[Shaun]

A US jury has ruled that Samsung should pay Apple $1.05bn (£665m) in damages in an intellectual property lawsuit.

It said several of Samsung's devices had infringed Apple's software and design patents.

The jury rejected Samsung's claims that several of its patents had been breached and awarded it no damages.

Apple may seek an import ban of some of its rival's products, blocking them from the US market. Based on previous cases, Samsung is likely to appeal.

The two firms account for more than half of global smartphone and tablet computer sales.

The nine-person jury at the federal court in San Jose, California had to consider 700 questions about each sides' claim that its rival had infringed its intellectual property.

It deliberated for less than three days before coming to its unanimous decisions.

It rejected the South Korean firm's claim that Apple's intellectual properties were invalid. It added that Samsung was "wilful in its infringement" in many of the cases.

Not all of Apple's claims were upheld.

The iPhone maker had claimed a total of $2.5bn (£1.6bn) in damages. Samsung had sought $519m.

Apple said it applauded the court "for finding Samsung's behaviour wilful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right."

Samsung has described the verdict as a "loss for the American consumer".

The jury ruled that some of Samsung's handsets, including its Galaxy S 4G model, had infringed Apple's design patents for the look of of its iPhone including the system it uses to display text and icons.

However, it dismissed the allegation that the South Korean firm's tablets had infringed the rectangular design used for Apple's iPad.

It also found that all the disputed Samsung devices had copied the bounce-back response in the iOS system's user interface, without paying a licence. This makes lists jump back as if yanked by a rubber band when pulled beyond their limit.

Another infringement involved use of Apple's tap-to-zoom feature.

Samsung failed to convince the jury Apple owed it money for using technologies it claims to own including listening to music on a device in the background while carrying out another task; and integrating a phone, digital camera and email facility into a single device.

Michael Gartenburg, research director at Gartner, said the verdict could have major ramifications for the wider smart device sector.

"Apple patents being upheld will force the rest of the industry to both innovation and differentiation," he told the BBC.

"That will be a good thing for consumers in the long run. Anyone who was even thinking about borrowing a technology or design from Apple will think twice about it now.

"Apple's point was that it was possible to create an experience that doesn't look like its designs and only Nokia and RIM Blackberry are really doing that right now."

There has been a spate of lawsuits involving mobile-device makers, but this case had been viewed as one of the most significant to date.

This is because of the size of the damages involved, the likelihood it will influence the way future patent licenses are handled, and the insights it has given into both Apple and Samsung's working practices.

Samsung's offending handsets have since been replaced with updates.

But Apple may use this ruling to seek import bans on some of the current generation of devices powered by Google's Android software - made by Samsung and others - that it believes replicate elements of its user-interface.

No respect for Apple whatsoever. Will stop at nothing to force every competitor into bankruptcy.

[Mrluvaluva]

And the jury were apparently picked from an area about 10 miles away from Apples headquarters. This is not a victory for the consumer. This just reinforces Apple's monopoly.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

And the jury were apparently picked from an area about 10 miles away from Apples headquarters. This is not a victory for the consumer. This just reinforces Apple's monopoly.

That stinks


Samsung should have Won but they are South Korea based.

[Jords]

I like Apple goods but this doesnt seem very fair.

[Shaun]

patenting a "multi touch screen"... not long before they try to claim they invented sound.

[Tom4784]

Apple is a ****ty company, Macs are overstylised pieces of **** that aren't worth the plastic they're encased in and their line of ipods and the like have just become a joke.

[lostalex]

It seems completely fair to me. Samsung absolutely has been coping Apple, the Samsung phones and their tablets are almost identical copies.

Why shouldn't Samsung be punished for copying Apple? We don't allow people copying designer clothing and handbags and shoes, so why should we allow people copying electronic products?? Samsungs products look almost EXACTLY the same. If i was Apple i'd be pissed off too.

The jury made the right call on this one.

[Jake.]

Pathetic result, but then again Apple have never liked having competition.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by JH95

Pathetic result, but then again Apple have never liked having competition.

Samsung is not competition, they are just cheap knock-offs.

If Samsung wants to compete with Apple why don't they make their own innovative products? Why do they only come out with cheap knockoffs a couple of months after Apple?

[Jake.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Samsung is not competition, they are just cheap knock-offs.

If Samsung wants to compete with Apple why don't they make their own innovative products? Why do they only come out with cheap knockoffs a couple of months after Apple?

Knock-off? Samsung is one the 'daddy's' of electrical products, and they clearly are competition judging by how fast their smartphones sell. Apple don't like competition, just look at Android. Steve Jobs wanted to get rid of that, all because the software was helping other phome companies sell their smartphones.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by JH95

Knock-off? Samsung is one the 'daddy's' of electrical products, and they clearly are competition judging by how fast their smartphones sell. Apple don't like competition, just look at Android. Steve Jobs wanted to get rid of that, all because the software was helping other phome companies sell their smartphones.

Samsung phones didn't look ANYTHING at all look like the iphone until the iphone came out, and then all of a sudden all of samsungs phones look and operate just like iphones. are you serious?? you don't see how they copied Apple??


And don't even get me started on the tablet...

[Apple202]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Samsung phones didn't look ANYTHING at all look like the iphone until the iphone came out, and then all of a sudden all of samsungs phones look and operate just like iphones. are you serious?? you don't see how they copied Apple??


And don't even get me started on the tablet...

...

[Apple202]

lmao i saw this title and thought you were all talking about me

[Marc]

Good

Serves them right for trying to be Apple and make knock-off Apple goods.

No body touches Apple

[Marc]

That story forgot to mention how each jury member will shortly be receiving a new iPhone 4 and iPad 2

[Flamingjoe]

Originally Posted by Marc

That story forgot to mention how each jury member will shortly be receiving a new iPhone 4 and iPad 2

[arista]

No Microsoft is Apples secret partner in some bits

[Shaun]

To be fair to Alex the copyright bid for the tablet format was proved unsuccessful and didn't hold up in court, the case went against Samsung in the touch screen phone area. Although the fact they tried to sue for that (when, as you've said, Microsoft came up with first) is pretty laughable indeed.

The fact of the matter is that once you've created a world of new technology there's going to be imitations, variants and knock-offs. You shouldn't be able to copyright an "idea" any more than you should be able to copyright a "thought". The invention of the Dyson didn't stop other vacuum products, the invention of Coca Cola didn't stop Pepsi, and so on. Unless the exact same technology is used, right down to materials and programming, I struggle to see the legitimacy here, and the whole case just stinks of "we've afforded better lawyers than you".

[Shaun]

Stephen Fry ‏@stephenfry
You may think me an Apple fanboi but these lawsuits give me not pleasure but distaste.

Stephen Fry has spoken. Close the thread tbh

[Shaun]

Btw if anyone is interested in the full evidence report, Apple released a 132 page document today: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/08/he...vidence-today/

[Shaun]

And a list of products and their responsible damages owed:

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Apple202

IT WAS STILL A TABLET.

Putting a shiny new cover on it doesn't mean that the original premise is not the same? Even changing the processor doesn't mean that the idea is not the same? The idea was a tablet computer, and Microsoft thought of it first and Apple copied it.

well if you wanna talk about Tablet's, Apple had the Newton, long before microsoft's 2002 tablet. As you can see from the pics, the beginnings of both the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad began long before 2002.

These products were from the 90's.... so you can see what Apple was doing with the Newton long before it turned into the iPhone and iPad...

[Jake.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

well if you wanna talk about Tablet's, Apple had the Newton, long before microsoft's 2002 tablet. As you can see from the pics, the beginnings of both the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad began long before 2002.

These products were from the 90's.... so you can see what Apple was doing with the Newton long before it turned into the iPhone and iPad...

That's a PDA, surely?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by JH95

That's a PDA, surely?

obviously, but it's clear where they were going with it, you can clearly see the beginning of both the iPhone and the iPad in the Newton. it's clear that they were developing this technology for a long time... long before Samsung was doing anything even remotely similar.

[BBfanUSA]

Kinda wished that Apple would have to use to money to make a factory in the united states like Piers Morgan suggested.

I swear apple is getting very close to becoming a monopoly.