#samsung

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.

Thoughts On The Latest Chromebook And The State Of Chrome OS

I’ve watched Chrome with much interest over the years. While lately I’ve been generally harsh on a number of Google products, there’s still no doubt in my mind that when it comes to the browser — at least on the desktop — Google is winning. That’s a big part of why Chrome OS fascinates me.

Chrome OS is Google taking their best product and broadening its reach. The aim isn’t just to erase the stain that is Internet Explorer (which sure seems to be working), it’s to go after one of Microsoft’s legs: Windows. So far, it doesn’t appear to be working.

Read More