I think it is interesting that the approach in Japan is case by case basis instead of the entire set of claims being addressed at once. In all the details of the US ruling (which I only vaguely read) was this singular file synchronization feature found to be infringing on the Apple patent? Also, I found myself wondering if the judging standards/laws are different between the US and Japan. That could have a bearing on the decision in the US/Japan cases as well as whether Samsung should appeal the US ruling (which I would expect them to do anyway - just good practice).
oh, come on folks. we're not talking about real innovation here. apple is litigating things like rounded-off rectangles and bounce/stretch cues for when you scroll off the end. these are OBVIOUS, and should never have been given the fig leaf of a patent in the first place.
A patent and legal system should aim to prevent is theft by copying, such as stealing the technology of a competitor's product, or creating such a conscious, copycat duplication that one product can be confused with another, thus letting the profits of an originator be taken by an imitator. Samsung did not do this.
See the link: http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/smart-phones/apple-worked-a-broken-patent-system/240006568?pgno=1
No matter how little worth of Apple's said design and utility IPs involved in the recent court case at San Jose, it is fair to say that they are not garbage. However, it is obvious that the juries involved blatantly discriminated against Samsung. In reference to the comments publicized, the jury foreman is obviously biased. My crystal ball says that Apple likely fail in most of the upcoming legal battles outside of US where protectionism and prejudice ALWAYS prevail.