The grand tech trial that saw Apple take on Samsung for ripping off its products, has finally come to an end. And Apple, can claim vindication after a jury said that Samsung did infringe on Apple’s patents and has been fined $1.049 billion, even though two-days is an awfully short time given the 100 pages of judicial instruction.
Samsung is very likely to file an appeal against this decision and perhaps the counter-filing will drag on for years, and years, but Apple has drawn big blood.
Apple had accused Samsung of ripping off the feel of its iPhone and iPad among various other patent violations.
The jury rejected all of Samsung’s claims against Apple. The jury also upheld all of Apple’s patents. The implications therefore are substantial.
Many Samsung devices are affected by the verdict. According to Mashable, the devices are: Galaxy S, Galaxy S II, Nexus S, Mesmerize, Vibrant, Fascinate, Skyrocket, Continuum, Prevail, Infuse, Gem, Mesmerize, Indulge, Replenish, Epic 4G Touch, Droid Charge and Nexus S smartphones and the Galaxy Tab and Tab 10.1 tablets.
The bounce back scrolling feature: This one went to Apple in a big way. According to TechCrunch: Samsung was found to have infringed on patents for ’381 “bounce back” scrolling functionality on all devices. Major loss for Samsung.
The design patent: Now remember this fight was also to extent about rectangles with rounded corners with Apple stating that Samsung had stolen its design. According to CNet, the jury has found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s design and utility patents. This applies to some of Samsung’s products and not all. So much for Samsung saying that some of Apple’s patents were just plain crazy.
Pinch to zoom, one finger scroll, and zoom navigation aka Patent 915: Except for Galaxy Ace, Intercept, and Replenish, every other Samsung device was found to be infringing on this patent.
Tap to zoom which is Patent 163: Again only a few Samsung devices escaped. These were Captivate, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform and Vibrant. Everything else was an infringement.
The jury also ruled that Samsung was wilful in its infringement. But there were two consistencies in the jury’s decision. These were noticed after Apple and Samsung’s re-read the forms. Judge Lucy Koh then ask the jury to go back on those two points.
No comments:
Post a Comment