Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Aug 2012 23:54 UTC
Legal And just like that, within a matter of days, the jury has reached a verdict in Apple vs. Samsung. The basic gist is simple: Apple's software patents are valid, and many Samsung devices infringe upon them. Apple's iPhone 3G trade dress is valid, and Samsung's Galaxy S line infringes, but other devices did not. Samsung did not infringe Apple's iPad design patent. Apple did not infringe any of Samsung's patents. Apple is awarded a little over $1 billion in damages. Competition lost today, and developers in the United States should really start to get worried - software patents got validated big time today.
Thread beginning with comment 532171
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Everybody wins
by Phillip.Fayers on Sat 25th Aug 2012 09:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Everybody wins"
Phillip.Fayers
Member since:
2005-12-14

"Well, I don't see Google or Samsung on Capital Hill demanding an end to software patents"

A valid point re: Samsung, not so with Google.

I was very surprised that Samsung didn't follow Google's lead (in the Java/Android case) and ask the patent office to invalidate Apple's patents in advance of the trial. If they truly are invalid, as many people thing, then a re-examination would invalidate them. The tactic worked very well for Google - and happens outside the truly ludicrous time restriction on arguments in the court room.

The only reason I could come up with for Samsung not challenging the patents in that way is that they didn't want the same to happen to theirs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Everybody wins
by JAlexoid on Sat 25th Aug 2012 13:31 in reply to "RE[3]: Everybody wins"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The only reason I could come up with for Samsung not challenging the patents in that way is that they didn't want the same to happen to theirs.


Bingo! Samsung lawyers were so preoccupied with all-or-nothing approach, that it bit them in the ass. They could have gone the "narrow down patent claims" route, but they only wanted invalidation.

Reply Parent Score: 2