Apple Wins Big in Samsung Infringement Verdict

Apple and Samsung tabletsIn the wake of the Apple/Samsung verdict, the dust is settling a bit, but things are far from over. The jury ruled in favor of Apple, granting it at least $1,049,343,540 (they had asked for more than $2.5 billion), though that figure was a result of some reworking after it was determined that an additional $2.2 million had been awarded in error. Samsung on the other hand, was awarded nothing in its counter-suits against Apple.

Breaking Down the Findings

  • The jury found that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s ‘381 patent for bounce back scrolling on all devices.
  • The jury found that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s ‘915 patent, related to one-finger scrolling and pinch-and-zoom navigation, on all devices except the Samsung Ace, Intercept, and Replenish.
  • The jury found that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s ‘163 patent, related to tap-to-zoom on all Samsung devices except the Captivate, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform and Vibrant.

The jury also determined that Samsung had induced its U.S arm to infringe on these patents, and that the infringement was willful.

The deliberation period was surprisingly short. In just three days the jury delivered findings on more than 700 separate questions in the case.

Both companies of course weighed in with official statements:

Apple PR:

“We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.”

Samsung PR:

“Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.”

It’s Not Over Yet

Of course, this is still a good distance from over. Samsung has announced its plans to appeal, while the judge has set an injunction hearing for September 20. The injunction phase is where Apple may well press to bar certain infringing Samsung products from sale in the U.S.

Apple investors sent a clear message that they were pleased with the findings, sending the company’s stock to a new all-time high of $675.11 in after-hours trading.

How are you feeling about the verdict? Has justice been served or competition stifled? And if you’re in the U.S, are you planning to rush out and buy an infringing Samsung product while you still can? Let us know in the comments.

Comments

  1. Tony De Vito says

    Apple should lose the case unless they can show that Samsung copied their code. Back in the ’80s Apple rightly sued another company for copying Apple’s firmware and this lawsuit was both justified and honorable. The Patent for ‘pinch to zoom’ should never have been allowed in the first place but once Apple tried to enforce the patent the case should have been thrown out. Most end-users look upon computers (for example) as ‘black boxes’ that respond to the user’s input with a specific output. The programming inside the black box is what is legitimately protected by patents and copyrights because it is A SPECIFIC METHOD for getting from the ‘pinch’ to the ‘zoom’. What user actually wants to us ‘pinch to zoom’ on one device and use something completely different on another device? How will they migrate from one manufacturer to another? Migrating TO Apple devices will be as difficult as migrating FROM Apple devices. Imagine if you learned how to change speed and direction in a car by using a hand throttle, hand brake, and a tiller and were then given a car with a steering wheel a brake pedal and a gas pedal, how would you cope?

  2. says

    As a small business owner I value IP laws and protections- but I question that itself (IP law) more than Apple v Samsung. As with most suites the persistent winners are lawyers.

    I appreciate Apple’s innovations and think they should be afforded some protections- but my understanding was that patents protect “implementations” not “ideas.” Being that software is such a vague intangible thing I lack understanding how something like “bounce back scrolling” could infringed upon.

  3. John says

    Unfortunately, Apple have become what they once claimed to despise. The company is a bully and a would-be monopolist .

    I am no IP lawyer, so please somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that copyright law – not patent law – is the most appropriate form of protection for the relatively trivial UI characteristics in question in this case. Why would a would-be monopolist choose patent protection over copyright? Because it affords the opportunity to have injunctions (bans) placed on competitive devices.

    The messages I take from this trial are that these patents probably shouldn’t have been granted and that if Apple was a good-faith player in the market, they wouldn’t have sought to register them or use them offensively.

  4. Vectre says

    My opinion of the finding… The kindest I can be to it is to call it a mistake.

    tap to zoom – I saw and used it on windows mobile, before the iPhone.
    pinch to zoom – pinching is a natural human gesture, should not be patentable.
    one finger scrolling and bounceback scrolling – seen and used on devices before the iPhone…

    If you go through the patents they are trying to use to stifle competition most if jot all will have been see. In some version before iPhones, prior art renders patents invalid. They should not have been granted in the first place.

    • Vectre should be a patent lawyer says

      Well thank goodness we have word from a patent lawyer too bad you weren’t called for expert witness testimony.

  5. David says

    I agree with Samsungs decision to appeal. Steve Jobs was an innovator of creative
    Ideas and Apple’s developers are just like the ones of there competition; they copy existing
    technology and tweak it to fit the creative ideas brought to them. The only difference
    is Apple has moved faster to protect their “new development” than their competition.
    This court decision moves us closer to a monopoly by Apple and the consumer
    paying the ultimate sacrifice- limited choice and outrages high prices.

  6. Mary B says

    I used to love my iPhone and iPad, but after using a Samsung Galaxy phone I’m pretty happy with it too. My biggest concern with Apple is that they’ll create a monopoly and overcharge for services and add to their over bulging coffers in addition to their tax evading strategies. Thanks, I’ll stick to the android phone and do without all the bells and whistles Apple puts on the market.

  7. Garry Pennycuff says

    Anyone else remember those days when Apple/Jobs were a bunch of cry babies that Microsoft was hogging the market and wouldn’t let them compete?

  8. Mike D says

    Flagrant copiers are finally being called on the carpet. Anyone in his right mind knew Samsung was nothing more than a direct copy of Apple. That os why it only took a few hours to reach a guilty verdict. It’s about time this gets set straight.

    • Twin says

      Disagree, you think Samsung is the only people that “copied” Apple? Touchwiz was bad, but there was other stuff involved. This is the business. You’re not going to sit on your hands when a competitor is running with something that works well. That is just idiotic. Look where the two have ended up too. Their devices are nothing alike. It was clearly a stepping stone. Other competitors have done the same thing too. Honestly it is to be expected.