Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Mar 2014 21:08 UTC

The Verge, summarising the first US patent lawsuit between Apple and Samsung:

Apple was awarded just over $1 billion in damages, though that figure was later cut down to $939.8 million after the judge pointed out errors in the way the jury did its math. Those damages were retried, and came in lower than the original figure, though the entire amount has since been appealed, and Samsung hasn't paid a penny. Alongside that, Apple and Samsung failed to win bans against one another's products in the US, making the first trial seem like nothing more than a legal spectacle.

Or, just call it what it is: an abject failure on both company's sides, and a huge waste of money that could have gone to product development, higher salaries, or even shareholder returns. Two gigantic and hugely profitable companies using despicable weaponry - and all, for, nothing.

But in the midst of all that was a very real threat: another lawsuit, one that targeted more successful devices from both companies, and used easy-to-understand patents covering basic software features. Apple filed it against Samsung in February 2012, targeting 17 devices. Samsung responded in kind, and this week the pair go head to head once again; the outcome could be very different. Here's what to expect over the next weeks and months as these two titans clash again in California's courts.

So, prepare for another week of lawyers laughing all the way to the bank, while two companies with more money than they know what to do with waste precious time of the US justice system that could be spent elsewhere, and better.

Let the cheering contest continue. Which faceless corporation that cares none about you do you root for?

Thread beginning with comment 585740
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by majipoor
by boofar on Tue 1st Apr 2014 13:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by majipoor"
Member since:

What would happen? Is that a rethorical question?

I guess there would be more rounded corners and fewer rich lawyers in the world. That would be horrific!

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by majipoor
by themwagency on Tue 1st Apr 2014 14:16 in reply to "RE: Comment by majipoor"
themwagency Member since:

Is that supposed to be a digg on Samsung or Apple?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by majipoor
by boofar on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 06:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by majipoor"
boofar Member since:

Does it have to be either? If anything it's mostly a digg on the patent system.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by majipoor
by majipoor on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 07:41 in reply to "RE: Comment by majipoor"
majipoor Member since:

You need to consider Apple's point-of-view here, the point being whether or not the trial did have a positive impact on Apple's business.

Reply Parent Score: 2