This makes me really miss Groklaw.<p>For the first trial, Apple v. Samsung, we had regular reports with<p><pre><code> 1. Daily trial reports on testimony and motions
2. Analysis of the patents involved
3. Descriptions of the legal issues involved and which were in dispute
4. History on the companies and technology involved
</code></pre>
But in current stories, like this better than average one from Reuters, we don't even hear about the patents involved, not their numbers, not their titles or short descriptions, and not even the total number of patents involved. We don't have a history of the litigation, the likely effects on the industry in the future, the workarounds, the simultaneous appeals before the Board of Appeals at the PTO, the issues left for appeal, the history of the judge or even her name, or any kind of context that would help us understand.<p>Our news source for the original Apple v. Samsung was great, but Apple ][ is like a black hole of information. The upcoming Apple /// will likely be the same unless there is some kind of new Groklaw someday.
(Without commenting on who won - Apple for getting some money or Samsung for having to pay far less than anticipated)<p>This is a terrible list of some overbroad Patents:<p>The Autocomplete 172 Patent is considered suspect enough that it is going under a reexam[scribd]: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/218949626/14-01-13-Apple-172-Autocomplete-Reexamination-Decision" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/218949626/14-01-13-Apple-172-Autoc...</a><p>The next few ones are equally horrible:
647 is contentious as well
<a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/ruling-in-apple-v-motorola-throws-wrench-in-apple-v-samsung/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnet.com/news/ruling-in-apple-v-motorola-throws-w...</a><p>Irrespective of the monetary rulings, I hope these patents get struck down. A good blow against patents (especially a cash rich company like Apple) might give others pause.
Why is apple suing samsung for software patents?<p>Samsung don't write (much of) the software.<p>EDIT: I know Apple CAN sue samsung, but I don't know why. Google are writing the software, all the features described are google features. Android is what iOS competes with. So I guess my question should have been: Why isn't Apple suing google?
Samsung, in an argument in the court, tried passing the buck to Google, stating that the primary owner of the Android operating system is Google and they are liable for any copyright or patent infringements.<p>There is another $900 million case going on in court. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
I wonder how much the legal billing hours on both sides was.<p>Anyways- Putting it in perspective, It will take Samsung a bit more than a day to pay for this verdict (about 29.5 hours of revenue)
I love how absolutely fucking dismissive this community can be about Apple.<p>They fundamentally reinvented mobile phones. They brought real touch screens (resistive doesn't count) to the masses.<p>They had very real, seemingly obvious now, because they are so utterly perfect (slide to unlock) innovations.<p>They absolutely have the right to sue a company that is fundamentally a copying lab. Samsung has absolutely nothing to stand on here.<p>This community is hilarious. I hope when one of you innovates even at 1/1,000th the level of Apple, someone ganks your idea (badly) and see how you feel.