (Posts: 7297; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
There was an interesting legal analysis that I read on Plus which makes a strong case for the jury's verdict and prior deliberations making it very easy for Samsung to appeal, as they apparently made a lot of errors in their judgment. A big one was the foreman making the remark that they viewed the amount of the judgment as a punitive measure, not a compensatory one, as they were supposed to. This was clearly spelled out in the jury instructions.
I think Samsung could honestly win this on appeal as long as they don't entirely f**k it up.
14. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
I have been saying all along from when the verdict was announced (actually, before the verdict was announced) that there is grounds for appeal. My only concern is whether Sammy jettisons their present legal team. Appeal practice is completely different from trial practice.
3. aaronkatrini (Posts: 241; Member since: 06 Jun 2012)
Hey! Sammy clearly stole desing from Apple and for this needs to pay up. But this doent mean Android is stealing from Apple. I was clearly pi$$ed off when with ios 5 came the scrolldown menu notification bar. Clearly apple stealing! And no one said anything.
9. neutralguy (Posts: 1152; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
like what i said before, apple's attitude is to steal from the others but when something was stole/copied to them, or even just taking a hint from their designs/devices, they will be mad.
11. CharlieAtInfinity (Posts: 253; Member since: 10 Apr 2012)
no one said anything when Apple stole the notification bar because Google isn't childish enough to make a great fuss about it..
24. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Once the patent for the Notification function issues, Apple is going to be in a world of hurt. $1 Billion is going to be chump change for what they (Apple) are going to have to pay to license that patent.
13. RORYREVOLUTION (Posts: 3099; Member since: 12 Jan 2010)
Apple is more guilty of stealing or copying than any other tech company on the planet. Apple just wants to stay at the top, why beat the competition when you can just sue it? A cheap, lazy, pathetic way to go. Apple will get what they deserve soon enough.
4. sarb009 (Posts: 300; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
No justice is remained in this world i am going to start worshiping the Devil from now thats it.
5. sarb009 (Posts: 300; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
If u steal its stealing but if iSteal its an art.
17. SGSatlantis (Posts: 222; Member since: 20 Jul 2011)
Since they didn't stole any sales from Apple it should be "if u copy its stealing...". They branded Samsung as thieves, when they themself are the mafia.
7. -box- (Posts: 3984; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
In other slightly forgotten news, South Korean legal system more straightforward and rational than the United States'. Updates at 11. But now, weather.
8. wendygarett (unregistered)
pay compensation is alright but banned the competitor product? Apple has gone too far !!!!
16. Bluesky02 (Posts: 1439; Member since: 05 Dec 2011)
This is what i've been thinking, Apple does not want compensation but direct banned. Sadly for future lawsuite Apple will continue to seek bans
12. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)
In other news, Apple preparing to release a re-branded version of the iPhone 4S, dubbed, the iPhone 5
18. tiara6918 (Posts: 1948; Member since: 26 Apr 2012)
And apple continues with the injustices again...The patents that apple claimed that samsung violated are clearly also present in other smartphones. Here comes apple and their dirty tricks, they're obviously just trying to move samsung out because the company is a threat to their idevices meanwhile those other manufacturers who even violated a patent more(which apple probably ignored) are not being sued.
21. DroidDoesVZW (Posts: 9; Member since: 19 Oct 2009)
It's a shame, really, because I really wanted the ruling to just let alone both sides. Samsung doesn't deserve this. If there was a lawsuit every single time two products looked similar then there wouldn't be enough courthouses for those lawsuits to take place in. I'm really disappointed in Apple. I'm a huge fan of their products but Samsung is right about them essentially becoming the Dictator of mobile devices. It's a shame really, because competition is what keeps Apple's products interesting. Hopefully this success will not lead to slacking off in the future.
22. Justsadd (Posts: 20; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
f**k the apple really childish company...never use apple product rubbish..samsung keepmoving be the world no 1.
25. bantheiphonedotcom (banned) (Posts: 28; Member since: 24 Aug 2012)
so pretty much every smartphone violated patents by APPLE....ok, sure.
26. bantheiphonedotcom (banned) (Posts: 28; Member since: 24 Aug 2012)
This reminds me of when someone is caught breaking and entering into a home and the home owner shoots the robber dead and the robber's family sues the person whose home was broken into.
27. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
Stop buying iProducts. That's the best way to punish Apple. Hit them hard where it would matter the most. Android users are wiser when it comes to spending their money so they wouldn't buy iProducts. Apple is in same league as M$. Long back M$ had sued LINDOWS just because word LINDOWS sounded too similar to WINDOWS. So Apple had a percedent ... Sounding too simialr, looking too similar ... WTF.
30. poddey (Posts: 77; Member since: 22 Mar 2012)
There has to be something wrong with the US patent system/laws here or at least something wrong with the jury verdict.
The verdict against Samsung on Apple's design related patents I can understand, especially with the original SGS. There should be protection against other parties using your designs, tweaking them slightly and then making cheap knock-offs with it, even if everyone can tell them apart because they would be using the aesthetic appeal of of your designs to help sell 'their' product.
I don't get how Apple's utility patents like pinch-to-zoom and double tap to zoom were not invalid due to them being inherently obvious on a touchscreen device or because of prior art because (someone correct me if I am wrong here) I don't believe they are new ideas, if not in earlier commercial/prototype devices shown to Apple then I think certainly in film (Minority Report released in 2002 around 5 years before the iPhone comes to mind) - though I'm not sure if prototype devices, films etc would be relevant under patent law.
I have to also say that the reporting of the verdict on the evening news prime-time, at least here in Australia, hasn't really covered the full story. Nothing was mentioned about Samsung's arguments about prior art - though nothing was also said about the internal Samsung documents - so the general public are going to be none the wiser about the true standing of both parties in this case. The situation isn't black and white. Apple's hands aren't entirely clean.
One more thing... Apple said that this wasn't about money. If that were so then why did Apple approach Samsung with an exhorbitant $30-$40 per phone licence fee to settle the case? What a load of BS.
31. JonBjSig (Posts: 176; Member since: 17 Nov 2011)
The Nexus S 4G infringes on patent '381?
The Nexus S 4G is stock Android and Android at least since 2.3 (not sure about earlier versions) doesn't have bounceback scrolling, it uses an overscroll glow.
This has me seriously doubting how fair or qualified the jury was to judge this case.
34. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
A Harvard Business Review writer points out that the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit is eerily similar to Apple's famous "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft in the mid-1990s. Apple lost the case. If you are not convinced see the article "Who Cares If Samsung Copied Apple?" on Slashdot.
Oh well, that 1990 case was based on "What Apple stole from Xerox and then proudly claimed as their own INNOVATION" for which Apple wanted money for from M$ when they came out with GUI on windows .... So what does this show of American justice system?
35. kanagadeepan (Posts: 823; Member since: 24 Jan 2012)
Apple Advocate: Samsung COPIED the iPhone completely!
Me: So a Samsung Galaxy Series phone works just like an iPhone?
Me: So I get the same experience with Samsung that I get with Apple? AA: No. Android sucks, Samsung phones are horrible to use!
Me: So Apple's phones suck and are horrible to use too?
AA: NO! Apple's phones are awesome.
Me: But I thought you said that Samsung copied Apple's phones. How can that be, if they're identical as you say?
Me: Do Apple phones have LTE?
AA: No. You don't need LTE, 3G EVDO is good enough!
Me: Do Apple phones have screens larger than 3.5 inches?
AA: No. 3.5 inches is enough for
Me: Does Apple offer a removable battery?
AA: No. Removable batteries are terrible!
Me: Is Android a comparable
operating system to iOS?
AA: No. Android SUCKS!
Me: Does Apple make its phone with a plastic case and back?
AA: No. It's all glass.
Me: Does Apple make a phone with an AMOLED display?
AA: No. Apple uses LCD, which is good enough.
Me: So, basically, what you're saying is, other than the user experience, screen size, color, backplane, form factor, operating system, data speeds, look, feel and usability, the
phones are exactly alike.
AA: YES! SAMSUNG COPIED APPLE!
Me: *shakes head*
36. albie1937 (Posts: 18; Member since: 05 Feb 2012)
This verdict will not sit well for the folks overseas. Especially with that juror said that Samsung was guilty from DAY ONE. What a stupid ass comment to make. This may hurt the iPhone 5 sales overseas big time because many people will feel that Samsung didn't get a fair trial. Apple got away with a lot things that they should been found guilty of also.
37. tedkord (Posts: 8308; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
In fairness, the juror said, "day one of deliberations." That means after closing arguments, when the trial portion was over.
40. tedkord (Posts: 8308; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Have you guys seen the jury foreman's patent? He's an electrical engineer, and a patent holder. Well, today I read the patent he owns, and its no wonder he sided with Apple - his patent is as overbroad and nebulous as any of Apple's silly patents.
Here's a great analysis of why this verdict might not stand, and in any case will continue on a long time in appeals.
42. xtian1103 (Posts: 363; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)
"Google warned Samsung their devices looked too much alike".
the article is too long, this should tell the whole story, it's just that android fans don't like what they are reading! hahaha
43. krypticsoul (Posts: 11; Member since: 18 Dec 2009)
Apple=Hitler, trying to dominate the world.
Motorola, Samsung, LG, Google, Asus, HTC, Sony, Blu, Huawei..=United Nations
I think they should team up and bring down Apple.