Well, to be fair Apple came up with that first smartphone look and the rest followed. That's not because that Apple's phone's look had something innovative but that will be the form most phones would get to anyway because the ratios of dimensions found appealing are kind of well known from geometrical principals from centuries and Apple saying it was the first to invent that is kind of ridiculous argument.
In a nutshell Apple won the case but for all the wrong reasons and this ruling probably won't extend beyond US geographical borders.
What I find interesting is if you look at the 3 patents that they used against Samsung. Apart from how ludicrous they are, has anyone noticed that the patent for the rectangle with rounded corners is actually completely different from any model of the iphone. It shows more curves, when the sides on iphone are flat.
@Batman I think Apple would have patented air (the mixture of gasses that we commonly inhale) if they could despite prior art. Their justification would be that they make a product they called Air and it is somehow innovative because it is the first to have the words "Apple" and "Air" on a laptop.
@bryawn: If you read most of what Apple claims they innovated then you'd find it is something 5-10 years old that they claimed as their own with a new paint job applied.
The most innovative thing I have seen from Apple is the application of a method of attaching a power connector by magnet that existed in Japan for many years before apple with the "MagSafe" paint job.
The reset is just making quality hardware which would have been patented by Apple if they could do so.
Bolaji, I think you overestimate the attentiveness of the general public to these types of cases when you say that Apple will be known as "the company that patented the rectangle."
The average consumer is now generally aware that Apple won some sort of case against Samsung. Maybe that consumer even knows it had something to do with Samsung copying the iPhone. That's probably as deep as it goes.
And in a couple months when the iPhone 5 is flying off the shelves and this verdict is no longer in the headlines, the average consumer won't give even the tiniest thought to this verdict.
Samsung and Google are suing Apple and I'm pretty sure there's some infringement going on. Hopefully, if Android Inc. does have to pay licensing fees, it will be moderate because of the leverage from other suits etc.
I am done buying Apple products. They are out screw people for max profit. Without Steve, they can't innovate so they litigate.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.