#samsung

Bryan Bishop of The Verge was sent the following statement from Google:

The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don’t want anything to limit that.

As generic as possible. And, of course, some of the patents in question do directly relate to “core” Android, as Seth Weintraub points out.

More importantly, Samsung is the *only* OEM that has actually been making money off of Android. So let’s not pretend that this means nothing for the broader Android ecosystem. It means a lot.

With Samsung, if you look at the new iPad, they had fewer issues reaching the higher resolution requests from Apple. They were the first vendor to get to volume with that panel.

NPD DisplaySearch analyst Richard Shim discussing “Retina” displays.

Let’s all take a moment to recall that while Apple may have dropped the hammer on Samsung with their smartphone patent lawsuit, Samsung remains a vital partner. And you can expect that partnership to continue. It’s not personal, it’s business.

Very, very awkward business.

Marco Arment, reacting to Andy Ihnatko’s thoughts that the consumers lose as a result of Apple’s win over Samsung:

What’s really going to disrupt the iPhone is going to be something completely different, not something that tries so hard to clone the iPhone that it hits Apple’s patents.

Unoriginal manufacturers will need to pay for their unoriginality. The most reasonable course of action, therefore, is to truly innovate and design products that aren’t such close copies.

I fail to see how consumers lose.

I completely agree that what will end the iPhone’s run is something totally different, not a copycat. Maybe Apple will make that product, or maybe someone else will. This case does nothing to stop that. It simply stops people from copying the current iPhone.

What does worry me about this lawsuit is that it’s going to lead to many more. And it makes patents even more important, and as such, more valuable. That could end up hurting many companies, both large and small. And it could distract from innovation because everyone will be so preoccupied with filing patents, looking for ones that they might be infringing upon, or in court.

We’re going to touch this with our fingers. And we have invented a new technology called multi-touch, which is phenomenal. It works like magic. You don’t need a stylus. It’s far more accurate than any touch display that’s ever been shipped. It ignores unintended touches, it’s super-smart. You can do multi-finger gestures on it. And boy, have we patented it.

Steve Jobs, on January 9, 2007 unveiling the iPhone.

The other money quote.

(via @tconrad)

wired
wired:

Samsung owes Apple more than $1 billion in damages for violating Apple hardware and software patents, a California jury ruled on Friday.
The jury found that Samsung infringed upon Apple patents having to do with physical design and user interfaces, often willfully, and that several of the South Korean company’s products diluted Apple’s trade dress, especially as it related to various iPhone models.
More @ Gadget Lab.

$1,049,343,540, to be exact.

wired:

Samsung owes Apple more than $1 billion in damages for violating Apple hardware and software patents, a California jury ruled on Friday.

The jury found that Samsung infringed upon Apple patents having to do with physical design and user interfaces, often willfully, and that several of the South Korean company’s products diluted Apple’s trade dress, especially as it related to various iPhone models.

More @ Gadget Lab.

$1,049,343,540, to be exact.

thisistheverge
thisistheverge:

Apple decisively wins Samsung trial: what it means
Nilay Patel on what this all means:
After two and a half days of deliberations, the Apple vs. Samsung jury returned a decisive verdict in Apple’s favor today — holding that Samsung owes Apple $1.05 billion for copying Apple’s intellectual property. Specifically, the jury found that all three of Apple’s software patents on the iOS user interface were valid and infringed by a long list of Samsung devices, that Apple design patents were valid and infringed by several Samsung phones, and that Apple’s trade dress on the iPhone and iPhone 3G were diluted by several Samsung phones as well.

I wasn’t surprised by the victory, but I was shocked by just have decisive it was. As Nilay Patel writes, “There is no way to interpret this as anything but a sweeping, definitive victory for Apple.”
As I tweeted yesterday: in all honesty, I don’t know if this is good or bad for the industry. But there’s no question Samsung were shameless copycats. I mean, just look at the image above. That’s not a company trying to make a smartphone like the iPhone, that’s a company trying to make the iPhone. They failed, but it wasn’t for a lack of trying.

thisistheverge:

Apple decisively wins Samsung trial: what it means

Nilay Patel on what this all means:

After two and a half days of deliberations, the Apple vs. Samsung jury returned a decisive verdict in Apple’s favor today — holding that Samsung owes Apple $1.05 billion for copying Apple’s intellectual property. Specifically, the jury found that all three of Apple’s software patents on the iOS user interface were valid and infringed by a long list of Samsung devices, that Apple design patents were valid and infringed by several Samsung phones, and that Apple’s trade dress on the iPhone and iPhone 3G were diluted by several Samsung phones as well.

I wasn’t surprised by the victory, but I was shocked by just have decisive it was. As Nilay Patel writes, “There is no way to interpret this as anything but a sweeping, definitive victory for Apple.”

As I tweeted yesterday: in all honesty, I don’t know if this is good or bad for the industry. But there’s no question Samsung were shameless copycats. I mean, just look at the image above. That’s not a company trying to make a smartphone like the iPhone, that’s a company trying to make the iPhone. They failed, but it wasn’t for a lack of trying.

James Allworth:

Given the underlying reason that Apple has been bringing these cases to court was to enable them to continue to innovate, it’s hard not to ask: if copying stops innovation, why didn’t Apple stop innovating last time they were copied? 

One one hand, that’s the wrong way to look at it. The issue Apple has here is that they feel like they’ve lost revenue as a direct result of Samsung copying their products. This hasn’t hurt Apple in a major way because they’re a juggernaut (the most valuable company ever, even). But if they weren’t so powerful, that lost revenue could significantly hurt the company’s ability to operate, let alone innovate. See: Apple in the 1990s.

But almost inadvertently, the author brings up something interesting. Samsung’s copying may have forced Apple to innovate at a pace greater than they may have otherwise. Apple has little competition in terms of quality products on the market — the best are the ones by Samsung which are similar to Apple products. In other words, Apple may be indirectly bolstering its own rival — they’re running from their own shadow. And if they weren’t, they might grow complacent. And innovation would slow.

A stretch, perhaps. But interesting to think about.

If this is accurate, Samsung is on pace to pay Microsoft upwards of $2 billion to use Android this year. That’s Microsoft, not Google.

HTC, which barely made money last quarter after profit fell 57%, may be paying Microsoft around $500 million to use Android this year. That’s Microsoft, not Google.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is paying $1 billion to Nokia each year to ensure they keep using Windows Phone. This is the same Windows Phone operating system that Microsoft charges a fee for OEMs to use. Including Nokia.

Aside from Apple, the entire smartphone ecosystem is quite fucked up.