Apple's message is that it only pursued Samsung because they so blatantly copied them. I think they have a good point on the copying part; IMO, it was more than 'being inspired by the iPad'. Only time will tell whether the former is true.
And yes, I agree that it would be better if patents on how things look and feel would not have played a role in this case.
That's what they say, but realistically Samsung is the most successful Android vendor and thus the biggest threat to Apple.
The lawsuit found the Nexus S to be at fault. That's a device running vanilla Android, co-developed with Google.
Let's not pretend this is "only" about Samsung's designs vs Apple's designs. They won win patents that would cause all Android devices to infringe, as far as I can tell.
I think it would be helpful to consider how it is that Samsung became the most successful Android vendor.
Edit: downvotes... you guys honestly think that the reason why Samsung has been successful is because of touchwiz? Most people don't even like Samsung's modifications to stock Android. It was stupid of them to make the changes they did, and they deserve a fine, but it certainly didn't help them much in terms of sales.
But above all, their marketing and advertising strategy was unparalleled. I saw a Galaxy ad literally on every road, every TV show, every soccer match and what not! The success was not surprising given how much they effort they put.
Because they make some of the highest performance, lightest, thinnest phones with the best screens?
Is that clear, or is he just being cute? Are there any android products that aren't currently "in trouble"?
And if legal trouble is the only criteria we need here, what does Apple's settlement with Nokia mean about Apple?
> I would love an Android with bouncy scrolling
Well that just about sums up how stupid the situation is. Sorry, bouncy scrolling. Apple has a 20 year monopoly on you. Nevermind how you're implemented! We don't need pesky implementation details, just knowing that you're a rubber-banding scrolling view on a computing device with touch sensitive display is enough.
> It is clearly possible to create fresh new OS that does not copy the iPhone. Windows Phone, the Palm Pre and Blackberry's new OS show that it is possible.
Saurik summed this up perfectly earlier today:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430302
People who say this haven't actually tried these phones or they're practicing some powerful cognitive dissonance (or they're fans of the "they're copycats, so I'm just happy they lost" legal approach).
The utility patents that Samsung lost on today weren't magical iphone-making ones, they were things like pinch to zoom. Those other phones "copy" these things too, they just happen to have patent licensing for historical reasoning, or a reasonable threat of serious mutual destruction.
> I agree that many software patents set the bar too low, and I think we should work towards making that bar useful, instead of outright dismissing the whole thing.
People really don't seem to remember that software patents did not exist not too long ago. They are a legal fiction of only the last decade or two, and the sooner the supreme court takes them back on and shuts them down, the better.
Ars has a good take on it, when the EFF started their campaign for at least reforming the software patent system:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/opinion-eff-shoul...
Bilski was our last chance, but they ruled narrowly. Hopefully next time...
Edit: Incidentally, Apple had plenty of protections here without the utility patents. There could be no such thing as software patents and Samsung would still have been handed a very large bill for their products. Bullshit patents are not necessary for trademark, trade dress, and copyright protection.