There is one important aspect of this re-trial many of you are missing. The case was already decided years ago against Samsung -- there is nothing more to debate on that end, however absurd the decision.<p>Now the new jury decided that those frivolous infringements amount to most of Samsung's entire profit. In another word, Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's patents rounded corners drove market demand for Samsung's infringed device almost single-handedly - not their brilliants displays, battery, or even wireless radio functionality.<p>Needlessly to say, not only is it ridiculous to say that those frivolous few design components amounts to almost all of Samsung's profit, this also sets extremely dangerous legal precedence. I could only imagine what future patent trolls with absurd design patents are going to look like now -- and, of course, Apple won't be immune to this either. I can't imagine any sane mind wanting this outcome (and yes that includes Apple's own counsel).
To everyone saying "these are basic phone designs," try and remember reactions to the original iPhone release keynote. The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple.
They patented "a grid of icons" when it's literally the first way you'd think of doing the UI - basically the definition of an "obvious patent". Not to mention that it'd already been done that way many times before and was the standard thing on smartphones by that point. So both obvious and massive prior art.<p>For instance here's a Nokia phone from 2005:<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2005-03-nokia-3g-imaging-smartphone-shipping.html" rel="nofollow">https://phys.org/news/2005-03-nokia-3g-imaging-smartphone-sh...</a><p>And a Cingular branded HTC Windows phone from 2006:<p><a href="http://www.flobee.net/wp-content/uploads/cingular2125.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.flobee.net/wp-content/uploads/cingular2125.jpg</a>
From OP:<p>> Apple said in a statement that the case “has always been about more than money.”<p>> “We believe deeply in the value of design, and our teams work tirelessly to create innovative products that delight our customers,” the company said.<p>> After the 2012 jury sided with Apple, Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook said the lawsuit was about values, and that the company “chose legal action very reluctantly and only after repeatedly asking Samsung to stop copying” its work.<p>From an old Samsung filing on Groklaw:[1] (seen via
kregasaurusrex's comment)<p>> For its part, Apple‘s "revolutionary" iPhone design was derived from the designs of a competitor—Sony. In February 2006, before the claimed iPhone design was conceived of, Apple executive Tony Fadell circulated a news article to Steve Jobs, Jonathan Ive and others. In the article, a Sony designer discussed Sony designs for portable electronic devices that lacked buttons and other "excessive ornamentation," fit in the hand, were "square with a screen" and had "corners [which] have been rounded out." Ex. 18 (DX 649). Right after this article was circulated internally, Apple industrial designer Shin Nishibori was directed to prepare a [redacted] design for an Apple phone and then had CAD drawings and a three-dimensional model prepared. See Exs. 1-3 (DX 623; DX 690; DX 562). Confirming the origin of the design, these internal Apple CAD drawings prepared at Mr. Nishibori‘s direction even had [redacted] on the phone design, as the below images from Apple‘s internal documents show: [redacted image] Soon afterward, on March 8, 2006, Apple designer Richard Howarth reported that, in contrast to another internal design that was then under consideration, Mr. Nishibori‘s [redacted] design enabled [redacted] As Mr. Nishibori has confirmed in deposition testimony, this [redacted] design he prepared changed the course of the project that yielded the final iPhone design.<p>> Design was not the only thing Apple took from other companies in developing the iPhone. While Apple touts itself in the popular press as a company of "firsts," it recognizes the opposite internally. As Apple admitted in internal emails, Apple was not the first [redacted]<p>[1] <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120726121512518" rel="nofollow">http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120726121512...</a>
Does any one please know a curated list of all lawsuits between Apple and Samsung?<p>I've checked the Wikipedia page, but it's missing some trials and lawsuits.
Groklaw's coverage over the course of the initial trials were excellent. <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120726121512518" rel="nofollow">http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120726121512...</a>
For how importance of the trial, and the amount of design infringing involved, the final is <i>only</i> $539M.<p>In comparison, the fine is barely enough for Apple to paid the FaceTime Patents lose of $503M to real trolls VirnetX.
Goddamn you, Bloomberg. Auto-playing video which causes my iPad to stop playing the audio to my home speakers. I’m sitting on the couch listening to an album and this happens.<p>I thought iOS prevented this? Deeply annoying.
> covering the rounded corners of its phones, the rim that surrounds the front face, and the grid of icons that users view -- and two utility patents, which protect the way something works and is used.<p>Does anyone know the details of this? On the face, it seems disgustingly trivial. Rounded corners are patentable, really? But the devil is often in the details.
This:<p>> Apple’s design patents -- covering the rounded corners of its phones, the rim that surrounds the front face, and the grid of icons that users view<p>is bullshit. It's either implementation details, or design I've seen on phones way before the iPhone.
Hrmm. Many Americans see something like the GDPR as protectionist often because we can't understand the culture behind such legislation. I wonder if that's what someone in Korea or elsewhere would think here. An American, echoing similar arguments, might say that the patents apply to everyone equally, but that doesn't change the fact that it appears from the outside like a legal absurdity. Just something that crossed my mind in today's context.
Steve Jobs' friend Bill Gates cloned the Macintosh with Windows and his other friend Eric Schmidt cloned the iPhone with Android.<p>I'm sure that felt bad but his primary feeling should have been pity. He created a company so much better than his competitors that their biggest successes are poor clones of his next-generation products. He showed Gates the future of PCs and he showed Schmidt the future of smartphones.<p>But he was unable to get over the feeling of betrayal and he felt the need to use the terrible patent system against them. It's petty behavior that was always beneath him and Apple. These lawsuits against Samsung are part of that petty behavior.<p>He could have been magnanimous and taken their pitiful cloning as a form of flattery. He knew that he could keep beating them indefinitely by creating superior products.