Given that the jury is obligated to follow the Court's instructions, they have limited recourse to render a verdict on the patent system as a whole. But indirectly, by finding invalidity or a lack of infringement on design patents (which strike many lay people as not worthy of the type of protection granted by the system) or by rendering a verdict that does not provide the billions of dollars based on the design patents, the jury may well deliver a subtle message. Apple is likely to prevail, in my view, but with a much smaller award than the $2.5B it seeks.
I can understand a patent is granted based on the ease of assembly or, change of style and look. For example, I can see the bumper is a good design to get a patent. On the contrary, I don't understand how the look can be granted a patent. What's puzzling me is if I made a smartphone of size 4.51x2.35x0.38 (instead of 4.5x2.31x0.35), I should be able to get around infringing Apple patent of iPhone 4. Getting a patent of industrial design, in particular dimension, may protect the product from being copy which will eventually confuse consumer. Nonetheless, to keep competitors away from making similar product is almost impossible.
Yes, Apple will prevail. It may be lower in money, but it will deter other to blatantly copy the concept.
@Rick:You took very simplistic approach. Wonderful ideas are historically very simple. If you have encountered any design or designer who makes great product, you may not take away their credit so easily.
IANAL, but my understanding is that in the USA there is a principle called "jury nullification", described quite well on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States
The idea behind jury nullification is that a jury can acquit if they find a law unjust, no matter how the judge instructed them. Justice is in the hands of the jury alone. Legal counsel do not want justice, they want to win. Judges are bound by the law, and not always impartial. So it's up to juries to see that justice is done -- one case at a time.
This is always the problem. You come up with a great product and your competition copies it. It can be a very blatant copy or something more subtle. Either way, your competitor take part of your market share. Patent law can not stop this, but may slow it. In the end, the consumer wins. The market price for these products will get closer to low margin with competition.
Rick, you hit the head of the issues. One being the patent granting itself is old and probably flawed as it is nearly impossible to gauge the genuine patents. Another issue with the current case at hand is that both Apple and Samsung did not invent anything but only innovated (though to decide who innovated more) the smartphone technologies.
There is not a reasonable patent law that can protect you from others doing a GOOD product. This is about invention, Apple also copied many of its competitors. Even when they improved the design significantly this is not a reason to get a patent. What they don't like is competition, but there are others that can design good systems too.
I think few would dispute that the current patent system is deeply flawed and inadequate. However, it's not clear to me (or perhaps anyone) how the patent system might be altered to address the issues here or provide "justice." The legal system, too, may be ill-equipped.
The trial (and great reporting on it) has focused on a few specific patents related to the shape of the products, etc. When someone brings a great product to market, competitors are obligated to study it and learn from it and try to incorporate the features and characteristics that have made it popular into a design of their own. Ideally, this new design would not only take a page from the market leader but also offer new innovation. This is the way it works across nearly all industries and has been the case for some time. I don't know that there is anything we can or should do to stop this. What riles some people up in this case is the idea that Samsung simply created a copycat product without adding new innovation or raising the bar.
the US patent system is not just archaic, but it hurts the US economy in global by serving individual companies, and the fact that the actual value of the US patents is fare behind of other is still not recognized. Basically the only beneficiary of the patent system are the lawyers, who utilizing the fact of the very low level of technical intelligence of the jury.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.