Shared publicly  - 
The +Engadget team feels pretty much the same way I do about the Apple-Samsung patent fiasco. Yes Samsung took perhaps too much inspiration from the iPhone. But the patents at the heart of this whole mess never should have been granted by USPTO or any of the other patent agencies around the world that are now granting similar patents. 

Stop the madness!
Reza Hashemi's profile photoMaG J's profile photoDavid Austin's profile photoSam Abuelsamid's profile photo
from the court:It took Apple 5 years in a room to design iphone and samsung copied it in 3 months. If they have been so innovative, why the hell none of their former phones have been revolutionary. I'm happy that samsung lost! this way they learn not to steal but innovate.
Jury rigged. The things they won were zooming in with a double tap, among other things that I could do on my Compaq ipaq 12 years ago. 
+Sarah Kimmel  Apple paid Nokia $11.5 per iPhone sold plus $600M to settle IP misunderstanding last year. Where were you then? Where was the outrage against patent wars?
+Reza Hashemi I just want to know why Apple settled for an Amount. If Nokia was paid then Apple would've used their patents  (unknowingly or knowingly .. read it as copied) . Coming to your point, 30$ per phone for a End of Screen bounce + pinch to zoom(which existed long before iPhone, please refer TED video) and the row of iCons is really more than what anyone would demand. As we don't know the real patent between Nokia and Apple there is no point in putting a software patent  with some undisclosed patent.. 
I think it's clear that there was at least one or more design patent violations, and the financial amount is not egregious in my opinion ... the problematic part is the wholesale nature of the ruling and the fact that the jury admits their surprisingly fast deliberations were accelerated by a persuasive jury member who apparently holds software patents.  He should have never made it past the jury screening - fault of the defense, nonetheless I can't see all the rulings being upheld in the appellate court.
+David Austin  I wouldn't argue that several of the first batch of Galaxy S phones including the Fascinate, Vibrant and Captivate certainly bear too strong a resemblance to the iPhone 3G and the Touchwiz version of the app drawer (too its detriment IMHO) looks too much like the iPhone home screen. 

My argument is that these are not things that should be patentable in the first place. I used Palm PDAs from 1998 onward that had a grid of icons on a touch screen. 

I also disagree that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would be seriously confused about what device they would offer. Unlike the knockoffs you can buy in many markets in China and even shops here in the US, Samsung doesn't put the Apple logo on its devices. Every single one of these phones has the word "SAMSUNG" right on the front face. If that alone doesn't tip you off that you aren't holding an Apple device you deserve to get ripped off no matter what the rest of the phone looks like.
Add a comment...