Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Aug 2012 18:38 UTC
Legal Well, that didn't take long. Groklaw notes several interesting inconsistencies and other issues with the jury verdict. "If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn't take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement. Come on. This is farce." My favourite inconsistency: a Samsung phone with a keyboard, four buttons, and a large Samsung logo on top infringes the iPhone design patent. And yet, we were told (in the comments, on other sites) that the Samsung f700 was not prior art... Because it had a keyboard. I smell fish.
Thread beginning with comment 532544
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by broken_symlink
by bouhko on Mon 27th Aug 2012 07:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by broken_symlink"
bouhko
Member since:
2010-06-24

It's because of the Pinch-to-Zoom and Bounce scrolling stupid patents (that shouldn't have been awarded in the first place because those are neither new nor innovative).

As much as I can understand the ruling from the trade dress perspective (for some devices, Samsung really tried to look like an iPhone), just taking an interesting software interaction idea from your concurrent shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise, I hope Google has some patent on "searching for stuff" and "notifications on a smartphone".

Reply Parent Score: 2

broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

Doesn't Samsung have like no say in the UI of the Nexus S though? I mean doesn't Samsung just build the hardware for that?

Reply Parent Score: 2