http://finance.yahoo.com/news/samsung-found-infringe-most-apple-231101124.html

"Apple, based in Cupertino, California, sued Samsung in April 2011, and Samsung countersued as part of a battle being waged on four continents over a smartphone market valued at $219.1 billion according to Bloomberg Industries. The companies have also sued each other in the U.K., Australia and South Korea.

Questions over damages awards were among the more than 600 questions the jury was asked to address. Apple sought $2.5 billion to $2.75 billion for its claims that Suwon, South Korea- based Samsung infringed four design patents and three software patents in copying the iPhone and iPad. Samsung's demand for as much as $421.8 million in royalties was based on claims that Apple infringed five patents.

Apple also wants to make permanent a preliminary ban it won on U.S. sales of a Samsung tablet computer and extend the ban to Samsung smartphones. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the San Jose trial, would decide that question herself without the jury".

This is bad news and sets a very bad president. The last time Apple tried this they lost and ended up having to pay MS. Today's jury was probably padded with iPhone users who probably think Apple invented touch screens. I can't tell you how disappointed I am. Android is better than iOS and together they push technology forward. Hopefully Samsung will be able to appeal to a higher court and get this overturned.

According to what I read, the jury was actually made up of people with a background in enginerring, a background in law, and the foreman was himself a patent holder. So, they really picked the right people, or at least the people with the right kind of background and credentials. One of them came out after the virdict was handed down and explained the decision. It came down to several things. The incriminating emails from Samsung was a dead givaway that they willingly coppied Apple's designs and did so in a wrongful way that no company would openly admit to doing. Second, the people from Samsung were dodging questions, were not open about a lot of things, and basically did not act like anyone who really was innocent. What finally sealed the deal were the comparison charts; the one with the pictures of the pre-iPhone Samsung smartphones to the left, the first iPhone in the middle, and the Samsung smartphones that came after iPhone to the right.

A lot of people may not have liked what had happened, but it really was a fair trial. Apple made a good case with damnding evidence while Samsung presented themselves very poorly. The key to their entire defense consisted of using footage from movies like 2001: A Space Oddesy and Star Trek as a way of trying convince the jury the Apple's creative ideas were universal. It didn't work. They didn't outright say "yeah, we coppied", but they weren't denying it either and if they were really innocent, why not be more open? Why not give straight, honest answers? 

What i described is based as much in reality as what you did. So please don't try using such false statements as "situation you describe does not resemble reality" as it very much does so and has been proving in this very thread,  also to the bolded, some of the people in this thread sure could of fooled me (But i wont point out no names).

Hell i guess we where all lucky Nintendo didnt patient the controller or analog sticks or the rumblepack feature.

Actually if someone that knows about both phones looks at them they would realize the pictures are doctored.  The home page for the Android based device looks nothing like that. They are purposly in the apps menu to make it look similar. 

It's funny to see so many people claim that this image has been doctored or cherry-picked by Apple and isn't representative of the Galaxy S.

The image was cherry-picked by Samsung's own marketing people, precisely because that screen looks more like an iPhone than any other Android phone screen:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/23/samsung-announces-galaxy-s-android-smartphone/

None of the intellectual property that Samsung was found guilty of infringing is required to make a smartphone. Not Apple's trade dress (ie, look and feel), not slide to unlock, scroll bounce-back. Samsung is a big boy, fully capable of making its own unique designs and interfaces, but the only way it's going to do that is if it gets spanked for its serial plagiarism. Yes, serial. Before Apple was the market leader, Samsung was stealing designs from the Blackberry and the RAZR.

Lawsuits like this actually promote innovation. Samsung will be forced to craft its own design, it's own solution to unlocking a touchscreen phone, it's own method of signaling the end of a page to a user. Who knows, maybe a Samsung committed to developing new ideas instead of photocopying their biggest rival will come up with the Next Big Thing and actually kill the iPhone.

1. That doesn't change the fact that you must follow a whole bunch of steps to make your Galaxy S look like that. A stock Galaxy S looks much better anyway. In any case, that's irrelevant. 2. You cannot patent look and feel. 3. Slide to unlock was not invented by apple. Neither was bounce-back. 4. Should Apple be sued for the ability of iOS to have a custom background, ability to access the camera from lock screen, multitasking, taskbar notification system, plus a shitload of other things just because Android had them first?

1. And Samsung took those steps in their press and marketing materials. What does that tell you about Samsung's intent?

2. Yes, you can:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

3. So far, the entire US legal system from the patent office to the nine jurors in this case disagrees with you.

4. If anybody owns patents on those technologies, they certainly deserve their day in court.

You know, a huge number of patents get granted but a large number of them are shot down when challenged (as should have occured in this case). Do you know how many patent trolls have tried to claim patents on the most ridiculous and obvious of ideas? Just because a patent gets granted doesn't mean it should hold up.

The basic idea of a patent is that it's useful, new and non-obvious. Apple's patents in this case were neither new or non-obvious and therefore this case should have been thrown out (as should be the case for Samsung's patent on MP3s playing on a smartphone). Samsung's intent in this case should have been a moot point when the patents shouldn't have been granted in the first place.

As for the jurors, the jury foreman has this as a patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7352953

He's basically describing TiVo-like device or a Home Theater PC in a patent which again, should not have been granted (he filed 3 years after the first TiVo device). If this was the primary "expertise" for the jury then it's little wonder the outcome is so ridiculous.

1. And Samsung took those steps in their press and marketing materials. What does that tell you about Samsung's intent?

2. Yes, you can:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

3. So far, the entire US legal system from the patent office to the nine jurors in this case disagrees with you.

4. If anybody owns patents on those technologies, they certainly deserve their day in court.