So Samsung lost BIG in its patent battle with Apple, which took a bite out of the South Korean electronics giant to the tune of $1 billion PLUS.
After three days of deliberations, the jury reached a unanimous verdict in the Apple vs. Samsung trial. The jury found largely for Apple, ruling that Samsung had willfully infringed on both Apple patents and trade dress for the iPhone — though notably the jury found in favor of Samsung on questions regarding its tablets. The jury found that Samsung owes Apple $1.05 billion in damages for willfully infringing on Apple’s intellectual property.
Apple’s stock price rose to an all-time high, more than $675 per share, in after-hours trading following the verdict.
That means my 10,000 shares of Apple are worth—WHOA! Sixty-seven bucks! With the thirty I have from my birthday, I can buy those new pair of Clark’s Unstructured Walking Shoes! Woo-hoo!
The jury was asked to fill out a form covering 33 separate questions regarding patents, trade dress, and antitrust.
On the first claim, regarding the ’381 “bounce back” patent, the jury finds Samsung guilty on all counts. Samsung infringed on Apple’s patent on a wide variety of products.
On Apple’s “pinch and zoom” ’915 patent, the jury found that Samsung infringed on all but three products. . . .
For the ’677 patent, covering Apple’s trade dress registration of the look of the front of the iPhone, the jury found that Samsung did infringe on most devices, but again, not all.
For the D’087 patent, covering Apple’s trade dress registration of the look of the back of the iPhone, the jury found that Samsung did infringe on some devices, but not all.
For the ’305 patent, covering the trade dress registration of the iPhone’s home screen, the jury found that Samsung infringed across most devices.
What, did they infringe on Apple’s “cellphone that looks like cellphone” patent too?
Now I know a lot of techies hate Apple because of its litigiousness and its insistence on patenting every damn gesture you could conceivably make on a smartphone, including the iPhone’s ever popular “picking up off floor and flipping Tim Cook the bird because of broken screen” gesture. Most companies license their wares, whereas Apple is notorious for keeping it all to itself.
Given the price of Apple stock, you can’t exactly say that their closed, controlled, and proprietary strategy isn’t working for them.
My Verizon contract is officially up on my dutiful but seriously outdated Blackberry. I’ve had this baby since October 2009, and it still has first-rate sound quality, and typing on that keypad means never having to worry about slimming down those fat fingers. But trying to get on the Interwebs is like waiting for Godot. To get on the Interwebs.
So, should I hold out for the iPhone 5? The Droid Razr Maxx? I was going to consider the Samsung Galaxy S3, but now that Samsung is going to virtual jail, I wonder how long such products can even stay on the market.
Oh for the days when the most important decision you had to make about electronics was whether to get the red or the yellow Panasonic portable TNT 8-track player . . .
UPDATE: Apple is now seeking to ban several, i.e., more than three, Samsung Galaxy phones and the Droid Charge from sale in the U.S. They will be available in the Matrix, however, where patent law is inapplicable and the agents still use these.