Samsung Vs Apple: Apple Winning Big [Updated]

We've been watching Apple and Samsung hammer each other for what feels like eons over who ripped off whom. And now the jury is in (shockingly soon): Samsung just lost almost everything.

The case, which has centred over a panoply of patents relating to both hardware and software design, should settle one major argument once and for all: did Samsung rip off Apple's design when it started churning out touch devices of its own? Does Apple own the right to tech features that've become completely ubiquitous, like icon grids and black rectangles? The repercussions here are mammoth -- this decision could literally and profoundly change the way our gadgets look for years and years to come.

Apple has contended that the entire mobile industry had nothing but messes of buttons and switches before Steve Jobs descended with the iPhone -- after which point a unadorned glass face with rounded, bouncy icons became the de facto standard for pretty much every phone and tablet, for the rest of time. Samsung says they came up with this stuff on its own before the iPhone ever dropped. Apple, of course, claims the opposite.

Keep in mind that probably everything below will be appealed, so this is by no means over. As much as we wish it were.

Update: According to The Verge, reporting from the courtroom, an enormous swath of Samsung's devices have been found to illegally rip off Apple's software interface ideas (namely bounce-back scrolling and gestures):

Continuum, Droid Charge, Exhibit 4G, Galasy Ace, Prevail, S 4G, S II, Galaxy Tab, The Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerie, Nexus S 4G, Replenish and Vibrant

Captivate, continuum, droid charge, fascinate, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II, i9100, Galaxy s 2 Tmobile, Tab, Tab 10.1, Gem, Indulge, Infuse, Nexus S 4G

The list goes on. Virtually every Samsung device in question has been found to infringe on Apple patents. Very, very few exceptions. This is a landslide for Apple so far.

Update 2: Another giant blow to Samsung -- the following devices have been found to infringe upon Apple's "front trade dress" -- meaning the way it looks:

Fascinate, Galaxy S, S 4G, S 2 ATT, S2 i9100, S2 Tmobile, S 2 Epic 4G touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.

Update 3: The Galaxy Tab gets off clean for design! Major points for Samsung.

Update 4: Samsung willingly infringed upon multiple Apple patents, the jury says. That's very bad. Intentional intellectual property theft. Big loss for Sammy.

Update 5: Another trouncing for Samsung: the company didn't prove that a single one of Apple's contested patents is invalid. This will have big consequences when it comes time to hand out punishment.

Update 6: Samsung hit with over $US1 BILLION in damages, paid to Apple. Hoo boy! That's enough to buy an Instagram, with cash left over. $US1,051,855,000, to be exact.

Update 7: Jury says Apple violated zero Samsung patents, and owes Apple nothing so far. Welp. Remember that part in Starship Troopers, when all of the bugs kill all the humans? This is like that, and Samsung is the humans. The question now: where will Apple's legal team be dining tonight? A giant lake filled with molten gold?

Update 8: Samsung's statement, according to CNET:

"Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies.

Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple's claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer."

Update 9: Samsung scored a 0.24 per cent discount on the bill they owe Apple because of a jury screw up. The bill is now... wait for it, wait for it: $US1,049,343,540.

Update 10: Apple and Samsung get a schedule for post-trial filings, with a hearing set for September 20.

Update 11 (Giz AU): Now Apple has a statement (via The Verge):

We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money.

They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right.

Apple didn't win literally every single possible victory, but almost all of them. Here they are, in the blue jersey. The gentleman in white makes Android phones.

But like we said, this isn't over. The extent to which this will change the look and feel of every non-Apple tablet and phone hasn't been decided yet, nor are we sure just how badly this gut-punch from Apple will bruise Samsung specifically. But if you need it boiled down: horrible day for Samsung, great day for Apple.



    Well, Apple can be sure I'm never buying one of their products again. I seriously hope samsung raises prices astronomically on the parts they make for apple, and no other comPany will touch apple with a ten foot pole, thus apple cannot sell products. But unfortunately this probably won't happen

      I used to say this, but considering I'm going to make apps as part of my degree, I have to make them for iOS. That said, I will do it begrudgingly.

        Right, raise the prices and lose apples business! Clever.

          I think this was directed at my comment in the other article, so I will respond to it like that. It's fair. It's common in retail to make back your cash from other products, while selling the main one at near cost price. Used to be those $199 iPod Touches you'd see, we wouldn't even make a $1 on it. It was expected of us to get that back on cases, screen protectors, AC USB adaptors, etc.

          why do you want to do business with apple? look what they've done, pretending to buy part from samsung and sue samsung for a big sum.
          This is like going to an expensive restaurant and eat till you full then claim to them that you found cockroach in your soup.
          This is what apple said to samsung. FREE MEAL PLUS FREE TAKE AWAY BUDDY.

        Esophagus, with that attitude you are clearly the kind of person that will make terrible apps, please do something else :)

        Devote your time to making their products perform actions that Apple would not condone. its all about the little victories.

    Time to pull out of the US market and leave them in the dark ages, or appeal, whatever.

    Jury says Apple violated zero Samsung patents, and owes Apple nothing so far*

    *owes Samsung nothing so far

    I'd bet my bottom dollar that, if the verdict had come out the opposite way, no one would be writing "I'm not buying a Samsung product ever again" and all that. Instead, sites around the Interwebs would be filled with "take that, Apple!" and "they thought they could just steal IP from Samsung and get away with it, GUESS NOT!" comments.

    Patents are in place to protect intellectual property, and when the person/corporation have reason to believe their patents have been violated they can a) try to make a deal with the other side, on whatever terms they see fit (which Apple did try and Samsung did not accept or b) take the case to court and see what happens. Technology patenting is a very complicated minefield to navigate through, with many people around the globe coming up with very similar things a lot of the time, hence some times the need for arbitration, lawyers and lengthy court battles. I don't see going to court over someone stealing your IP as being a bad thing, it just means that you feel you're out of other options to protect your IP.

    Just my 2 cents here. Note that I have four (I know, nuts) laptops in my house, 2 Apple and 2 Samsung (life is funny sometimes), I use an iPhone and my wife a Galaxy and am pleased and annoyed to some degree by all products. *ducks under the desk, let the firing begin*

      The whole case is ludicrous. Apple invents nothing. They innovate and improve. Samsung invents chips, memory, LCD technology and a whole host of others and they get slapped in the face for it, because they copied DESIGN, which, BY DEFINITION (an idea or solution) can't be patented- only technology. But the patent system is broken, so it allowed Apple to gain the traction.

      The whole case should've been thrown out and BOTH parties told to shutup and get on with life. Samsung may very well have copied some design philosophies of Apple. Apple have copied MULTIPLE design AND OS features of Android. Big F%&*ing deal. Get over it. Apple made a name for themselves for making technology simply work. Samsung made a name for themselves by researching and developing new consumer technology. BOTH have copied each other and I think this verdict is frankly disgusting.

      I don't like Apple, I never have, I freely admit that. However I see the usefulness of their products, particularly for non-tech consumers. Now, however, I will not personally be even considering them, as their business ethics of "take something they didn't invent, copy it, change its' design to make it "pretty" and easy to use and then patent the hell out of it", has been vindicated, which I never have agreed with. Technologies should be patentable. Design should not.

      I've only ever bought a Samsung TV too- I don't like Samsung's smartphones, fridges or other consumer goods. Their TECHNOLOGY however is in DOZENS of things I buy and for that, I give them credit. What has Apple given the technological world that can be used everyday? Nothing. ALL their products are closed and if you don't like them, you don't get ANY of their ideas or design. Too bad for you. THAT is not good ethics- it's purely good business. I don't like businesses without ethics.

      Too true. if it were the other way around all the android hipster douchbags would be cheering and carrying on like clowns claiming, this is a win for the consumer, blah blah blah. But, Apple winning, IS a win for everyone. This will force companies, like samsung, to come up with their own products. Ripping off someone elses ideas and designs is not innovative. It doesn't move tech further along. It forces it to stagnate and become boring. Kind of how mobile phones were before the iPhone. Sure, there were some cool (they seemed cool at the time) phones, but nothing like what is getting released now. We all have Apple to thank for this.
      A lot of people don't seem to understand what a patent is for. It is not there as a suggestion to not steal the design etc. It is there to tell others "I made/designed/invented this. If you want to use it, it will cost you". That is, as long as the patent owner wants to share their design.


        Can you name something Apple invented? Apple did not invent the smartphone. They made it pretty and easy to use. Meanwhile, Samsung, Motorola and Texas Instruments have made 90% of the technology inside the iPhone.....and for licensing it, what do they get? Patent cases that end in Apple being awarded money because "it looks like ours". I'm sorry, that is not innovation. That is greed.

        Apple haven't invented a piece of technology in their lives (except perhaps when Steve Wozniak was involved in the early days). They're a design company, not a technology company. And THEY are punishing the VERY people who INVENTED the technology that allows them to exist. That is stupidity of the highest order, especially when they ALREADY have more money than they know what to do with.

        Before Apple, we didn't have pretty gadgets, but they were all functional. The ONLY claim to fame Apple has is starting the race for "consumer tech accessories". They didn't invent the smartphone. They didn't invent the touchscreen. They didn't invent the chips inside the iPhone. They put them together in a pleasing way. And for that, the people that DID invent them get ZERO credit in a court of law, because of a broken patent system.

          True. True. Though the design of the iPhone looks decidedly average... the first iPhone looked unique, though I think Apple will be in for a shock if they think they can pump out the same design for 20 years...

          Apple invented the Retina display, no other company had that.


            HAHA! I f*ckin laughing at this!

        @Brad, a very well balanced point of view. The message from the court was simple If you copy, you have to pay.... Which is after all only right and fair.

    An American company winning a case judged by an American jury. No surprises there. Will that mean the next generation of phones will be circles or oblongs. Will Apple start suing TV companies for rectangle design infringement? Why not, it seems Apple designed the rectangle.

      It was an American court case in America. Of course it will be an American Jury.
      Just like how Samsung (a Korean company) won a Korean court case in Korea with Korean judges.

      Just like Dr. Evil's father invented the question mark . . .

    Good outcome, Samsung was very blatant in how they ripped Apple off right down to the icons, packaging and now the stores.

      Absolutely false on all counts.

      Similarly designed icons existed in the Everaldo Crystal designs sets, with the glassy/shadowed shading since 2001. There are only so many ways you can show an address book/people/gallery/music player.

      Packaging is a pathetic swipe. No one will mistake a giant SAMSUNG on a box for an APPLE. No one cares about the box once they get the shiny-shiny out - if they get it out if you've tried opening a Nexus 7. If it holds the unit and the accessories nicely, without excessive air pockets, then it's successfully packaged. Well done.

      Been to a Sony store lately? BOSE store?

        "Absolutely false on all counts."
        I think you'd find a recently decided, billion dollar court decision that disagrees with you.

        I mean, are you deliberately trolling or just stupid? Esophagus, do us a favor and stop spamming this discussion with your crap.

          You're response would make sense if Apple were winning the court cases world wide... like in the UK where Apple destroyed Samsung...

          Oh wait a minute...

          Look, Apple made a nice product, but seriously, this result is pretty lame and is generally making the world experts laugh at the USPTO.

          This result is all bad for the US consumer.

            *You're response? so.. You are response?

    Well... Looks like the patent trolls win too. They really need to close down this idea of either buying patents to troll with or creating silly patents that then lets the trolls sue the ass of everybody. Very bad day for innovation...

    No use blaming companies that just use the stupid laws that are in place. Patent reform is needed on an international scale and not little dung heaps of national protections.

    I think those internal design documents from Samsung were very damning.

    It's a shame they sued, but apple would have a swathe of lawyers on retainer, and in the US you have to you sue anyone who infringes your pattents risk losing them.

      It would have been nice if ANY other company had come from the shadows and shown their own internal documents comparing their products to a successful competitor. I mean, how else are you going to win over the competitions customers if a smartphone is more or less at the current pinnacle of existing technology, short of reinventing the wheel?

    Ok, I think I've figured out a sure way for Samsung to win, but it would take some serious balls to do so. Samsung should manufacture all its phones in the US. By investing in a manufacturing plant in the US, having the engineers in the US they can argue that a verdict against Samsung is a verdict against American jobs. They can take the moral high ground (on phones), accusing Apple of not supporting American jobs and outsourcing everything to China. The American public would have a major dilemma. Sounds crazy, but it could work.

    This is a disaster. At the end of the day it's not a victory for Apple but a huge loss for the end consumer.

    I don't see at all how this is good for innovation.

      That's exactly what Samsung responded with after the trial. Samsung fanboys copy stuff too! :D

        Nice and mature response, good to see you're on Apple's side.

        If you don't see how this is bad for consumers, then you have your head up your Apple core.

      It's not at all good for innovation, the only reason that it's happening is because Apple just can't innovate anymore, so they're trying to take out the competition.
      Samsung, you could simply stop supplying Apple with its processors for its devices, leave it out in the cold.
      Needless to say, I'm not buying Apple products anymore.

        I just don't understand how any impartial Jury could award such ludicrous damages based on DESIGN, NOT technology. Did Apple invent the touchscreen? No. Did they invent icons? No. Did they invent black bezels around tablets? No. Did they invent rounded rectangles? No. How the HELL can you seriously consider ANY of those things are patentable and protected???

        I've only ever bought 1 Apple product. I don't like them, never have. I see their usefulness in the consumer market, but I'm sorry, if they're not willing to contribute openly to the technological world, as Samsung HAVE done, they will not be getting my business. They probably don't give 2 hoots- they'll rake the money in and move on.

    Its unfortunate that the legal system allows 12 people who may know nothing about design and technology decide on issues about design and technology.

      But it's ok for 12 people who many know nothing about forensics to determine the result of a case based on forensic results? (for example)

      The jury was made up of many professionals, a few, engineers, and one who holds patents himself. And you know better because???? Oh, your biased. So we should have a jury filled with fandroids. That's fair. They witnessed evidence, in real time, that nobody has been presented with before. They are charged , by the court, to edudicte on the evidence and conclude, without bias, an outcome. And they did. You just don't wish to understand the reality of it over your blind bias. The sooner you accept it, the quicker you can get back to your fandroid device. Bye bye.

      erm, a jury is, by definition, a group of laypeople. They aren't supposed to have any specific knowledge about design or technology in a case about design and technology... that's what expert witnesses and whatnot are for.

    The way I see it is that there are a lot of Samsung devices where I look at it and go "That looks like an iPhone", but there are plenty of devices that don't look like an iPhone.

    Take the Nokia Lumia 900 for example. Do you think anybody in the world could look at that device and say "It looks like an iPhone"?

      Sure can. It's a black touchscreen phone.

    Apple = USA = 300+ million people
    Samsung =Asia = 4+ billion people

    Sammy, pull out of US and see who is going to innovate AND produce their electronics for them.
    As for Apple, nice one. You might have win this battle, but you lost the war a long time ago.

    The Patent system is broken.

    anything that is a SHAPE should not be patentable.

    If samsung was american i bet this would not of happend.

    What I find hardest to swallow is that anyone could see anything majorly unique about iOS. My mobile phones started using icon grids at the turn of the century and the first thing it reminded me of was a PDA, which in turn was just like a computer desktop without a lot of space. There are small areas where Apple may have refined things here and there but it's just window-dressing, the main stuff is so ubiquitous I don't see how anyone can claim they invented it or own it, regardless of what patents they may have been granted.

    The other observation I'd make is that a US jury ruled in favour of a US company, against a bunch of foreigners. Given how jingoistic Americans tend to be, how was it every going to be otherwise?

      "The other observation I’d make is that a US jury ruled in favour of a US company, against a bunch of foreigners. Given how jingoistic Americans tend to be, how was it every going to be otherwise?"

      Based on the current market share figures, it wouldn't surprise me if one or more of the 9 person jury personally used a Samsung device. In Q1 2012, Samsung had 26% market share, while Apple had 14%
        "When it comes to their gear, the jurors generally are not on the bleeding edge. One member owns an iPhone and no one owns a Samsung smartphone. However, two of them own Samsung feature phones. One of the unemployed jurors said he doesn't own a mobile phone.
        Interestingly, LG is a popular phone maker with the jury. Three of the jurors own LG phones and the last handset owned by the juror currently without a mobile phone was an LG. Two jurors own Android phones.
        The juror with the most gadgets owns an LG Android phone, a Kindle Fire tablet, a MacBook, and an iPod Touch. This person also owns a TV and a DVD player made by Samsung. One female juror told the court during jury selection that she was considering buying an iPad."

        The ironic thing is, Samsung might have higher market share in the US, but if you come to (for example) Singapore (in which a part of Asia) you will see every people using Apple products everywhere. And by this I mean literally.

      "its just window-dressing" - and that statement sums up your appreciation for design completely Motormouth :)

        presicely. design is design. its just looks its not what makes the device tick. but more importantly design is like art. next we will be seeing the children of picasso sueing apple for infringment of one of his specific shades of red. or some one claiming the patend to the power chord on guitars.

        its rediculous. IF you have a NEW shape or form that specifically performs a fucntion better then previously thought of forms THEN you may patent it and only for when its used in that form for that function. but icons with rounded corners in a grid have been around since windows cause it makes functional sence...if it was icons in a decahedral latice that when animated a specific way allowed a 20% increase in app finding time THEN you may patent it.

          Utterly wrong. Design is not just how it looks, design is how it works.

            correct but apple are going after them for how it looks not how it works. if you have a shape or form that is both new and FUNCTIONS IN A NEW WAY or alows better funciton then previous shape/form/colours then you may patent it. apple devices arent new shapes or new ideas. icons have been put in grids since forever and are often square with round corners. much like chopping boards and shampoo bottles. equally giving a slightly better function to an idea you have previously taken from somewhere else is not patentable design eather. all you have done is tweeked someone elses idea. for example touch screens have been around since windows and palm pdas. they had touch scroling menus with enertia. changing the animation or direction of that idea isnt a new idea its jsut a tweek. its just vistual its not new its not fucntional its not a design.

          I think you guys confound graphic design and product design. They are two different things! Please, do your homeworks.

      You should listen to yourself. We're you in the courtroom? Did you hear the 4 weeks of evidence? We're you there for the hours of deliberation? Did you read the verdict? Did you see how some devices were found NOT to infringe? Did you see the individual amounts awarded for each license infringement? And you call the jury biased? Giv e me a break. And you know better because?? You hate Apple and Americans? Because you love samsuck and Koreans? Now read some facts and get it through your think skull and tiny brain. Samsuck stole register, patented IP. They were asked to desist several times. They were asked to license the IP. They refused. When you throw the dice, you'd better be prepared to lose my friend. Its no good bitching to the croupier when you do.

    Is a billion really that much for Samsung?I don't really know enough about the case to have an informed opinion but I doubt Samsung are that worried, I assume there products aren't banned in the U.S.?

    Screw you Apple. I hope Samsung appeals this decision and it gets thrown out.

      Hey Mick, you'll enjoy this one. Apple can apply to the judge to have the damages trebled! That's $3.5 billion mate. How's that grab ya?

    Right there is everything that is wrong with America and its legal system. At least my next phone purchase isn't a hard decision now. I buy anything that's not Apple!

    It doesn't really help to become emotionally invested in this stuff, one way or another. As to the damages- this is an American court remember, they're pretty well known for awarding ridiculous damages for anything you can name., so this is hardly surprising.
    To that jury this is no different from some frighteningly obese woman spilling a milkshake on herself in McDonalds ;)

    I never realised how many manufacturers have been infringing on Apple IP. I have a timber cutting board that is a rectangle with rounded corners, clearly copied from the iPhone. I have a matress that is a rectangle with rounded corners, very obvious that it's a copy of the iPad. I have a portable refrigerator and looking down at the top, it's a rectangle with rounded corners, another design copied from Apple. Everywhere I look, there's that rectangle with rounded corners.

    I cannot believe how manufacturers have been getting away with this for literally decades.

      i wish i had a button much like the 'like' button in facebook but instead it mailed you a cake of your choosing

        the ipad thing is astonishing...cause if you had sharp corners on it it would be very uncomfortable to use without stabbing yourself and also the chance of damaging the product would be huge....this is why almost every peice of ergonomic hardware for as long as i can remember have rounded corners in some way shape of form. like you have 3 round the corners chamfer them or leave them is apple patenting the radious of the roundedness? cause my lappy has rounded corners but they are only a few mill diameter....cause how can a company patent one of the only 3 options that have been around since physical space has existed

    Well what can I say...being a big Apple fan I should be happy but I'm not. It has been a one sided trial in which Apple had the home court advantage. Apple does not invent ANYTHING . They get hold of a product and make it more appealing to the eye. Samsung has a wide range of products in which they put resources and time into. If you open an IPhone , you will find Samsung chips. This symbiotic alliance is under severe strain due to this outcome. Lets hope that they behave like adults and stop this tit- for-tat litigation business.

    Well the outcome was obvious even the most staunchest and most ardent Samsung fan new they had copied the iPhone. Samsung knew it. I have Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, LG products so not a fan boy of any one in particular.

    What amazes me is the amount of people who have acted like Samsung was some sort of Saviour and Apple the bad guy. What crap Samasung are out for a buck just like apple.

    I like apple tech. Becoz It has real apps

    Just feel a bit strange. But is there any chance for the jury to favouring Apple just because they are from the US and Samsung comes from Korea. It is just ridiculous if everybody can't use rectangle with round edges design in this world anymore just because Apple has patented it. Oh god, really FACEPALM.

    +99 to bemused. Apple has infringed the mattress producers because Apple copy the design from them.

Join the discussion!