Apple Vs Samsung Trial Verdict Is In

So after 3 weeks and months of build up the jury in the Apple vs Samsung trial have finished their deliberations and given their verdict.

They ruled that all of Apples patents are valid and the majority of Samsung devices featured in the case infringed. Specifically all 21 devices infringed on the “bounce back” patent whereas all but 3 devices infringed on Apples pinch to zoom patent. The jury also ruled that Samsung copied the home screen GUI. Another decision was that Apples trade dress is also valid and the Galaxy S dilutes. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 did not infringe Apples iPad design however.


Ultimately the jury had to place a monetary value on each infringement and determined that Samsung must pay Apple $1,051,855,000 in total damages, which is quite a bit less than the $2.5b Apple was aiming for still a not inconsiderable sum of money.

In the countersuit the jury ruled that the iPhone 3G, 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod Touch and iPad did not infringe any of the 5 patents Samsung claims they did. Therefore the jury ruled that Apple was not to pay Samsung any damages.

Apple didn’t win every part of the case, not by a long shot, but they did win more than enough for this to be considered a victory in their favour. What this will mean for the future of Android and its OEM’s remains to be seen. Samsung always reserves the right to an appeal of course.

My Phone History - By Ronnie Whelan
BES 10 will support all Blackberry, as well as Android & iOS devices
  • The verdict is BS. There is PLENTY of what’s in the patent suit that’s prior art and should invalidate the Apple claims. I don’t agree that the Galaxy series would have confused customers and should be found to be in violation of patents. I could probably see where a few patents were walked on … but not enough to award that much money. Really the verdict should have invalidated Apple patent claims – but not awarded anything to Samsung – leaving the world open to competition once again. The patent system is rediculous.

    • Guest

      Samsung had sufficient opportunity to convince the jury that Apple’s patents are invalid and weren’t able to do so. Prior Art does not immediately invalidate a patent.

      • iPhone Fan

        I haven’t followed the case religiously and I don’t claim to be an expert but it seems to me from what I have read that Samsung’s defence seemed to focus on claiming that Apple had copied other people rather than proving that they didn’t copy Apple themselves. I’m not sure how I feel about the verdict but I do think Apple changed the smartphone market and others had to play catch up and more than likely copied some of Apple’s design ideas.

        • AndyPC

          Okay, I’m not a fan of Apple, as I’m an IT expert and they make things that are “dumbed down” with respect to what I’m used to. But I appreciate how they made the technology I had access to usable by others with less knowledge than myself. That is the only way they changed the market. Before the iPhone came out I had been using Windows Mobile/Phone for several years, so it frustrated me to hear people saying how Apple had invented a completely new type of phone, after seeing many of the features in the phones I had been using previously. I would dispute the grid of icons patent, I had that on a windows mobile phone using some software called spb shell before the iPhone I’m sure. Apple changed the smartphone market, by showing all other smartphone manufacturers that the general public were interested, and by marketing it as sexy.

          • iPhone Fan

            I stand by my comment that Apple “changed” the smart phone market. I’m not saying they created every technology that is now used in smart phones but they made them accessible to the masses. I disagree that they have “dumbed down” things – I’d argue that they have made things simpler for the average user and made them “work”. I too was a WinMo user for several years up until my Touch Diamond and used to enjoy customising the phone and fiddling with all the settings – its a good job I enjoyed this as it was the only way of getting the phone to do what I wanted it to do! When I got my iPhone 3G it lacked a lot of the features I was used to but what it did do it did well and easier than any of the WinMo phones I had. Not having to use a stylus was great and it was so much more intuitive than WinMo.

            Apple have changed the smartphone market by making devices that look good, perform well and appeal to a wider audience. Smartphones are no longer the domain of geeks, business users and IT workers – my wife has the iPhone 4 and my 60 year old mother in law has the Galaxy S2. I’m sure that this would not be the case if Apple hadn’t changed the way things were done.

  • egon

    they should have paid a royalty payment from the start same as others did…. well done Apple….

    • AndyPC

      Yes, well done Apple – you managed to patent basic design principles that other manufacturers simply took for granted before they thought of doing so. Now you can charge other companies a much larger premium than you were black-mailing them with before to cross-license the simple design principles you have monopolised.

      This, I suppose, is the common profile of a design company, not an IT company.

    • Snitch

      apple make great products that are sometimes sweeter than the competition. That sweetness is tainted by monopolistic goals. We are sleep walking into a technology abyss, think about it for one minute. these clowns are about to start making TV sets how long do you think it will take the most powerful company ever to start broadcasting? With the US patent system clearly being apples’ I shudder to think what they’ve claimed patents for on TVs. I think that Samsung should be punished because they clearly copied the look of apples products but what worries me more is that none of the patents apple clearly infringe are upheld. Somethings very wrong! This is like that John Carpenter movie They Live “they own everything”, “they run countries”etc.- lol

      • Guest

        Apple have confirmed there are no plans to launch a TV in the immediate future. Even If they did, they wouldn’t be the ones doing any of the broadcasting. Apple does not have a monopoly in any of the businesses its currently involved in

  • John

    I carny believe this site which is supposed to be for all phones is not giving apple created for winning …. Samsung did copy so why aren’t you writing about that Jamie and how they tired to get away with it.

    Windows,blackberry didn’t take samsungs way !!!

    • Guest

      I wrote this article after midnight and it was only ever intended to report the facts of the case. The staff regularly share their opinions in editorial posts and also on the podcast.

    • AndyPC

      The trouble is, as everyone who has been in IT for a decent number of years will know, Apple also copies – but then it patents what it copies – usually technology or methods that the rest of the industry takes for granted as common sense design. Don’t make the mistake of thinking Apple has clean hands in this sense, it’s just clever and more ruthless than most other companies and knows very well how to play the game.

  • Snitch

    America just got a lot smaller. I can see a backlash against apple. Purely because they have perfected the art of patenting others ideas. Yes, Samsung did take the mick, I remember when those phones came out you couldn’t tell them apart from the iPhone. What worries me is that in The USA nobody can get there patents to stick in the same way apple can, just ask Motorola. I smell a rat, this is why I think the USA will probably be avoided by competing Manufactures. The USA is not the world neither is it a growing mmarket

    • Guest

      I don’t think any of the manufacturers can afford to leave out the US as Apple and Samsung are pretty much the only ones making money. Manufacturers are aware now that Apples patents are valid and so the next step is to either a) license them or b) innovate around them.

    • AndyPC

      I suppose a Korean company might receive different pre-conceptions to that of a US company. I think that may have been a key factor in this case – bigotry –
      “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”

      • Guest

        Samsung were just as involved in the jury selection as Apple. To imply bigotry on the jury’s part is pessimistic in the extreme. The judge was korean, so if it had gone the other way I fully expect that to have been used as an excuse also.

  • Jdave76

    What ever your opinion I see this a big setback for us getting better gadgets in the future. :0(

    • Guest

      You could also look at it as a good thing, it means Samsung will have to innovate more to stay competitive and they seem to have done that the with the Galaxy S3

  • Andy Hudson

    so…. American Jury votes that foreign company abused American company patents. Anyone could have seen that outcome from that start.

    • Guest

      Apple has lost cases in the US against foreign competition before. Samsung had the option to reject any jurors they felt would not give them a fair and unbiased case.