8 ms·

Jury Reaches Verdict in Apple vs. Samsung Trial - To Be Updated

37 points by axxl 14y ago

elektronaut 14y ago
Live coverage on The Verge: http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/
anu_gupta 14y ago
Looks like Apple have crushed Samsung.
- coin 14y ago
  Should be a nice boost for Apple's stock price Monday.
  - chollida1 14y ago
    Really? I don't think any one seriously expects Samsung to not be able to sell phones because of this so there won't be a bump due to analysts expect apple to steal Samsung customers. And AAPL US Equity has about 1 Billion shares outstanding so the reward, if it gets paid and it probably won't, will come out to a one time boost of $1 per share. So if a $1 rise int he stock price is considered a nice boost then I guess AAPL's stock should have a nice boost on Monday.
    - coin 14y ago
      AAPL is up $12 this morning.
snowwrestler 14y ago
Wow, crazy result. I feel [to be updated with an edit later]!
dakrisht 14y ago
Looks like Apple won this one
- r00fus 14y ago
  The appeal is guaranteed to be requested from Samsung, and will likely be granted due to the behavior of the judge. This one is going to go well into extra innings. The question is whether there will be a timely injunction of Apple's likely attempt to cut off Samsing's sales of infringing products in the US.
  - neurotech1 14y ago
    Judge Koh could learn from Posner. Tell them both to "figure it out" and cross license. If that doesn't work, "Get out of my courtroom" would. If I was Samsung CEO. I would cease shipping components to Apple tomorrow, then file a anti-competitive practices lawsuit against Apple.
tokenadult 14y ago
I've been following the live blogging from the San Jose Mercury News kindly posted by another HN participant: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4429940 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4429940 Direct link to the live blogging is http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_21356424/live-blog-verdict-apple-samsung-patent-trial http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_21356424/live-blog-verdict-a... "Jury finds on bounce back patent that Samsung infringed Apple on all the devices in play, smartphones and tabs" "On the "pinch and zoom" patent, jury also finds Samsung infringed Apple patents on the menu of smartphones and tablets..with just a few exceptions." "On tap and zoom, jury finds infringement for tap and zoom feature on most of the smartphones and tablets, although no on a few, such as Nexus S 4G...split this one up by various devices, but largely in favor of Apple" "Jury also finds for Apple on charge Samsung "knew or should have known" it was inducing its telecommunications and electronics divisions to infringe" "Apple blitzing Samsung so far, jury now finds infringed design of iPhone contours, etc." "Some products of Samsung being spared the gallows, but not many so far" "Jury finds Samsung infringed Apple graphical interface on iPhone....so much for those differences Samsung argued for"
mrkmcknz 14y ago
So far the Apple and Samsung updates are just making me angry. I can't believe that you can patent pinch and zoom and double tap to zoom. All this story is telling me is just how much the system needs to be reformed.
- podperson 14y ago
  I like juries. Set aside the details of which particular patent has been claimed -- is this not a just decision? Is it not completely clear that Samsung copied Apple's designs to an extent bordering on fraud? If Samsung were making knockoff purses as similar to Louis Vuitton purses as many of its phones and tablets (and stores) were to Apple's, its products would be seized and destroyed. But Samsung isn't a hole-in-the-wall designer fashion accessory vendor but a multibillion dollar operation.
  - kaonashi 14y ago
    No; no; hyperbole.
  - drumdance 14y ago
    Louis Vitton is a trademark, not a patent, and knockoff designs have been going on legally for many many years.
    - podperson 14y ago
      http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1Y3NDUG_enUS498US498&client=tablet-android-asus-nexus&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&q=louis+vuitton+knockoffs+destroyed http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1Y3NDUG_enUS498US498&cl... Louis Vuitton knockoffs are routinely destroyed for infringing exactly the kinds of design IP Samsung has just been nailed for.
  - olalonde 14y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=black%20lcd%20tv&sugexp=chrome,mod%3D14&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=Tzs4UOfoBeyZ0QWv1oDABg https://www.google.com/search?q=black%20lcd%20tv&sugexp=... I wonder why TV manufacturers don't sue each others... they all look the same!
at-fates-hands 14y ago
I'm actually surprised of such a lopsided victory. I've been following this pretty close and felt like Apple has really overstepped their bounds. Of course it won't matter. Samsung will keep this going for a while on appeal until they win and then Apple will appeal. I don't see a clear victory for either company for a long, long, time.
- luriel 14y ago
  As usual the only ones that will really win from this insanity in the long term are the lawyers. And even the lawyers will not win as much as they think, because they will have set back technological progress decades behind.
DrHankPym 14y ago
So, who's next? Gestures seems pretty common on most mobile devices, and I'm guessing this opens the door for Apple to be able to sue them all, right?
- taligent 14y ago
  They don't need to. This sent a big warning to all the Android OEMs not to copy the iPhone. And that is what Apple wanted. Not money.
  - bornhuetter 14y ago
    I think we can all agree that Apple's intention was to stifle competition, not to get money. The problem is that Android already have to go out of their way to "innovate around" obvious design decisions. This makes things even harder. There is a good chance things will go the other way too, and it will make it harder for Apple to keep up with Android as they introduce new features. I can't see this being good for anyone except Apple shareholders, and in the long run I'm not sure it will even be good for them.
    - taligent 14y ago
      No. Apple's intention was to put as much of a gap between what the iPhone looks and feels like and what Android looks and feels like. Whether that stifles competition is a separate issue.
      - baaks 14y ago
        You know Apple's intentions pretty well! Are you a C-level executive there? Or are you just speculating the exact same as he is?
- bornhuetter 14y ago
  Appeals are next.
protomyth 14y ago
I get the feeling whoever comes up with the best graphic / table of the verdict will get a lot of play. The live streams are really hard to follow on what is what.
bond 14y ago
1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand dollars... Wow
- thought_alarm 14y ago
  Meh. So they have one lean quarter. RIM had to pay $650,000,000 to a patent troll with no products, for violating a patent that no one had seen before. By comparison, considering the massive size of the companies involved and the brazen copying and infringement, the Samsung verdict would seem light.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
stock_toaster 14y ago
thank goodness patent exhaustion was upheld.
- taligent 14y ago
  Absolutely. This is wonderful news for those that care about standards.
antihero 14y ago
Ideal verdict: "The Judge presides that both parties should just FUCK OFF and make decent phones."
- wmf 14y ago
  Unfortunately Posner couldn't get himself assigned to this case.
bornhuetter 14y ago
A sad day for consumers everywhere, regardless of what technology they prefer. The continuing validity of patents such as "pinch to zoom on a phone" is disastrous for the industry and will just serve to make everyone's products worse.
vhf 14y ago
Oh god, the comments are sad. Not HN's comments, the link's comments. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15520468#post15520468 http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15520468#post15...
- Spooky23 14y ago
  Mac forum comments often approach YouTube comments in terms of awfulness. Its a really strange phenomenon.
podperson 14y ago
If Apple is smart they'll donate their winnings (or pledge to donate them) to a universally laudable cause, like MSF. They don't need the money, this was never about the money, and this will underline the point.
- danilocampos 14y ago
  I'm not sure I agree. Apple was pushed into acting as an outsourced R&D and marketing consultancy for their business partner, Samsung. They're entitled to a fee for their services, especially given the success Samsung has enjoyed as a result.
Nerdfest 14y ago
I think this is one of the most disappointing verdicts since the OJ trial.
olalonde 14y ago
Considering that Apple is a beloved American company and Samsung a relatively obscure Korean company, isn't anyone else skeptical that a jury strictly composed of US citizens can be truly impartial in this case?

37 points by axxl 14y ago

Live coverage on The Verge: http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/

anu_gupta 14y ago

Looks like Apple have crushed Samsung.

coin 14y ago
Should be a nice boost for Apple's stock price Monday.
- chollida1 14y ago
  Really? I don't think any one seriously expects Samsung to not be able to sell phones because of this so there won't be a bump due to analysts expect apple to steal Samsung customers. And AAPL US Equity has about 1 Billion shares outstanding so the reward, if it gets paid and it probably won't, will come out to a one time boost of $1 per share. So if a $1 rise int he stock price is considered a nice boost then I guess AAPL's stock should have a nice boost on Monday.
  - coin 14y ago
    AAPL is up $12 this morning.

snowwrestler 14y ago

Wow, crazy result. I feel [to be updated with an edit later]!

dakrisht 14y ago

Looks like Apple won this one

r00fus 14y ago
The appeal is guaranteed to be requested from Samsung, and will likely be granted due to the behavior of the judge. This one is going to go well into extra innings. The question is whether there will be a timely injunction of Apple's likely attempt to cut off Samsing's sales of infringing products in the US.
- neurotech1 14y ago
  Judge Koh could learn from Posner. Tell them both to "figure it out" and cross license. If that doesn't work, "Get out of my courtroom" would. If I was Samsung CEO. I would cease shipping components to Apple tomorrow, then file a anti-competitive practices lawsuit against Apple.

tokenadult 14y ago

I've been following the live blogging from the San Jose Mercury News kindly posted by another HN participant: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4429940 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4429940 Direct link to the live blogging is http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_21356424/live-blog-verdict-apple-samsung-patent-trial http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_21356424/live-blog-verdict-a... "Jury finds on bounce back patent that Samsung infringed Apple on all the devices in play, smartphones and tabs" "On the "pinch and zoom" patent, jury also finds Samsung infringed Apple patents on the menu of smartphones and tablets..with just a few exceptions." "On tap and zoom, jury finds infringement for tap and zoom feature on most of the smartphones and tablets, although no on a few, such as Nexus S 4G...split this one up by various devices, but largely in favor of Apple" "Jury also finds for Apple on charge Samsung "knew or should have known" it was inducing its telecommunications and electronics divisions to infringe" "Apple blitzing Samsung so far, jury now finds infringed design of iPhone contours, etc." "Some products of Samsung being spared the gallows, but not many so far" "Jury finds Samsung infringed Apple graphical interface on iPhone....so much for those differences Samsung argued for"

mrkmcknz 14y ago

So far the Apple and Samsung updates are just making me angry. I can't believe that you can patent pinch and zoom and double tap to zoom. All this story is telling me is just how much the system needs to be reformed.

podperson 14y ago
I like juries. Set aside the details of which particular patent has been claimed -- is this not a just decision? Is it not completely clear that Samsung copied Apple's designs to an extent bordering on fraud? If Samsung were making knockoff purses as similar to Louis Vuitton purses as many of its phones and tablets (and stores) were to Apple's, its products would be seized and destroyed. But Samsung isn't a hole-in-the-wall designer fashion accessory vendor but a multibillion dollar operation.
- kaonashi 14y ago
  No; no; hyperbole.
- drumdance 14y ago
  Louis Vitton is a trademark, not a patent, and knockoff designs have been going on legally for many many years.
  - podperson 14y ago
    http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1Y3NDUG_enUS498US498&client=tablet-android-asus-nexus&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&q=louis+vuitton+knockoffs+destroyed http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1Y3NDUG_enUS498US498&cl... Louis Vuitton knockoffs are routinely destroyed for infringing exactly the kinds of design IP Samsung has just been nailed for.
- olalonde 14y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=black%20lcd%20tv&sugexp=chrome,mod%3D14&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=Tzs4UOfoBeyZ0QWv1oDABg https://www.google.com/search?q=black%20lcd%20tv&sugexp=... I wonder why TV manufacturers don't sue each others... they all look the same!

at-fates-hands 14y ago

I'm actually surprised of such a lopsided victory. I've been following this pretty close and felt like Apple has really overstepped their bounds. Of course it won't matter. Samsung will keep this going for a while on appeal until they win and then Apple will appeal. I don't see a clear victory for either company for a long, long, time.

luriel 14y ago
As usual the only ones that will really win from this insanity in the long term are the lawyers. And even the lawyers will not win as much as they think, because they will have set back technological progress decades behind.

DrHankPym 14y ago

So, who's next? Gestures seems pretty common on most mobile devices, and I'm guessing this opens the door for Apple to be able to sue them all, right?

taligent 14y ago
They don't need to. This sent a big warning to all the Android OEMs not to copy the iPhone. And that is what Apple wanted. Not money.
- bornhuetter 14y ago
  I think we can all agree that Apple's intention was to stifle competition, not to get money. The problem is that Android already have to go out of their way to "innovate around" obvious design decisions. This makes things even harder. There is a good chance things will go the other way too, and it will make it harder for Apple to keep up with Android as they introduce new features. I can't see this being good for anyone except Apple shareholders, and in the long run I'm not sure it will even be good for them.
  - taligent 14y ago
    No. Apple's intention was to put as much of a gap between what the iPhone looks and feels like and what Android looks and feels like. Whether that stifles competition is a separate issue.
    - baaks 14y ago
      You know Apple's intentions pretty well! Are you a C-level executive there? Or are you just speculating the exact same as he is?
bornhuetter 14y ago
Appeals are next.

protomyth 14y ago

I get the feeling whoever comes up with the best graphic / table of the verdict will get a lot of play. The live streams are really hard to follow on what is what.

bond 14y ago

1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand dollars... Wow

thought_alarm 14y ago
Meh. So they have one lean quarter. RIM had to pay $650,000,000 to a patent troll with no products, for violating a patent that no one had seen before. By comparison, considering the massive size of the companies involved and the brazen copying and infringement, the Samsung verdict would seem light.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

stock_toaster 14y ago

thank goodness patent exhaustion was upheld.

taligent 14y ago
Absolutely. This is wonderful news for those that care about standards.

antihero 14y ago

Ideal verdict: "The Judge presides that both parties should just FUCK OFF and make decent phones."

wmf 14y ago
Unfortunately Posner couldn't get himself assigned to this case.

bornhuetter 14y ago

A sad day for consumers everywhere, regardless of what technology they prefer. The continuing validity of patents such as "pinch to zoom on a phone" is disastrous for the industry and will just serve to make everyone's products worse.

vhf 14y ago

Oh god, the comments are sad. Not HN's comments, the link's comments. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15520468#post15520468 http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15520468#post15...

Spooky23 14y ago
Mac forum comments often approach YouTube comments in terms of awfulness. Its a really strange phenomenon.

podperson 14y ago

If Apple is smart they'll donate their winnings (or pledge to donate them) to a universally laudable cause, like MSF. They don't need the money, this was never about the money, and this will underline the point.

danilocampos 14y ago
I'm not sure I agree. Apple was pushed into acting as an outsourced R&D and marketing consultancy for their business partner, Samsung. They're entitled to a fee for their services, especially given the success Samsung has enjoyed as a result.

Nerdfest 14y ago

I think this is one of the most disappointing verdicts since the OJ trial.

olalonde 14y ago

Considering that Apple is a beloved American company and Samsung a relatively obscure Korean company, isn't anyone else skeptical that a jury strictly composed of US citizens can be truly impartial in this case?