[Aluback]

Fun fact: The phone on the left wasn't deemed to infringe anything, this however was:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget....view-30-sm.jpg

Incorrect, the Galaxy S and Galaxy S II and all their variants were.

Update 2: Another giant blow to Samsung—the following devices have been found to infringe upon Apple's "front trade dress"—meaning the way it looks:

Fascinate, Galaxy S, S 4G, S 2 ATT, S2 i9100, S2 Tmobile, S 2 Epic 4G touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant. http://gizmodo.com/5937762/samsung-v...g-big-updating

[duawLauff]

Incorrect, the Galaxy S and Galaxy S II and all their variants were.



http://gizmodo.com/5937762/samsung-v...g-big-updating

Maybe I phrased it wrong, but Galaxy S in the end didn't add anything to the amount Samsung based on this decision should pay, here's a shot from the actual file (note how it first was adding hefty sum, but then corrected to 0), available from the link I pasted earlier to groklaw. Galaxy S II "basemodel" wasn't even considered to add anything to payments.
Many of the variants (which all(?) look like the one I posted and not the original Galaxy S) were deemed to pay - the one I linked is in fact one of the variants.

[NiliSpuppypax]

Engadget editor

"Apple (and to be fair, it's not alone) has ushered in a new era though, where minute details, that really aren't new innovations, are being patented. More frustratingly, the patents are being granted. And this is where I feel the real problem lies. Apple had the legal right to protect something, it did, and won. Fine. What is more galling is that the jurors seem to have missed an opportunity to question the validity (and by proxy, value) of these patents, and they didn't. They handed Apple the right to romp ever forward down this self-destructive path, the end of which is good for no one. Not even Apple. Don't let it become Appl€?"

110% agreed. Apple won and fairly so. Next we should sue the patent office...

NO. Apple won in all the wrong categories. Where they should have win is where Samsung infringed in their trade dress, which seems to be something which out of the grasp of most people in this thread. Samsang bltently infringed on the Apple trade dress by making the GalaxyS more iPhone like. IRS where Samdung tried to focus thief design to exude more apple cool, and it goes beyond the oblong shape and the rounded corners. What people should be pissed off about is that Apple only won in cases like bounce back and double tap to zoom among a lot of other things. This gives the precedent that minimal UI affinities and specialisations like slie to lock etc can now be patented and proprietary to a single company. This is what should make everyone crazy. It gives the legal precedent to a company to be able to patent something as trivial as (right click to pull down menu) among other stuff. This will clog up development of new and improved featured since developers will have to practically cross a programming minefield every time they write any code. Worst of all, the worst hit will be us, the consumers. Caught in no man's land during world's first phone(y) world war.

--- Post Update ---

Just read the ruling again, they did find some Sansung devices that infringed on apple's trade dress design, rightly so, but the majority of infringements and fines were based on he same old' ridiculous patents like bounce back and double tap to zoom. What next ? Being awarded a slide to unlock patent ? Bah

[hapasaparaz]

If you applied Apple's intellectual property model to car manufacturing, there would only be one car company, because having 3 (or 2) pedals and a wheel would be a patented control interface... pressing a pedal down for acceleration would be patented... indeed, having 4 wheels and a rounded exterior-on-frame design would be exclusive as well.

Frankly, if Apple's intellectual property model were to be applied to any area of commerce, there would be nothing but monopolies in each niche, and likely would eventually only be one company controlling everything, with no competition possible, as any functions, services, and devices made or provided by that company, would have such ironclad patent protections, that it would be illegal to compete with it.

[PHOTOSHOPoem]

especially when at least pinch-to-zoom is proven to be used by others before Apple, and IIRC the "rubberband effect" was too.

Also, the whole thing about "trade dress" and making it look more like iphone is crap - Galaxy S line is clearly evolved from F700-design, which Apple as far as I know hasn't claimed to be "iPhone clone" - of course Samsung did go through iPhone with microscope and what not to see what was better than in their products, but that's what every single company out there does.

Galaxy S isn't any closer to iPhone looks "cloning" than iPhone was to cloning LG Prada which was released long time before iPhone

F700:


Galaxy S:


iPhone:


LG Prada:


Rectangle with rounded edges? LG Prada did it first, all 4 have it.
Round-ended thing speaker above the screen? LG Prada did it first, all 4 have it.
Capacitive touchscreen with thinner edges on the sides? LG Prada did it first, all 4 have it.
Only real "difference" is the fact that Prada has physical answer/decline buttons + menu/home button instead of just 1 button in the middle, and that it doesn't have clear "bezel" like the others, but again, F700 had the bezel too, and Apple didn't complain about it.

edit:
And the flower-icon case is just ridicilous - sure, it's obvious Samsung got the idea to use flower on gallery-icon from Apple, but surely no-one can say or patent all flower-icons for said type application, as the icons aren't even remotely similar excluding the fact that both have flower in them.

[reervieltnope]

just Imagine if the Jet engine or the aerofoil had been patented

[JTS_tv]

Innovate > Patent > Licence

What is stopping Samsung and others doing the same as Apple?

[Michael-jeckson2]

Innovate > Patent > Licence

What is stopping Samsung and others doing the same as Apple?

probably a commercial sense of pride to not stoop as low as apple ?

[aaaaaaaabbbby]

Did you read the quote or my reply?
According to the law the ruling was okay. But the real question is who ****ing dipshit gave the patent in the first place. And ffs why the judge didn't question the patents.

Innovate > Patent > Licence

Take the first off and you got Appl€.

[Gaxiciverfere]

If you applied Apple's intellectual property model to car manufacturing, there would only be one car company, because having 3 (or 2) pedals and a wheel would be a patented control interface... pressing a pedal down for acceleration would be patented... indeed, having 4 wheels and a rounded exterior-on-frame design would be exclusive as well.

Frankly, if Apple's intellectual property model were to be applied to any area of commerce, there would be nothing but monopolies in each niche, and likely would eventually only be one company controlling everything, with no competition possible, as any functions, services, and devices made or provided by that company, would have such ironclad patent protections, that it would be illegal to compete with it.

The idea of patenting a basic UI design and some basic interface concepts is absurd. I can't believe they got away with it.

Touch screen interfaces were an innovation. How you organize things on a touch screen interface is not an innovation.

Also, HTC Sense > All other UIs.

[Antelpebabe]

Did you read the quote or my reply?
According to the law the ruling was okay. But the real question is who ****ing dipshit gave the patent in the first place. And ffs why the judge didn't question the patents.

Oh, the patents validity was in question too, the problem is that jury had just 1 guy who had patent of his own, and he thought to himself that "if this was my patent, could i defend it?" and answered to himself yes - the rest just trusted him on it. The guys patent was something like HTPC/TiVo, and granted years after TiVos were out, and HTPCs were already a old thing in the same sense

[gdjfhdf]

I'm in two minds about this. It seems that the damages were punitive even though the jurors were instructed that they were merely supposed to compensate Apple and they seem to have ruled on some silly arbitrary points like is it a rectangle and just gone down the list. What they really should have been ruling on is Touchwiz and there is no doubt, and I say this as someone who has owned a couple of Galaxy devices, that Samsung deliberately designed Touchwiz 3 to look as much like iOS as possible, the way they put backgrounds on all the icons is a good example. There's no avoiding this really Samsung specifically tried to skin Android so it looked more like iOS and that is part of what has contributed to their sales growth. They wouldn't be in the position they are in the market today if they hadn't done that and neither would Android.

It's a shame really because there are some aspects of the Touchwiz that are innovative and often those features trickle into subsequent versions of Android. In this case though they took things to such an extreme that even Google had asked them to dial it back, they didn't and we are where we are because of Samsung's decisions.

[CalBettaulp]

You clearly need to compare Touchwiz3 & MIUI to see that Touchwiz is really quite far from iOS.

The icons having backgrounds also applies only to AppDrawer, on desktop where iOS keeps them the icons don't have backgrounds

[jimbomaxf]

I think some of the things granted are wrong. It's not so bad if they're short-term patents that expire within 2 years. Unfortunately 'the consumers' were not a third party at court, and obviously only the interests of Apple and Samsung were considered.