Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/apple-wins-patent-ruling-as-jury-finds-samsung-infringes/

by irunbackwards • 14 years ago

319 352 14 years ago

techcrunch.com

aaronbrethorst5• 14 years ago

From: http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/

"No across the board. Not a single [patent] proven invalid by Samsung."

that's big.

edit: "Damages from Apple to Samsung: zero." (edit2: oops, dumb typo)

JoshTriplett• 14 years ago

The words "proven invalid" seem like a nice summary of what's so broken about this situation.

tzs• 14 years ago

How so?

Issued patents have already undergone an examination by a patent examiner, who found that the patent met the statutory requirements for validity, so it seems reasonable to me that someone wishing to overturn that decision should bear the burden of proof.

manaskarekar• 14 years ago

.. pile of poop?

I haven't followed the case closely and leaving aside whether or not Samsung copied from Apple, we just all lost.

Were there not a few prior art arguments and all that? Samsung couldn't invalidate any of those?!

This is depressing.

aaronbrethorst5• 14 years ago

Despite being an AAPL shareholder, I agree 100%.

bane2• 14 years ago

It's sickening. This case may significantly raise the bar for invalidating nonsense software patents in the future.

alecdibble• 14 years ago

Patent reform will most likely have to come out of the legislative process, not the judicial branch.

scott_meade• 14 years ago

Don't you mean $1.051 Billion?

aaronbrethorst5• 14 years ago

I had the whole thing reversed. Thanks for pointing it out :)

lubos2• 14 years ago

I was shocked to learn this case is basically being decided by people who have no idea what they are really deciding on.

Here is the jury according to techcrunch

1. An electrical engineer 2. A homemaker 3. A construction worker 4. A young unemployed man who likes video games 5. An insurance agent 6. An ex-Navy avionics technician 7. A store operations manager for a cycling retailer 8. A project manager for wireless carrier AT&T 9. A benefits and payroll manager who works with startups

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/21/apple-samsung/

Only in America?? And how many of those people are biased because they just love Steve Jobs and Apple products. I know for sure, my mom loves her Mac and she wouldn't think twice who is right and who is wrong in this case.

barista2• 14 years ago

Representative of the general public in US. Won't you say?

davej• 14 years ago

Yes. The argument being that for a highly technical issue it should be decided by a panel of experts, not the general public.

lazyoaf4• 14 years ago

absolutely, shocking. The 'general' public are unlikely to grasp how complex this is and the future ramifications from their short and very limited time with the case.

taligent11• 14 years ago

What's shocking is your complete ignorance of how the legal system works.

maayank• 14 years ago

Well, that's what "jury of one's peers" is all about, a broad spectrum of the population.

cosmando• 14 years ago

Well if corporations are people and Apple is the biggest company ever (in terms of market capitalization), who are their peers? It's kind of funny that at least in one arena the big players are accountable to average Joes and Josephines, even if those people disagree with me on certain patents' validity.

taligent11• 14 years ago

What on earth are you talking about ?

Juries around the world are compromised of ordinary people.

btilly2• 14 years ago

The USA is unusual in having juries used for a broader spectrum of cases than other countries.

I agree that this particular type of case should not be decided by jury.

jellicle2• 14 years ago

Not really true, in complex civil suits. Many countries use specialized, expert judges and courts to decide such matters.

coryl• 14 years ago

Isn't that how a jury is suppose to work though? They're suppose to have as little bias as possible going into the case.

wmf2• 14 years ago

The idea that expertise necessarily produces bias (towards which side?) troubles me.

In this particular case, I agree with other commenters here that the general public should be fit to judge. But I'd rather see technical cases like Oracle vs. Google decided by experts.

slantyyz3• 14 years ago

>> people who have no idea what they are really deciding on

I thought the lawyers, judge and witnesses provide all the information they need to make the decision.

>> And how many of those people are biased because they just love Steve Jobs

I would think that Samsung's lawyers would have disqualified those types of people during the selection process.

Moto7451• 14 years ago

Indeed, and early on an Apple employee disqualified himself.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/apple-v-samsung-j...

Another potential juror, a UI designer on the Android team was rejected by Apple.

jarcoal• 14 years ago

Honestly that sounds like the perfect group to decide this. The whole point of this lawsuit is to prove that your average Joe would have a hard time distinguishing Samsung's product from Apple's.

kenster072• 14 years ago

It seems like there's an Average Joe approving tech patents as well.

guywithabike2• 14 years ago

The case is being decided by people that Samsung and Apple chose, out of the random pool of potential jurors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection

siglesias• 14 years ago

Knowing this audience, I'll probably get downvoted, but I'll say it anyway.

That's rather cynical. This is precisely the kind of trial that doesn't require expert thinking because most of what is up for debate is whether Samsung willfully attempted to fool customers into thinking that their products were just like an iPhone by copying the trade dress. And determining such a thing is a matter of common sense.

This reminds me of an anecdote about Brahms's first symphony:

Brahms himself said, when comment was made on the similarity with Beethoven, "any ass can see that." [1]

So it is here. We needn't pretend any longer that Samsung's designs are mere coincidence. Whether it should be punishable is another question, but under the current law this, to me, is the right call.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._1_(Brahms)#History

vesky2• 14 years ago

Reports already show that the jurors had not idea what they were doing. Many of the claims they made had no actual basis of infringement.

This reeks heavily of people that had little idea about how the system actually works and gave verdicts that were more speculative rather than grounded and based on hard acts of actual infringement.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/hang-on-a-minute-jurors-awa...

brg• 14 years ago

You seem to vastly underestimate the intelligence of the average person, and you fail to realize how serious people take jury duty once they have been picked.

It is important to realize that a jury trial is a seminar for the jury. It is given by two opposing sides to a disinterested party tasked to make a decision. If either side fails to inform the jury of the enormity or ramifications of their decision, it is the fault of that side.

MartinCron• 14 years ago

And how serious the lawyers are with jury selection. Each side does a lot of scrutiny to get a sense of biases and ability to grasp the subject.

It's easy to complain about the verdict, but taking pot-shots at the jury is so cheap.

lightyrs• 14 years ago

This

crag2• 14 years ago

Try finding an impartial "geek" to set on this jury. Good luck.

If Samsung can't convince this lot - they couldn't it seems. So their only hope is the appeals court. But I got a feeling they'll drop that too.

Samsung's best approach is to pay. And move on.

nikcub4• 14 years ago

I think the argument for infringement is a lot easier to make to a non-sophisticated audience than it is to an audience who understand patents. A non-sophisticated audience can be won-over with pictures showing product similarities and the suggestion of - 'look, they copied!'

It is also high on the conscious of American consumers that Apple is an innovative company that is readily ripped off by foreign companies.

FWIW I think the patent system is a lot more complicated than what a lot of geeks would understand as well. It really should be decided by a panel of judges and/or experts who can evaluate the case on merits and justify each decision.

Samuel_Michon• 14 years ago

We’re not attorneys or judges either, yet we all have an opinion on the law.

“Only in America”

Far from it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_system#The_jury_trial_in_v...

Steko4• 14 years ago

There was a great comment on the Verge (lol it's true) the other day about just this by someone who had been in a similar jury:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/23/3260463/apple-samsung-jury...

I actually have some experience with this. I recently “second chaired” a very complex civil trial involving significant accounting issues. The presentation of evidence alone took 5 weeks. The verdict form was almost as complex as the one described here. We all expected the verdict form to come back a self-contradictory mess, but in fact the jury had no problem sorting through it all. The verdicts were perfectly consistent and logical, as were the damage awards. And unlike the Apple/Samsung jury, our jury mostly consisted of homemakers and people from working class backgrounds, so we couldn’t expect them to have comfort with the subject matter. My take on this was that the jurors understood they were deciding a dispute worth tens of millions of dollars and really wanted to reach the right result. So we might see the same thing in this case. On the other hand, my trial involved “real people” with names and faces, not faceless corporations like Apple and Samsung. It is possible that the jurors had a higher level of engagement under the circumstances.

pooriaazimi5• 14 years ago

Yeah, we need ubergeeks like Stallman deciding this case (I'm sure it's not necessary, but: </sarcasm>).

No tech-savvy geek is unbiased. We both know it. If I were sitting on that jury, I'd be one hell of a biased juror who'd shout myself hoarse trying to terrorize other jurors to agree with me. Believe me, you don't want me deciding your billion-dollar case.

barista2• 14 years ago

It feels good when the judgments reflect what is a common sense to a reasonable person. Glad the common sense prevailed here. It was obvious that the android devices were copied from iPhones.

gsibble• 14 years ago

I think that's what's so frustrating to me as an engineer. Samsung's technology patents were clearly violated, but did not win in court. Why? Perhaps because they aren't common sense. They are complex and intricate. THAT is what patents should be about. Not common sense.

taligent11• 14 years ago

I take it you couldn't be bothered to understand the case.

Samsung lost its counterclaims due to patent exhaustion which common sense suggests they deserved to lose. You can thank Intel for siding with Apple on this one.

mratzloff• 14 years ago

This is my understanding of events:

Samsung had a contract with Qualcomm that said they wouldn't sue Qualcomm or, critically, any of its customers over use of the 3G patents. Apple bought chips from Qualcomm.

Samsung wanted ammunition to countersue Apple over its patent claims, so they rescinded the contract with Qualcomm. Apple then approached Samsung offering to pay a fair and reasonable amount for a license. Samsung thought they should pay much more. Apple disagreed and continued to use the chips, which was their sole violation as far as I can tell.

The Dutch ruling basically forced Samsung to accept fair and reasonable licensing fees from Apple, and the US court today said Samsung was infringing on many of Apple's design patents.

If I'm wrong, please correct where I'm wrong, but I don't understand how you are letting Samsung off the hook. Design patents are not necessarily common sense, just as hardware design is not necessarily "complex and intricate" to someone familiar with hardware design.

Patents don't need to be complex and intricate. They simply need to be non-obvious, useful, original, and not on the list of things that aren't patentable (music, literature, etc.).

jolohaga• 14 years ago

Glad to read a different opinion, albeit a minority one.

dgudkov• 14 years ago

And what iPhones were copied from?

notatoad2• 14 years ago

It was obvious that samsung tried to make their devices look and feel like apple devices. what isn't obvious is why apple should have exclusive ownership over things making a stretching gesture with your fingers to make something bigger. not only were they not the first to implement it, it is entirely a natural movement and is not something that should be anybody's property.

mbreese4• 14 years ago

Yeah, because I do that all the time to my newspaper to see the small print. It's a natural movement now, but in 2006, not so much.

lazyoaf4• 14 years ago

This isn't right.... This is a terrible day for fair competition.

gridspy• 14 years ago

Are you saying that Patents prevent fair competition? Isn't that the point of patents?

lazyoaf4• 14 years ago

The fact that patents can often be used on common sense or logical shapes, colours or materials in goods is just silly!

Jare• 14 years ago

No, that's not the point of patents, but unfortunately, the point of patents was kidnapped long ago, and now I feel like someone just threw the key into the ocean.

Karunamon• 14 years ago

>Are you saying that Patents prevent fair competition?

Absolutely and unquestionably. I've seem them more used recently to bully and to harass by companies who'd rather litigate than innovate.

crag2• 14 years ago

Are you saying what Samsung obviously did is fair? Samsung has a LONG history of copying/producing (usually less expensive) products to muscle their way into sectors. Just ask Sony, Nortel, ATT, etc, etc. Look I'm pissed cause Samsung's wasted everyone's time. A better approach would've been to just pay Apple. I mean com'on - those [Samsung] internal memos were pretty damning. I'm also pissed at Apple. Because even if Samsung offered to pay (did they?) I doubt Apple would've come to terms. So they dragged everyone though this huge IP battle just to make a point. Bully for Apple. I'm all for protecting one's inovations but our patent system is getting ridicules.

programminggeek2• 14 years ago

This is both unsurprising and somewhat meaningless as there will be an appeals process that will last for months and possibly years.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that Samsung made their products to look like Apple products. They changed their icon styles and other UI elements away from Android standards to match the Apple style.

Some of the things Apple invented and patented on like pinch to zoom and so on Samsung used or copied via Android and or their own UI skin on top of Android.

You just have to look at Windows Phone 7 or Windows 8 or Web OS or Blackberry to realize that you don't have to copy Apple to make a good or great smartphone. Samsung is much closer with the Galaxy S3, too bad they are still cranking out iPad clones with the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the like.

paranoiacblack3• 14 years ago

> You just have to look at Windows Phone 7 or Windows 8 or Web OS or Blackberry to realize that you don't have to copy Apple to make a good or great smartphone.

Ok sure, but why did you cite a bunch of bad smartphones to validate your point?

untog• 14 years ago

Smartphones != OS

Have you ever used Windows Phone or WebOS? I assure you, they are not 'bad'.

programminggeek2• 14 years ago

Well WebOS and Blackberry Playbook and Windows Phone 7 might not be of the same calibur in terms of hardware, but they are proof that Samsung didn't need to try and ape Apple so closely to make a good product.

slantyyz3• 14 years ago

>> Ok sure, but why did you cite a bunch of bad smartphones to validate your point?

The hardware for Windows Phone and Web OS might have sucked, but the OS's are quite nice in my opinion. I would seriously consider either of those two over an iPhone if they (well WP at least) had better hardware.

Regarding the Blackberry, well, I don't have any defence for them.

goggles99• 14 years ago

Tell me something. If you took all the apps and app developers from the IOS App Store and traded them for all that WebOS, BlackBerry, Or windows 8 has... How would sales change in the next year??? Throw in Apple's marketing crew to trade as well. Isn't that an interesting notion?

Is suggestion that these are "bad smartphones" coming from their lack of sales? This is a false dichotomy. If not - please provide data that suggests otherwise (rather than your own heavily influenced personal opinion either).

It is not the phones or OS that makes IOS outsell the other companies mentioned - It is the apps and the marketing.

fsniper2• 14 years ago

You must be blind.

lawdawg• 14 years ago

and all those phones have pinch to zoom. Just because Microsoft and Apple are colluding to avoid suing each other doesn't mean that an OS like WP is somehow the solution.

shreyansj2• 14 years ago

Licensing patents is not called collusion.

Edit: Source http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-licensed-de...

fbuilesv• 14 years ago

Just because Microsoft and Apple are colluding to avoid suing each other

Do you have facts that support this or is this your opinion?

josephlord9• 14 years ago

It was clear from the documents in this case about the licensing offer from Apple to Samsung that Microsoft has licensed many patents form Apple although it seemed not to include everything.

timdorr3• 14 years ago

I'm actually pretty shocked that the Tab 10.1 was spared from the design charges, especially considering they lost that battle in Germany (and released the Tab 10.1N).

mikeklaas• 14 years ago

probably hasn't sold enough to make the damages worthwhile

saurik2• 14 years ago

WebOS had many of the same UI elements; they actually copied the tactile feel quite closely. At the time of the Pre launch, the speculation was that Palm could afford to piss off Apple as their patent chest included some real gems from their work on the Palm Pilot and on Treo smartphones; I have a vague recollection that they had some key patents required to build a smartphone address book that Apple was already likely infringing.

nitrogen6• 14 years ago

Doesn't the phrase "patents required to build a smartphone address book" alone make you think that the patent system is broken?

kapnobatairza• 14 years ago

I think it is fair to say that Samsung may have crossed some lines as far as "trade dress" goes.

But did Apple really invent pinch to zoom? Jeff Han demonstrated pinch to zoom gestures at TED in 2006, Microsoft Surface in 2007 before the iPhone was released, and I've seen various forms of "pinch to zoom" on different tablets and smart board applications.

I think that Apple did a good job developing some multi-touch input standards, like pinch to zoom as an OS standard rather than just a feature specific to an application. I don't think you should be able to patent a standard and it is counter-intuitive to developing a standard to begin with. If we had patents on desktop GUI user input standards like right click, ctrl key modifiers like ctrl-scroll to zoom, etc. then using computers would be a much bigger PITA.

EDIT: Many have rightly pointed out that Apple was first to file and that Jeff Han's work was too close to the filing date to qualify as prior art - However, I was simply asking whether he truly believed Apple "invented" pinch to zoom. Legally you can argue that Apple holds a valid patent as demonstrated by them winning this case - but I think it is invalid to say they "invented" anything as intuitive as pinch to zoom which has been demonstrated in a variety of prototypes, tablets, and applications over 2 decades.

Also

josephlord9• 14 years ago

The Apple Patent #7,812,826 seems to have been applied for in December 2006 and under US rules at the time the priority date could be 12 months earlier.

This makes it quite possible that TED 2006 would be too late to be prior art.

danudey• 14 years ago

Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent was filed on December 29, 2006, and covers a multitouch display that a) detects two contacts; b) which perform a gesture; c) which affects an image; d) and then the contacts disconnect; e) after which a second set of contacts is detected; f) which perform another operation within a set period of time.

In other words, patent #7,812,826 only applies when you pinch to zoom and then pinch to zoom again within a predefined amount of time.

magicalist5• 14 years ago

Does anyone know why Jeff Han's work was not emphasized more as prior art? (there was also more at the time, but I can't recall specifics now).

> If we had patents on desktop GUI user input standards like right click, ctrl key modifiers like ctrl-scroll to zoom, etc. then using computers would be a much bigger PITA.

This is the key right here. I don't think everyone fully understands what is happening around these UI patents in the rush to defend someone's "inventions" in the face of would-be-counterfeiters.

One of the most important aspects of patents is that they do not account for independent invention. Leave Apple out of your mind for a minute. Imagine your startup is developing a web or mobile app, and you come up with a nice way of presenting some kind of responsive UI that's well tailored to the data your app displays. It follows naturally from your data model, you end up with some really nice UX, and you get some internet buzz because it's a distinguishing feature of your app (see: pull to refresh, et al).

You will be liable if some company filed a patent for that idea 10 years ago, even if you've never heard of them or their product.

What's particularly insidious about these patents is that there's no real mechanism described here, like you'd have to provide for a mechanical device. Instead, you can get away with describing a "computing device" that "receives user input" and acts on it it in a fairly generic way, and suddenly you have a patent on not an invention, but a whole class of interaction or a generic human movement paired with a particular action on screen.

And you won't know you've infringed until you're sued!

Copyright and trademark have these well covered. They allow for independent invention and are much more specific to a particular expression of an idea. Regardless of copying and just deserts, regardless of the fact that this wasn't going to be settled in this case, no one here should be cheering the current standard for acceptable software patents.

001sky• 14 years ago

MSFT just recently acquired Perceptive Pixel last month, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptive_Pixel.

[Jeff Han's company, and maker of multi-touch user interfaces].

Presumably these patents were still pending during alot of the timeline, as US 7,844,915 has only been out since Nov 2010. It Languished at the patent office for 3.5 yrs?

edit: language/clarifications

electromagnetic3• 14 years ago

> I think it is invalid to say they "invented" anything as intuitive as pinch to zoom which has been demonstrated in a variety of prototypes, tablets, and applications over 2 decades.

The lunacy here is that apple wasn't even granted the patent over a specific gesture. IE pinch=zoom in and spread=zoom out or vice versa. It's that the movement of pinching/spreading has been patented here in all and every application of the gesture as it would inherently be used for zoom function, despite it being demonstrated prior to that date.

This is like Microsofts multi-click patent, that patents all mouse clicks that can have different functionality. short/long/multiple clicks.

It's like granting Kleenex a patent over all facial tissues and the right to use a piece of tissue for your face. The only competitive idea being a facial cloth like a hankie.

josephlord9• 14 years ago

If Samsung get away without an injunction (decided by the judge I think) then just paying and ending the issue and embarrassing press may be the wise course.

It is only a billion dollars which Samsung can definitely afford. It could be seen as a cost of business and particularly the cost of becoming the number 2 smartphone manufacturer in the world and the only one really able to put products at the same price as Apples and still sell large quantities.

cageface13• 14 years ago

Don't imagine that this ruling will be the end of Apple's war on Android. An emboldened Apple is going to go on the legal warpath like never before.

dkrich4• 14 years ago

Interesting, because I see this from exactly the opposite side. Apple hardly needs a billion dollars, but I don't think this does anything to strengthen their image or their power in the marketplace, but I do believe it emboldens people who already dislike Apple, and begins to alert people who do that Apple doesn't put innovation and consumers first. That is to say they are no longer viewed as a company that out-innovates everyone else, but rather one that wants to hoard the mobile market. I think consumers are pretty sharp and realize this. I love Apple products, but I sure as hell don't want them limiting my choice when I go to buy a new phone.

Lest we forget that Microsoft was getting sued under the antitrust act just fifteen or so years ago. At that time, Apple was a joke and people who used MS software regularly began to resent them. How silly that seems now that they are relegated to owning only the shitty, bloatware enterprise productivity market.

cageface13• 14 years ago

Apple has done a good job of persuading people that this case was about protecting innovation and about Samsung's specific alleged infringements of their patents. But this is nothing more than a smoke screen for their ongoing proxy war on Android.

They've refused to compete with Android on price, features, and form factors and the market has punished them for it. Expect more attacks on Android seeking ridiculous damages for non-essential details of mobile UI design.

However, I strongly suspect Apple is going to regret these tactics in the long run. Once the tiger is out of the cage there's no telling who he will bite.

lotu• 14 years ago

While Apple may only have 30% of the smart-phone market, they make around 70% of the profit in the that market. I hardly call that punishing.

pooriaazimi5• 14 years ago

> the market has punished [Apple] for it

You're serious? They take 73% of the profit in smartphone market, with Samsung at the second place (26%) and HTC, third (1%), their stock is booming, they have more money in the bank than all of their competitors combined (they can buy Samsung, HTC and Dell and shut them down and still have a few billion dollars left).

I'd call that reward, not punishment.

http://www.asymco.com/2012/05/03/the-phone-market-in-2012-a-...

astrange• 14 years ago

> and the market has punished them for it

In what way?

ellyagg• 14 years ago

Apart from the specifics of this or any other court case involving Apple attacking Samsung, I find the desire to defend Samsung odd. Obviously they copied Apple as much as they felt they could get away with. They did this because it was a very conservative way to make a lot of money.

This isn't an admirable strategy. It's annoying. It's precisely the strategy that major movie studios use to give us one boring, risk-free "blockbuster" after another. The other day I read a history of the making of White Men Can't Jump:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8266665/an-oral-history-...

The head of Fox at the time, Joe Roth, mentions, "That movie wouldn't get made today. Us moviemaking guys, the studios, have less courage to make a movie like that today with the kind of racial, sexual overtones." It's sad. I would appreciate a big budget movie studio that did not consistently churn out the safest derivative crap they can.

I do appreciate that there's one consumer electronics company that attempts and succeeds at novel, high risk products. Of course, there's a good chance that risk taking spark died recently, but I have appreciated its presence until now.

Maybe patents are bad, but I don't think is a case where that stance holds much emotional appeal other than to those who like to see Apple lose. Most people think Samsung clearly did something shady here and deserves to be punished.

mikeflynn• 14 years ago

Yeah, the market is really "punishing" them all right: https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL (stock currently at $663)

Google and Apple may have, at a high level, opposing strategies, but Apple's approach is being adopted more and more (app stores, having more control on the experience, etc...) and companies wouldn't do that if it wasn't working. Hell Google's own products, the ones where they stamp "Google" on the back of the device, are very much in the line of Apple's usual MO. Sure Android will always have a few more "geeky" features (app side-loading) but the Nexus 7 is very Apple-like in it's execution (...and it's great!).

tl;dr - Their business models aren't as different as the old Windows vs Mac comparison.

benihana• 14 years ago

>They've refused to compete with Android on price, features, and form factors and the market has punished them for it.

In what universe did the market punish them? Apple has shipped 250 million phones and made 150 billion dollars in revenue in the five years since the iPhone shipped[1]. Each iPhone version has sold more than every other version combined[2].

[1]http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/27/strategy-analytics-apple-ha...

[2]http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/03/apples-phil-schiller-...

andyman1080• 14 years ago

As an Apple shareholder I must say I'm loving this market punishment!

zmmmmm• 14 years ago

> somewhat meaningless

It's not meaningless if it means a large cross section of the most popular Android phones are banned, even for a short time. Hopefully Samsung has already got software workarounds ready to deploy.

> Some of the things Apple invented and patented on like pinch to zoom

Please don't say rubbish like that. It is so clearly obvious that Apple didn't invent pinch to zoom, and even if they didn't, it's so dumb and obvious that it wouldn't be patentable anyway (hence why the various people who demonstrated it over the last 2 decades didn't bother). Apple patented some refinements to pinch-to-zoom and other gestures.

pinaceae2• 14 years ago

On a greater scale this is the clash of 'Western', as in US/Europe, and East-Asian mindsets and culture. If you look into other areas like pharma, the same battles are being fought, with India and China essentially ignoring 'our' patent laws for their domestic markets (see their recent changes in laws).

China has forced manufacturers to build factories in China in order to be able to sell products there, regardless of industry. Siemens managed to build one Maglev train in Shanghai - all the others are being build the Chinese themselves, now that they have the tech. Airbus? Same thing, China is jumpstarting their aircraft business.

Big picture is that this KILLS true Western style innovation as there is no reward for being first. If you're a founder you should be scared of the copy machines in East-Asia. For now they only focus on their own markets, but once big enough they will come after you.

Look at what 800App is doing with salesforce.com - they copy the shit out of it, pixel by pixel, essentially destroying the Chinese market for SFDC. SFDC chose an interesting tactic, they invested in 800App: http://salesforcerumors.com/2011/09/25/salesforce-com-invest...

Google can't come after Baidu. Facebook couldn't do much against vKontakte, their Russian 1:1 clone (the chuzpe is breathtaking).

mchanson• 14 years ago

If this ever effects the US or Europe to to great an effect I'm pretty sure WTO can help. China is not selling these sorts of products to the world yet so it's a pretty meaningless threat so far.

aaronbrethorst5• 14 years ago

damages: 1.051 billion dollars. WOW.

http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/

jballanc• 14 years ago

And yet, that's essentially a rounding error on Apple's bank account balance...

aaronbrethorst5• 14 years ago

Totally, but not for Samsung. That's almost 10% of their net profit last year.

This is going to scare the shit out of every Android handset maker out there.

alberich2• 14 years ago

American patent system is weird. Why is it fair for someone to patent "what" you do, what should be fair to patent is "how" you make this thing viable (e.g. the algorithms used, or something like that)?

As long as you don't use the mechanisms of your competition, you should be allowed to mimic the features present on other competitors' devices.

Considering this, it seems clear that Samsung would lose the dispute anyway.

jcdavis2• 14 years ago

> you should be allowed to mimic the features present on other competitors' devices.

To play the devil's advocate (as someone who hasn't taken a position on this ruling, but hates software patents in general):

Why? Apple appears to have spent a lot of time and effort on small details. Why does Samsung get to just copy that with far less time and effort invested? With design, the "how" is a crapton of iteration and careful thought. There may or may not be prior art in a lot of these examples (don't know enough to say), but where there isn't, why does Samsung automatically get to copy it for free? If these things are so obvious and trivial, why weren't they doing them before?

alberich2• 14 years ago

I agree that Apple should be able to protect what is looks like, not what it works like.

Sure this is a point of view (after all, the american patent system didn't come up out of nowhere). I believe that if you let people to patent things like 2-click buy, finger gestures, and stuff like that, you just close the door for competition. You effectively prohibit people of making things like that, because even though you come up with a completely different mechanism to provide the same interactive interface, you have to pay for an abstract idea.

Maybe Samsung should be able to copy it (the concept) for free because that is what is called competition. In an ideal scenario, to stay ahead in competition you should continuously come up with new and better ideas. If you competitors suck so badly that they must copy you everytime, you'll stay ahead anyway.

gtirloni2• 14 years ago

We are only discussing stupid patents in the software industry. I don't see any car maker suing the hell out of one another because their cars "have doors that open just like ours" or "their wheels move steady at 100km/h like ours".

This is all stupid, boring and sad. The IT world feels like a big bad joke.

danmaz74• 14 years ago

Double tap to zoom, now, that's real innovation!

bane2• 14 years ago

Apple is now officially "innovating" in the same way Microsoft was "innovating" in the 90s...which is to say almost not at all.

mladenkovacevic2• 14 years ago

Which makes me wonder.. does anyone currently hold or has, at any point in the history of personal computers, held a patent for a double-click of the mouse to activate or execute programs? The double tap to zoom seems very analogous to that.

therandomguy• 14 years ago

Seems obvious after you see it the first time.

olivercameron• 14 years ago

"It works like magic...far more accurate than any interface ever shipped... multi-finger gestures, and boy have we patented it!" Steve Jobs in 2007[1]

1. https://twitter.com/tconrad/status/239136435603652609

fsniper2• 14 years ago

From now on we should call rotary dial phones the new Apple free smartphones.

logical42• 14 years ago

goodbye innovation

ChuckMcM• 14 years ago

If nothing else, the fallout will be interesting to watch. The tablets didn't infringe though. Found that an interesting bit, just the phones.

shreyansj2• 14 years ago

Yeah, although the Samsung tablets did got banned in EU by a German court.

sriramk4• 14 years ago

If you're a startup and even if you're philosophically opposed to software patents, think about hiring a good IP law firm and filing for your core IP. What these trials and massive licensing deals are showing that patents could make a world of difference to your options as a tech company.

jfb3• 14 years ago

I've been kicking around a business idea related to patent licensing for small companies -- acting as a market maker for companies to offer their patents for license for a fixed price and term. I'm no great fan of the way the IP laws work in the US, but I don't perceive much real noise for change from the people who have the ability to do so, so might as well provide a sane service to minimize the chances of some poor dumb bastard getting sued out of her shorts for unknowingly infringing on some dumb-ass software patent. This decision is mostly just ammo for the pro- side of my brain.

shawnee_• 14 years ago

If Lucy Koh is so intent on protecting the singularity of one corporate interest over what is so obviously good for the general public, she should not be a Federal District Judge. She should still be in private practice.

We need Federal District Judges who are willing to work for the good of consumers, which involves protecting a market where competition can thrive.

Consumers benefit when there is more than one separate branch iterating outward and improving something very basic. A lightweight touchscreen rectangle is about as basic as it gets.

If Apple was a tire company, Lucy Koh just gave it the unearned "right" to patent every kind of tire tread imaginable.

[EDIT] -- Yes, I realize the decision was made by a jury. Firstly: The original case presented to her was a puff of smoke which should never have gone to trial in the first place. Secondly: Fast-tracking this case helped Apple (which had pre-prepared its mountain of baloney paperwork) and very much hurt Samsung (which understandably probably didn't have enough time to scramble and dispute every instance of baloney in the mountain of paperwork). Thirdly: Koh diallowed a key testimony: http://www.droiddog.com/android-blog/2012/08/judge-lucy-koh-... which would have helped the jury make a more informed decision.

nikic• 14 years ago

I don't think that this is the judges fault. The law (at least to some degree) dictates the decision. If that decision is not good for the general public, then it is the law that needs change. (And we all agree that it does.)

enraged_camel4• 14 years ago

Exactly. The sad thing is that many people will ignorantly blame the judge for this decision. Whereas the fact of the matter is that she simply presided over the trial.

angryasian5• 14 years ago

she did make many decisions through out the trial as to what was admissible and not admissible , so she did effect the outcome.

rayiner7• 14 years ago

We don't all agree that the law does need to change. I think at least the trade dress infringement claims were spot-on.

taligent11• 14 years ago

Looking forward to plenty of truly dumb, ignorant comments like this in the future.

You do know that a jury made this decision, right ?

nitrogen6• 14 years ago

I don't care how strongly you disagree, ad homs like "dumb" and "ignorant" have no place on a civil discussion forum. Please stop being so inflammatory.

timdorr3• 14 years ago

Judge Koh didn't make this decision, a jury did.

nikcub4• 14 years ago

I think you are understating the role of a judge in these types of trials

They decide timing, what can be admitted, specific questions, and the questionnaire the jury filled out as part of their verdict.

The fact that it even reached the point of a jury trial (and a very quick trial, at that) was the decision of a judge

Symmetry• 14 years ago

Better than that, I think, would be legislators looking out for the good of consumers and judges interpreting the law impartially.

taligent11• 14 years ago

How did Koh not interpret the law impartially ?

The fact is that the Samsung lawyers failed to convince an independent jury of the general public. Koh had very little to do with it.

veemjeem4• 14 years ago

If you followed the case, I think you'll see that there are some things Samsung directly lifted from Apple. For example, there are some keyboard layouts that are pixel-per-pixel identical to Apple's. I don't know why you'd remove the default android keyboard (since it's better) and put the apple keyboard in there.

If I were part of the jury, I'd think I would come up with the same conclusion as well. What company goes out of its way to copy another company's look & feel?

eikaterine2• 14 years ago

It sounds like your problem is with the laws we have, not the judge.

cremnob• 14 years ago

Your comment about Lucy Koh is completely out of line. If you are going to attack her integrity back it up with some evidence.

sseveran3• 14 years ago

I judge does not and should not work for consumers. A judge is there to fairly apply the law.

Maascamp• 14 years ago

No matter how you cut it, this whole trial was a loss for technology.

sriramk4• 14 years ago

The big winner, apart from Apple, is Microsoft. If you're a hardware manufacturer, your choices are

1. You go with Android and have both Apple and Microsoft come after you.

2. You go with Windows Phone.

I suspect the Windows Phone team is breaking open some champagne now.

slantyyz3• 14 years ago

Or,

3. License RIM's OS, if it ever comes out

4. Boot to Gecko

5. OpenWebOS?

sriramk4• 14 years ago

Any of those are atleast a couple of years away from becoming realistic. Windows Phone has an app ecosystem today, the muscle/deep pockets of MSFT behind it and frankly, it's a pretty good OS. It's a slam dunk at the moment.

azakai• 14 years ago

No, you can also make an Android phone. You just need to avoid infringing these specific patents either by removing functionality or implementing it in another way.

This lawsuit did not find that "Android" helplessly infringes Apple patents in all cases. Just that the combination of Android, Samsung's software modifications to Android, and Samsung hardware, together infringed several very specific Apple patents.

sriramk4• 14 years ago

You could but who's to say that Apple can't find other patents in their portfolio to come after you with (or MSFT can't extract their Android licensing for you). Apple wants to destroy the Android ecosystem and they're going to take any legal measure possible.

With Windows Phone, you're protected from this through MSFT's cross-licensing deal with Apple - Apple even pointed to the Nokia WP phones as an example of being able to do something different.

MattLaroche• 14 years ago

I haven't been following this closely, but if I understand correctly, the jury found against Samsung on the Nexus S. That is a Google phone built straight from Android and with no specific Samsung code at the UI level.

(Don't think a disclaimer is necessary in this case, but I used to work at Google. Not on Android.)

CamperBob24• 14 years ago

No, you can also make an Android phone. You just need to avoid infringing these specific patents either by removing functionality or implementing it in another way.

As magicalist points out elsewhere in the thread, it is utterly impossible for anyone to build anything resembling a modern smartphone without infringing claim 8 of Apple's '915 patent. You can build a phone or a tablet, but whatever you build will not be capable of competing with an iPhone or an iPad.

Regardless of what you think about Apple, the iPhone, or patents in general, it is not OK for a judge or jury to hand an entire market over to a single player for 20 years. Claim 8, by itself, is enough to do that. By granting it, the USPTO walled off all possible competitive approaches.

lovamova2• 14 years ago

Apple stock is down. Microsoft stock is up. Guess who's the winner.

guywithabike2• 14 years ago

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but Apple stock was up at the end of trading today and it's still up in after hours trading.

This kind of stuff is incredibly easy to look up.

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/after-hours

prostoalex• 14 years ago

AAPL is up 1.8% after hours http://www.google.com/finance?q=aapl

lovamova2• 14 years ago

It is going down to me. http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL

mladenkovacevic2• 14 years ago

The big loser here though might be America. Mobile hardware companies like ZTE or Huawei who are probably growing at the fastest pace right now are just going to deem the American market too risky to be made a priority and focus on Asian & European markets.

SoftwareMaven2• 14 years ago

Apple will have no problem following them into European courts. I'm sure Asia is the same, assuming they feel they can get a fair shake there. Many of the types of patents they are suing for are international in nature.

sigkill• 14 years ago

This exact point is something no one here on HN has realized. I'm living outside the US and this patent war means nothing to me (as of now). And when I was there, I was surprised to talk to my relatives and find out that before the iPhone all they had were crappy dumbphones. No Nokia S60 phones, no SonyEricsson P series UIQ phones, no nothing.

After this, I think many Android handset manufacturers might feel that the US market is too risky to enter. As it is, their mindset regarding a cellular phone is completely different as compared to others. They treat it as a service (which is why subsidized plans with criminal monthly rates exist) instead of decoupling the device from the subscription plans. Although in their defense it doesn't help that each of the carrier rolls with their own tech making cross-compatibility virtually impossible.

josephlord9• 14 years ago

Microsoft at least will offer a license and most manufacturers have taken it (including most Android partners). Motorola seems to be the main exception.

Steko4• 14 years ago

Microsoft has already applied a reported $5/device licensing fee to Android. It varies I guess but they have most vendors signed up.

If the outcome of this is that Apple effectively gets $10/device for Android then Windows Phone at $15/device has something approaching price parity.

However if I was a phone vendor I would still prefer Android for various reasons including the optional nature of the license(s), the flexibility, superior third and first party apps, the fact that Nokia has better access to WP7, etc.

kooshball• 14 years ago

How does the verdict affect Samsung's ability to sell additional phones in the future?

chairsofter5• 14 years ago

"Import ban and threat of further litigation, what's that???"

w1ntermute• 14 years ago

I don't give two fucks about TouchWiz specific-stuff (in fact, this might encourage Android OEMs to stick with stock Android), but what impact will this have on stock Android? It would really suck to have to depend on 3rd party ROMs for things like pinch to zoom and tap to zoom because Google was forced to remove it from Android.

Steko4• 14 years ago

This is a good result.

Samsung copies for a living like many companies. Much of the copying is legal. Sometimes they push it too far. One smoking gun in this case was the Google told Samsung to change their designs. They didn't. They reaped the benefits in terms of higher sales and now they can reap the bad side of that too.

On net it has still been profitable from Samsung. Samsung lost but it hasn't been shut down or anything. In fact Apple is paying Nokia much more then Samsung will end up paying Apple. People crying that the sky is falling have missed this reality.

No damages for the overbroad ipad design patent. This seems like a good result as much of the complaining seemed to be about the "rectangle patent" people thought Apple had. I think the EU Registered Design for the iPad is much more specific and more in line with what people think of as trade dress. Samsung didn't really make any money in the tablet arena anyway.

veemjeem4• 14 years ago

I don't understand the mindset of companies in the eastern hemisphere. I feel like the majority of companies in china / korea thrive by copying other successful company products to survive. It's more blatant in china, but it still happens in korea / japan. I feel like there must be some underlying cultural thing that promotes this kind of behavior -- nobody feels like they're doing the wrong thing.

mahyarm• 14 years ago

It's the same reason why entertainment execs like sequels vs original works. Higher chance of a good profit.

Steko4• 14 years ago

People that pirate Gucci bags or Rolex watches know there's a law against it but there's lot of rules we take for granted. People that buy the stuff know too.

Do we stop watching a YT clip that we know is actual copyright infringement? I'll venture that most of us don't. I suppose most of us rationalize our behavior by saying the laws are excessive. I imagine the people who buy and sell pirate goods do something similar.

While copying electronics is more common in Asia it's not like Japan or China or Korea don't innovate or that the West isn't similarly full of copycats (look at the Samwer brothers or the generic products in your supermarket).

And that also misses the point that Samsung and other copyists do a lot of good for consumers by copying innovations, pushing prices down. In some industries the people that actually innovate do need some protections so that they can keep making those investments. Much like in actual piracy there's a risk reward element to copying as a business model and I'm sure that's all part of the calculus that Samsung does with their products. Like the factory that breaks environmental or labor laws -- they pay up sometimes but in the end they do it because they still come out ahead.

runn1ng• 14 years ago

Yes, it is a very cultural thing. I am generalizing here, but in Asia, individuality is (relatively) valued less and conformity valued more.

I might be downvoted for this, but well, there is a reason why all the Japanese cartoons/comics look similar to each other while western are much more diverse.

One of my friends that was in South Korea for some time really didn't like their lifestyle and told me, that this is probably how Romani people must feel in our country. There is something on it.

josteink2• 14 years ago

This will be chilling for innovation and competition and will only encourage Apple to take their paten-trolling further, to illegitimately gain bigger market-shares in the smartphone market (where international figures shows they are now in a dive).

This is not a good result. It may not have been as bad as it could have been, but it's still nowhere near good.

aristidb• 14 years ago

I'm confused. How can it be that Apple supposedly infringes _none_ of Samsung's patents?

taligent11• 14 years ago

Patent exhaustion.

Qualcomm had a license to Samsung patents which is the component supplier that Apple was using.

josephlord9• 14 years ago

I'm not sure if that was decided. The jury decided the patents were exhausted because Apple's suppliers had already been licensed. (Qualcomm I think).

It is the general case that you can't demand two licenses for the same patent in the same product. If the 3G chip has a license then so does the phone it is built into.

kapitalx• 14 years ago

This would have been a great case for Jury Nullification and send a message about software patent laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

eikaterine2• 14 years ago

Yeah, that would have been pretty interesting. I don't know that most of the people on that jury had a strong opinion on the problems with our software patent laws though.

ojiikun• 14 years ago

You know those 45% of HN readers that use a Mac?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4422121

Time to start voting with your $$ against AAPL. They are part of the problem, not part of the innovation.

aklofas• 14 years ago

Agree. Apple sucks.

jcdavis2• 14 years ago

The real problem are the laws, you can't expect companies to always just "play nice" within the context of those laws.

veidr• 14 years ago

I try to do this, just because I viscerally dislike Apple specifically and the increasing hegemony of corporations over individuals in general, but it is really hard to stick with because Apple simply makes the best fucking products.

I bought a Galaxy Nexus, and it's a lot better than previous Android phones, but it just sucks too much to rely on so I carry two phones. I bought a Nexus 7, which I actually like more than the current iPad, but that is mostly form-factor thing; a 7-inch iPad would relegate the Nexus 7 to the shelf.

So I can decide to use these slightly shittier devices and 'punish' Apple, but it doesn't feel worthwhile, because in doing so I also have to punish myself, and Apple isn't the actual underlying problem.

In this case, it is the dysfunctional patent system. In another recent case where Apple was the villian, the issue was the diminishment of the rights of individual citizens in favor of protecting the interests of multinational corporations: when Apple actively lobbied to make jailbreaking illegal.

That was a case where the actual underlying system was resolved in favor of the good guys (per my worldview, and that of most HN readers I presume). The law of the land was changed, and the problem was solved/averted.

Fixing the patent system seems like a herculean task, probably much harder than protecting our legal right to crack shitty DRM and usage restrictions on devices we own, but I think it is still the right place to focus. Apple may be the latest Oracle/SCO/AssholeCorp, but as long as the underlying legal system is completely fucked, even if Apple disappeared there would just be another corporation that came along and started doing the same shit.

MordinSolus• 14 years ago

Essentially, the problem is with the government, not Apple. I don't dislike Apple for what they are doing; they are doing what any self-interested company would do.

_pferreir_• 14 years ago

What's wrong about the Galaxy Nexus?

darkandbrooding• 14 years ago

I don't disagree with your exhortation to vote with your dollars. It's a principle that I constantly think about as a consumer. However, saying "Don't do X" is IMO not usually very productive. Saying "Do Y instead of X" has a much better success rate. For those customers to whom feature set is as (or more) important than the Big Picture, can you recommend an alternative?

I've consistently used Apple hardware for many years because of the combination of multimedia-friendly Unix on ultra quiet hardware. I currently use an iMac because I get a large screen, a small desktop footprint, and no fan noise. Is there a hardware vendor who makes very quiet machines, whose components are well supported by Linux, and whose sins are modest enough for you to recommend them?

aganek• 14 years ago

Judge rules Samsung owes Apple roughly one 'Instagram' in damages.

jfb3• 14 years ago

Which is decimal dust to Apple, less so to Samsung. The real value to Apple here is that Samsung was found to be infringing. That's going to mean a much tougher row for Samsung to hoe, even as the appeal is almost certainly being filed as we speak.

forgottenpaswrd• 14 years ago

So basically this means that if you are an independent developer and make an app that displays a graph your finger could edit you have to pay Apple for Twenty years!!

So this means that appart from the 30% cut of the Apple store, most of your profits go to Apple or MS who are going to dedicate the money to buy more monopolies(patents).

Or alternatively the US system(where nobody works anymore, you could only survive in finance, marketing, law or politics) collapses from within and some other country take its place.

RichardButler2• 14 years ago

I wonder if this will actually end up hurting Apple's bottom line in the end. Samsung is one of Apples largest hardware providers and one of the few that can produce screens of sufficient resolution for Apple's retina displays. Wouldn't be surprised if Samsung recoups their loses just by raising their hardware prices.

wmf2• 14 years ago

If Samsung tried to raise prices for components, Apple would just buy those components somewhere else, causing Samsung's revenue to tank. Just look at what happened to PortalPlayer.

RichardButler2• 14 years ago

Samsung is the only producer of screens that can meet the quality and quantity requirements of apple. I remember hearing they even had problems keeping up with the demand. I seriously doubt Apple could come up with another supplier.

freditup• 14 years ago

Interestingly, TechCrunch (http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/hang-on-a-minute-jurors-awa...) reports that some of the damages awarded to Apple were awarded without finding any patent infringements. In other words, the jury's report was quite a bit sloppy (maybe rushed?). Anyway, undoubtedly this will all be appealed, and the case could turn any direction.

A personal question - what is the double tap to zoom patent all about? It hardly seems to me, personally that that should be patentable. Just as there's no way, Google should be able to patent something like 'double-click to zoom' on Google Maps.

chairsofter5• 14 years ago

What a joke! The jury rushed through this so quickly and uncaringly that there are glaring errors in their verdict. Look at the edit at the bottom of the article:

http://briefmobile.com/jury-comes-to-verdict-in-apple-vs-sam...

forensic9• 14 years ago

welcome to the legal system. every verdict is rife with errors, committed by judges, lawyers, juries, police, everyone

bas• 14 years ago

Is your code bug-free? Pot. Kettle. Black.

ehosca• 14 years ago

and the end of Apple begins....

lenkite• 14 years ago

So lets look at some of the infringing patents that the news articles are quoting...

381 patent: "rubber band" effect where a page "bounces" when a user scrolls to the bottom

I personally had written JS bounce-back product picture slide-shows for a shopping cart in 2003/2004 using the horrible browser APIs of that era...wish I had patented that..1 billion..yum. I am quite certain hundreds of people have coded bounce-back animations before even iPhone 1.0.

915 patent: Pinch to Zoom. Isn't this the natural translation of how one drags handlebars in opposite directions in order to zoom-in ? I am quite certain there would be prior art by a lot of CAD software.

163 patent: "Double tap to enlarge/zoom". facepalm. Just about everyone does this on the PC using a mouse. How can one even file a patent for this ?

D '305 patent: "Grid of rounded square icons" -> The joke of the decade. What has every desktop OS being doing since the 90s ???

This is extremely upsetting. Is this what civilization is coming to ? If things continue this way, the working population of the world will be employed as patent lawyers squabbling all the time in courts.

rayiner7• 14 years ago

You realize there is more to a patent claim than the heading?

linuxhansl3• 14 years ago

That's what you get from having lay people (with no training in either software development, UI design, etc) making decisions like this.

These patents are quite obviously ridiculous.

381 patent: "rubber band" effect 915 patent: Pinch to Zoom 163 patent: "Double tap to enlarge/zoom" D '305 patent: "Grid of rounded square icons"

This is supposed to be what sets off iPhones from competition?!

W.T.F.? How did we get to this?

I can see Dr. Evil saying "One Biiiillion Dollars".

rayiner7• 14 years ago

This kind of comment is what you get when you have non-lawyers try to interpret patent litigation...

linuxhansl3• 14 years ago

Nice. Maybe you want to read this: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120824175815101

delllapssuck• 14 years ago

All Apple does is whine. Even when they are winning.

Their internal memo/public statement goes so far as to say "it's not about patents and money". Yes, I do believe you Mr. Cook. It's about a bunch of morally inept emotionally underdeveloped overgrown children.

Apple is above "copying". Went they want to cut corners (pun intended) and get to market quickly, they _steal_.

Welcome to the IT industry.

josteink2• 14 years ago

Today Apple went down in history as the biggest patent-troll of all time, stiffling innovation and competition like nobody has ever done before.

If you are a software-developer you should recognize the fundamental threat which Apple represents to your profession.

Boycott Apple if you want to be able to stay in business in the long term future. Throw away your Macbooks, iPhones and iPads. Ditch your iTunes and iTunes account. Get rid of everything Apple. All of it.

Be vocal about your code of ethical software conduct and how that prohibits involving anything made by Apple into anything you ever do.

kenster072• 14 years ago

Samsung and Apple fandom aside, patenting a smartphone UI is patently absurd.

Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

Related Stories