They'll escape for long enough to get something new on the market. All Samsung is doing is stalling. They'll fight the motions and the injunction, file an appeal, and Apple can't do shit about it until it gets through the Appellate Division, which will take another 8-12 months. Then another month for the writ of certiori to go to the Supreme Court, assuming Samsung loses the appeal. So if Samsung is successful and is granted an appeal, then they have a good year on their hands, imo.

I just don't think a judge would let an injunction go through while the appeals process is going on

Screw Apple. Though it was highly unlikely before, I'l certanly *never8 buy an Apple product now.

UNREPORTED in most US News...APPLE loses patent infringement lawsuit in...ding ding ding...you guessed it...KOREA! lol

Gee...nationalism ruling the global courts? This entire thing is a farce.

My Samsung products ROCK by the way.

This honestly doesn't matter at all. Almost none of the phones in the recent trial are even still being sold. There may be an injunction against the Galaxy S 2, bit that phone is already a year behind. The Galaxy S 3 is not threatened, nor should it be as it doesn't have the same failures as the previous models.

And quite frankly Samsung deserved to be slapped down. They should put Stock Android on all their phones and get rid of their iOS-clone TouchWiz BS.

The problem with this verdict is the stifling of innovation that will result if it stands. A big part of the decision was double-tap and pinch zoom and that is really part of Android so *all* android based devices become at risk. Considering these are intuitive features and should never have been given patents. I'm sure Google will help in the defense and show prior art somewhere to get them invalidated though.

Yes on that part I agree. Plenty of prior art was shown for touch-to-zoom. That later should not be valid.

*That *patent* should not be valid

I don't think it will stifle innovation. I think it will cause innovation. Now companies can't just copy whatever Apple or Google has done, but have to come up with something new.

But yeah, stuff like touch-to-zoom should not be allowed to be patented. I'm sure a legal case could be made of it. Just like you can't patent a doorknob

There just was a legal case about it...the jury ruled in Apple's favor...

Yeah, features like bounce-back on touchscreen phones are everywhere, yet patented by Apple...it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Well the difference is that bounce-back doesn't really serve a function. Touch-to-zoom most certainly does.

Funny you should say "copy whatever Apple or Google has done." when the problem is Android (a Google application) is the root of all Samsung's trouble. Google copied from apple according to Apple's claims. They just chose to pursue Samsung instead of take on another US behemoth in Google.

true, but bounce-back is also an Apple patent that they claimed was violated by Samsung. Every smart phone has bounce-back...Apple may go on a systematic court-case spree regarding the feature.

No Draug. A lot of problems were specific to Samsung's TouchWiz skin, which is why they went after them instead of Android.

Some of the utility patents are relevant to all android, bit apple doesn't really care about that. They just threw those in for fun. What they really cared about were the trade dress issues which were all directly Samsung's fault (phone design, icon design, TouchWiz, etc)

But the skin only implemented features Android made visible. Bounce back, touch and pinch zoom... These are actually part of Android and are easily implemented in you rapplication or skin if you get the Android Development Toolkit.

Yes but everyone infringes on those utility patents and apple isn't suing HTC of LG or Motorola. They sued Samsung because they deliberately tried to make some of their phones as close to the iPhone as they thought they could get away with.

And you don't think Motorola is going to think twice in the future about using Android if Apple effectively dismantles Samsung's phone and tablet line? This has deep implications because they didn't just pursue a "look and feel" trademark infringment, but actual patent infringment which, if they win, could enbolden Apple to go after others. And even if they don't other manufacturers will still shy away form the technology that got Samsung in trouble.

Motorola is owned by Google, so no, I don't think they'll think twice about using Android. : )

But to answer your question: no, I don't think this will seriously damage Android or prevent companies from wanting to sell Android devices. Apple is careful about who they sue because they know they can be sued right back. They just settled an enormous case with Nokia in Nokia's favor and Google just won an enormous case against Oracle. Samsung was different because a bunch of jokers thought it was OK to blatantly copy Apple's product like some shitty Chinese knock-off company. Other companies aren't doing what Samsung did.

^ +1

This seems relevant: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/3274047/samsung-us-carriers-update-phones-apple-injunction

I just hope customers who have already purchased these products don't get screwed over.

I'm a Droid Charge owner and, honestly, I don't see anything hardware wise to worry about. It doesn't look at all like the iPhone. I just hope they don't fuck up the OS to bad if they roll out this "fix".

Agreed on the Charge. Is your bootloader locked down? You could always throw a mod on if they mess it up.

I haven't rooted it so still a locked Verizon phone. If they fuck it up too bad, I'm do for an upgrade soon and will just upgrade to a Windows phone (I won't go iPhone).

I didn't think the devices looked similar until I was using my Apple product before class one day and someone asked if it was one of the (then just released) Samsung Galaxy lines. That settled the aesthetics case for me.

@Abgemacht - I am aware about the trial, yes, but I don't think Samsung's defense took that line. Rather, I believe Samsung tried to prove that its products were significantly different than Apple's to the extent that they weren't infringing on the patent. I don't believe they questioned the legality of Apple's ability to patent those things. I could be wrong though

Well their lawyers briefs argued that the patents were for common concepts and invalid. Hopefully they will pull out some prior art in their appeals.

@gold/Draug

Samsung spent an enormous amount of time arguing that Apple's patents were invalid and showed several instances of prior art and the jury ruled in Apple's favor to uphold the validity of those patents. Samsung will certainly appeal and rightfully so.

I believe that Apple was right, because a touch-to-zoom feature is a patented feature belonging to Apple and they have the right to tell others that, "Hey, that's my patent and I don't want you copying the feature" It may put others at risk, but so what? When Bell received a patent for his telephone, other companies still managed to enter the market. Look at us today. We have many phone companies all based on one patent. Likewise, Samsung can find a way around the patent to still be successful.

You're right: Apple has every right to defend its patents. However, it's a rather stupid functional patent test the jury should have found invalid.

Yeah, I do agree that though Apple had every right to win that trial against Samsung, they should have realized that Samsung violated the other 4 patents, but this one was not unique to Apple (my old BlackBerry had a touch-to-zoom function, as do most Android phones), as it was a universal function.

@djakarta - We have other phone companies because patents expire after 20 years from the patent application filing date. So Bell had exclusibve rights to make the components of the telephone for 20 years, no more. But for those 20 years, only he could legally make a telephone. Now, lucky for us, he didn't enforce his patents and was happy to share them with the world. Likewise, much of what gets developed in the electronics world can be "licensed" from the patent holder for a usually reasonable fee or cut of the profits. So the telephone argument is bogus because it took more than 20 years for the phone to become an everyday household item. Patewnt isn't copyright or trademark. It is *very* mitied in scope and time frame and the click zoom has singificant prior art and should never have been granted.

I see what you mean, Draugar, and I agree

Draugnar*