Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425052
55 comments
I have no idea if there were any bribes involved. But one should be careful to blame money where just nationalism and fanboyism could explain it. The head of the jury seems also to be a patent troll.
>The head of the jury seems also to be a patent troll.
Yep, just had a look at one of his patents. Incased you missed it:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...
Yep, just had a look at one of his patents. Incased you missed it:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...
Please stop appealing to emotions for making an argument that is best supported by hard facts. I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say due to lack of credible sources in your comment and/or logic grounded in verifiable reality outside.
Thanks for letting me know about your level of comprehension about my comment. It would help if you can give some valid reasons instead of such vague description about the logic in my comment. Kindly use the '>' symbol to reply to specific points you disagree with.
I simply say that:
1) Apple has sued numerous competitors and has won many cases using trivial patents.
2) Numerous competitors have sued Apple for valid, non-BS patents in return and Apple has been found not to infringe a Single patent by ANY of its competitors.
3)In the latest Samsung vs Apple case, numerous inconsistencies were noted by many notable sources (including Groklaw)
And then, I simply say conclude that:
1) Something is wrong with this system; Which may have/most likely involved illegal money (This speculation is because of the reasons above)
2) All these legal systems and patents are hindering innovation. (And I include a personal story of mine, as a member of the start-up community and how it affects us in general)
If you still have a hard time understanding, please let me know. We will have a cup of tea together.
I simply say that:
1) Apple has sued numerous competitors and has won many cases using trivial patents.
2) Numerous competitors have sued Apple for valid, non-BS patents in return and Apple has been found not to infringe a Single patent by ANY of its competitors.
3)In the latest Samsung vs Apple case, numerous inconsistencies were noted by many notable sources (including Groklaw)
And then, I simply say conclude that:
1) Something is wrong with this system; Which may have/most likely involved illegal money (This speculation is because of the reasons above)
2) All these legal systems and patents are hindering innovation. (And I include a personal story of mine, as a member of the start-up community and how it affects us in general)
If you still have a hard time understanding, please let me know. We will have a cup of tea together.
I'm no iFan but I think this is a little too cynical. Also more than money, you are ruling out a major factor - sympathy for the home team. I still have faith that this ridiculous ruling will be overturned in an appeal.
>I still have faith that this ridiculous ruling will be overturned in an appeal.
Let us all hope so!
Let us all hope so!
I am going to be disillusioned with HN if this uninformed speculation isn't buried.
So you conclude the patent system and the legal structure is fine as it is? Because, my conclusion is the opposite from all the points I make above.
False dichotomy alert: the patent system may be broken in ways other than your speculation.
I don't think bribes were involved, for instance.
Also, it's wise not to attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. This jury was obviously incompetent and manipulated (even if not deliberately) by a foreman with his own agenda.
Another one a good friend once taught me: when you think you have figured out something nobody else did, odds are you're wrong. He used lines on a bank as an example: if there are two lines and one is much smaller than the other, they are probably not interchangeable and, if you enter the short one, you may realize you entered the wrong one.
I don't think bribes were involved, for instance.
Also, it's wise not to attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. This jury was obviously incompetent and manipulated (even if not deliberately) by a foreman with his own agenda.
Another one a good friend once taught me: when you think you have figured out something nobody else did, odds are you're wrong. He used lines on a bank as an example: if there are two lines and one is much smaller than the other, they are probably not interchangeable and, if you enter the short one, you may realize you entered the wrong one.
>The patent system may be broken in ways other than your speculation.
I claim that the patent system is broken because it allows anyone to patent BS trivial stuff, which can later be used to sue their competitors.
I would love to hear your version of 'the ways other than your(my) speculation'
I claim that the patent system is broken because it allows anyone to patent BS trivial stuff, which can later be used to sue their competitors.
I would love to hear your version of 'the ways other than your(my) speculation'
I don't disagree with this specific point, but you made a lot of other points in your post.
I also suggest you are coming across as somewhat aggressive. We can disagree in less emotional ways, even if it is an emotional issue for most of us.
I also suggest you are coming across as somewhat aggressive. We can disagree in less emotional ways, even if it is an emotional issue for most of us.
>I also suggest you are coming across as somewhat aggressive.
It is true, even when I read my own comment now, I do find it a bit aggressive. I'm genuinely sorry for that...actually I was kind of taken aback after reading that Jury's reasoning...and used the same spirit to type that comment...Nothing is fair in this world..
It is true, even when I read my own comment now, I do find it a bit aggressive. I'm genuinely sorry for that...actually I was kind of taken aback after reading that Jury's reasoning...and used the same spirit to type that comment...Nothing is fair in this world..
No, but the part about bribery is pure speculation. I am also shocked to find this at the top spot.
So much money is in the play that bribery should be assumed by default until proven beyond reasonable dubt otherwise.
And logically you could extend that to ridiculous extremes. Assuming anything by default is a sign of a weak argument.
In my feeling assuming that there were no bribes in $1bn trial is already ridiculous extreme of rule: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I'm always reminded of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and rants like this spinning conspiracy tales never meet that standard.
Not sure I am correct but had similar feeling in the case against Toyota
I don't think, all lawyers are on Apple side. Refer http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4458963
This quote really bugs me:
"Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error."
That's just wrong - if it was correct then you could say the same thing about samsung: Samsung's code won't run an an Apple machine, so it's different and not violating the patent.
"Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error."
That's just wrong - if it was correct then you could say the same thing about samsung: Samsung's code won't run an an Apple machine, so it's different and not violating the patent.
Here is his full answer:
"Prior art was considered.
But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.
And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.
So the point being, at [a bird's eye-view from] the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the other.
And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art."
It looks like this jury was a lot more informed than the internet lawyers give them credit for.
"Prior art was considered.
But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.
And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.
So the point being, at [a bird's eye-view from] the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the other.
And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art."
It looks like this jury was a lot more informed than the internet lawyers give them credit for.
I read the full quote and it's wrong. Period.
If "interchangeable code" was the standard then why apply it only to prior art? Why not apply it to future art as well? (Samsungs implementation.)
It looks like this jury just made stuff up. And I really hope the judgment gets completely tossed for this. The judge has yet to rule on that (although it's rare to toss a jury verdict since they actually are allowed to make stuff up to some degree - lookup Jury nullification, so I'm not really expecting it to be tossed).
If "interchangeable code" was the standard then why apply it only to prior art? Why not apply it to future art as well? (Samsungs implementation.)
It looks like this jury just made stuff up. And I really hope the judgment gets completely tossed for this. The judge has yet to rule on that (although it's rare to toss a jury verdict since they actually are allowed to make stuff up to some degree - lookup Jury nullification, so I'm not really expecting it to be tossed).
Yup. The specific jury instructions regarding prior art are online[0]. They're pretty clear and pretty clearly contradict the foreman's interpretation of prior art.
[0] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963
[0] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963
"Interchangeable code" wasn't the standard. In fact "interchangeable code" doesn't appear anywhere in the article. What would have invalidated Apple's patent was if the implementation in their patent was "sufficiently similar" to the prior art's implementation. They found that it wasn't, so the patent wasn't invalidated.
I posted the full answer not for your benefit, but for other HN readers. You cherry-picked one part of his answer that gives the impression that the only thing the jury did to determine if the patent is valid is to see if the code would run on other devices. It isn't, as is clear from the rest of his answer.
I'm not sure how you think this jury "made stuff up" because from his other answers, they seem to have had a much better understanding of the law and the facts than followers of this case have had.
I posted the full answer not for your benefit, but for other HN readers. You cherry-picked one part of his answer that gives the impression that the only thing the jury did to determine if the patent is valid is to see if the code would run on other devices. It isn't, as is clear from the rest of his answer.
I'm not sure how you think this jury "made stuff up" because from his other answers, they seem to have had a much better understanding of the law and the facts than followers of this case have had.
I believe he was referring to this answer.
Q: There had speculation that Samsung might be awarded damages as well because of its claim that Apple had infringed its technologies.
A: "What was key to us... is that [the technologies] had to be interchangeable."
"And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work. And the converse of that was true."
Edit: Specifically, he convinced the other jurors that because the "methods in software" were not interchangeable ... well, rereading it I'm not sure what his conclusion is.
Q: There had speculation that Samsung might be awarded damages as well because of its claim that Apple had infringed its technologies.
A: "What was key to us... is that [the technologies] had to be interchangeable."
"And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work. And the converse of that was true."
Edit: Specifically, he convinced the other jurors that because the "methods in software" were not interchangeable ... well, rereading it I'm not sure what his conclusion is.
It might help if you would explain how you think this juror indicates to you that the jury was well informed. When I read this I definitely do not see what you see. Here, I'll break down what I see when I read this:
He begins by saying that 'interchangeable' is most important element to determining prior art: "more importantly, it had to be interchangeable". Then he moves on to explain that "the key [to determining if something is interchangeable] was that the hardware was different ... and more modern software could not be loaded ... and run without error." In other words, if the code doesn't run on the old hardware, then it's not interchangeable and therefore not prior art.
Then, in one of the paragraphs that you brought in, he indicates that he's summarizing and repeat ("the 40,000 foot-level"). He says that the "methodology" was different. Here he uses "method" or "methodology" to mean code. You can see this in this quote from elsewhere in the interview: "when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same" and this one: "you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work". So again, he's saying that if you can't load the new code on the old machine, you don't have prior art.
It appears to me, from your quote and from the article, that he believes that running new code on an old device is "the key" to determining prior art. Is this the informed position you're talking about?
He begins by saying that 'interchangeable' is most important element to determining prior art: "more importantly, it had to be interchangeable". Then he moves on to explain that "the key [to determining if something is interchangeable] was that the hardware was different ... and more modern software could not be loaded ... and run without error." In other words, if the code doesn't run on the old hardware, then it's not interchangeable and therefore not prior art.
Then, in one of the paragraphs that you brought in, he indicates that he's summarizing and repeat ("the 40,000 foot-level"). He says that the "methodology" was different. Here he uses "method" or "methodology" to mean code. You can see this in this quote from elsewhere in the interview: "when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same" and this one: "you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work". So again, he's saying that if you can't load the new code on the old machine, you don't have prior art.
It appears to me, from your quote and from the article, that he believes that running new code on an old device is "the key" to determining prior art. Is this the informed position you're talking about?
Sorry, that paragraph sounds like complete bullshit to me. Maybe he doesn't do it deliberately, like he could be completely computer illiterate. Perhaps this is what happens when laymen try to understand computers.
The jury foreman seems to feel that he is some kind of expert on technology patents. Two quotes for the article: "Velvin Hogan said his familiarity with the US patent system helped the jury reach its verdict so quickly" and "Let's say if there had not been an individual who had the technical background, and there had not been an individual who had gone through the process, the verdict might have been different - or it might have been the same."
Is it appropriate for a juror to apply their own legal knowledge in this way? I thought that experts were heard as part of the trial process, with the judge advising the jury on the law? Can someone with knowledge of how things work in the US comment on this?
I seriously wonder whether this interview will form the basis of an appeal by Samsung. I certainly hope so.
Is it appropriate for a juror to apply their own legal knowledge in this way? I thought that experts were heard as part of the trial process, with the judge advising the jury on the law? Can someone with knowledge of how things work in the US comment on this?
I seriously wonder whether this interview will form the basis of an appeal by Samsung. I certainly hope so.
> It looks like this jury was a lot more informed than the internet lawyers give them credit for.
Er, his attempted justification for ignoring prior art is completely and utterly wrong, and indeed is so bizarrely wrong-headed, that it suggests more an intentional lie than simple ignorance.
The appeals court needs to skewer this guy.
Er, his attempted justification for ignoring prior art is completely and utterly wrong, and indeed is so bizarrely wrong-headed, that it suggests more an intentional lie than simple ignorance.
The appeals court needs to skewer this guy.
"but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error."
This is just RIDICULOUS. By this line of thought, every time new hardware or software methodologies come out, you could patent the same old software solutions again!
If reimplementing a well known feature, algorithm, or whatever on new hardware isn't obvious "for a practitioner skilled in the art", then I really don't know what is.
This is just RIDICULOUS. By this line of thought, every time new hardware or software methodologies come out, you could patent the same old software solutions again!
If reimplementing a well known feature, algorithm, or whatever on new hardware isn't obvious "for a practitioner skilled in the art", then I really don't know what is.
Ideal outcome: Samsung keeps producing awesome handsets, but uses stock Android instead of Touchwiz.
They won't. It will be very hard to differentiate themselves from thousands of other Android devices.
I think you're both wrong!
I like the hardware of the SGII I have, and I would prefer the hardware of the Galaxy Note, or the Galaxy Note II.
But also, remove TouchWiz, and still the Galaxy Note II has some very nice and innovative software allowing for pseudo-windowing on Android, as well as "Pen" aware apps.
I like the hardware of the SGII I have, and I would prefer the hardware of the Galaxy Note, or the Galaxy Note II.
But also, remove TouchWiz, and still the Galaxy Note II has some very nice and innovative software allowing for pseudo-windowing on Android, as well as "Pen" aware apps.
The problem is that when Samsung customise Android, they do so to (a) differentiate, and (b) to ensure you can't upgrade.
On a more "on topic" note, this juror is a turkey. As another poster pretty much said "prior art can not be ignored".
On a more "on topic" note, this juror is a turkey. As another poster pretty much said "prior art can not be ignored".
Here's another gem:
"Just to make it clear, the phone that I have is a Motorola Droid X2 and the reason I'm mentioning that is because it is in the record, it was told to the judge and told to the court when asked that question.
And it is of a slider variety so it has a normal keyboard, and for that reason it's not among the 26 accused phones. "
The Droid X2, of course, isn't a slider. The juror probably has a Droid 2.
"Just to make it clear, the phone that I have is a Motorola Droid X2 and the reason I'm mentioning that is because it is in the record, it was told to the judge and told to the court when asked that question.
And it is of a slider variety so it has a normal keyboard, and for that reason it's not among the 26 accused phones. "
The Droid X2, of course, isn't a slider. The juror probably has a Droid 2.
Nice. Except they awarded $130e6 in damages for the Epic 4G. A slider.
Good catch. I forgot that part.
The more I hear from the jury the more it sounds like they first decided "Apple good. Samsung bad." and filled in the rest from there.
The more I hear from the jury the more it sounds like they first decided "Apple good. Samsung bad." and filled in the rest from there.
You can upgrade. And, as a bonus, you get rid of Touchwiz.
Touchwiz provides them with differentiation, but not in a positive way.
TBH the one thing that Google Nexus devices have is that they offer a "pure" Android experience (and unlockability) which means that I'd avoid buying anything else.
On Samsung devices you can programmatically configure the hotspot without being punished too hard.
(oh well)
(oh well)
They seem quite happy using WP7/WP8, though...How come that logic doesn't apply there? Sure WP7 is not that popular yet, but the point is they would want it to be popular as well to have a strong alternative to Android. And at that point they'd be in square one, with a lot of other companies developing devices with identical software, just like in the PC business, which is another market Samsung seems happy to be in.
So yeah, I don't buy that argument. Sure they'd prefer if they'd do their own thing, but I'm sure they wouldn't be too mad about if it if all they could use was stock Android (which by the way, they seem to be using in their Galaxy Camera).
If Google is the only one making a cross-license with Apple, then that scenario is even more likely, because the deal would obviously cover only Google's own software implementations, and not Samsung's or anybody else's. So then if a company wants legal protection against Apple, they'd have no choice but to use stock Android. Win for them, win for us. If some decide to keep on making their own custom software, then the legal risk is all on them.
So yeah, I don't buy that argument. Sure they'd prefer if they'd do their own thing, but I'm sure they wouldn't be too mad about if it if all they could use was stock Android (which by the way, they seem to be using in their Galaxy Camera).
If Google is the only one making a cross-license with Apple, then that scenario is even more likely, because the deal would obviously cover only Google's own software implementations, and not Samsung's or anybody else's. So then if a company wants legal protection against Apple, they'd have no choice but to use stock Android. Win for them, win for us. If some decide to keep on making their own custom software, then the legal risk is all on them.
Apple should be asking for a mistrial without prejudice at this point.
If they don't (and the judge doesn't), Samsung is going to flip this decision like a pancake in appeals just on the interviews of the foreman.
Unless a temporary sales ban is worth more to Apple...
If they don't (and the judge doesn't), Samsung is going to flip this decision like a pancake in appeals just on the interviews of the foreman.
Unless a temporary sales ban is worth more to Apple...
A temporary sales ban on previous generation phones is not very valuable. And Apple is much more exposed to similar sales bans because they have a much smaller product lineup.
This is getting rediculous. This has been discussed as nauseum without either side agreeing. Picking over the bones of the trial while writing untold paragraphs about the whys and whatfores is wasting cycles. Wait until the appeal, of it is allowed, and see.
One thing to note though. There has been an awful lot of cogantive bias exhibited by both sides. It must stop. It just leads to flaming and even more wasted time.
One thing to note though. There has been an awful lot of cogantive bias exhibited by both sides. It must stop. It just leads to flaming and even more wasted time.
the bias started with the jury. They had a self declared expert as their foreman. That he was able to sit on the jury astounds me and from the other stories its obvious other members of the jury deferred to him. Hence the assumption I have is, he took his "knowledge" of the system and decided before the trial was complete. It is about the only way to explain the speed of which they arrived at their decision.
Have you ever been in a group where one person is so obnoxious with their views you just want it over?
Have you ever been in a group where one person is so obnoxious with their views you just want it over?
This is precisely what I'm talking about.
Some facts:
* The jury was selected by both sides.
* Having a patent does not preclude an individual from jury service, even if the case that is being sat is one that covers patent claims.
"he took his "knowledge" of the system and decided before the trial was complete" Pure emotive supposition on your part.
"It is about the only way to explain the speed of which they arrived at their decision." Not at all. This is an excellent example of cognitive bias. You disagree, for whatever reason, with the findings of the jury, so you rationalise your views and opinions based on this. To you, there simply is no rational explanation as to how Samsung lost. You invent constructs where the judge is corrupt or the jury is biased towards Apple, all based on extremely spurious conjecture. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Samsung were entirely wrong (I do believe that they crossed a line with the first implemetations of the Touchwiz UI and the early Galaxy handsets - Google told them as much), but to paint them as an entirely innocent and wronged party is unbelievably wide of the mark.
"Have you ever been in a group where one person is so obnoxious with their views you just want it over?" Yes. These boards. Everyday since the trial ended. It's getting like ground-hog day...
Some facts:
* The jury was selected by both sides.
* Having a patent does not preclude an individual from jury service, even if the case that is being sat is one that covers patent claims.
"he took his "knowledge" of the system and decided before the trial was complete" Pure emotive supposition on your part.
"It is about the only way to explain the speed of which they arrived at their decision." Not at all. This is an excellent example of cognitive bias. You disagree, for whatever reason, with the findings of the jury, so you rationalise your views and opinions based on this. To you, there simply is no rational explanation as to how Samsung lost. You invent constructs where the judge is corrupt or the jury is biased towards Apple, all based on extremely spurious conjecture. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Samsung were entirely wrong (I do believe that they crossed a line with the first implemetations of the Touchwiz UI and the early Galaxy handsets - Google told them as much), but to paint them as an entirely innocent and wronged party is unbelievably wide of the mark.
"Have you ever been in a group where one person is so obnoxious with their views you just want it over?" Yes. These boards. Everyday since the trial ended. It's getting like ground-hog day...
I rather interpret it as internal struggle within people themselves. Personally, I go from Android to iOS fanboyism within a blink of an eye. I own both because of this internal indecisiveness.
On one side you have awesome hardware and jail, on other not so great hardware and a lot less restrictions.
I think that's what's driving all this, not camps on either side.
On one side you have awesome hardware and jail, on other not so great hardware and a lot less restrictions.
I think that's what's driving all this, not camps on either side.
If I was eating a billion dollar chicken, I'd sure as shit pick through the bones for every scrap of meat that was there.
Ok, so let me get this straight. Samsung was found infriging on trivial patents, because they copied the entire look & feel? It does seem to me that what samsung did was more than a bit unethical (although I did not follow up enough to have a very good opinion), but the actual reasons why it was found infriging was something completely different? That makes no sense whatsoever. The jury foreman is defending a completely irrelevant thing to me.
That said, I'm actually glad that it's the look & feel that matters rather than really those trivial patents, but the whole thing looks like Al Capone charged for tax evasion.
That said, I'm actually glad that it's the look & feel that matters rather than really those trivial patents, but the whole thing looks like Al Capone charged for tax evasion.
That guy is just bullshitting everyone and assuming we are all idiots. The same could be said for Apple too, in defense of Samsung, right?
EDIT: The way I see it - He supports Apple simply because he is in the same shoes as Apple himself. Do you know what patent this guy owns?
It is a 'very innovative patent' just like Apple's 'rounded corners'.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...
Now you see, why he's supporting Apple. Both own BS patents.
Actually, this verdict should have been expected - The court is in the country of the infringer (Apple), The lawyers are from the same country and the money is also from the same country. There is no reason as to why people should support Samsung (Korean) than they should support Apple (in an unfair world). Apple has easy access to every kind of influence you could think of. This leads us to several conclusions:
1) One who has more money in this is system called 'democracy' RULES this system, because they automatically gain all the power they need. Including support from all legal systems and governments.
2) If you assumed everything happened in a fair platform, without exchange of money illegally, then your assumptions are plain wrong. Apple has a lot of money..even more than Samsung, it is easier for Apple to payout the necessary guys in the legal system and still not leak it outside to anyone, than it is for Samsung. This is NOT to confirm they bribed someone, but just to let you know that there is a very high probability of them doing so.
Why do I think so? Think about this fact: Apple has sued numerous competitors using their BS patents and has won several times. Numerous competitors have sued Apple and none of them have had a fair victory yet. Surely there is something fishy going on here.
Also to be noted - Apple has more money than any of their competitors.
3) I suspect even Samsung's lawyers could have been manipulated, because they all seem slightly dumb to me (on purpose?).
In all its entirety, this whole legal system and patent system is just a clever way for the people involved to make money. Tomorrow, if you plan to start a phone company, just keep all this in mind; You are as vulnerable as Samsung is to get sued for BS reasons by such patent trolls (Apple).
A little personal:
I wanted to buy a tablet for my mom, I was seriously considering the iPad 2, because it still is a really good tablet. After all this BS, I've decided not to buy any of their products, even though in the end, loss of a single user is not going to matter to them. But I am pretty sure that there is strength in numbers. I sincerely plead everyone to boycott Apple and its products, because if its going to be more than just one user(me), it WILL surely have an impact on them. Hopefully, they will learn not to repeat all this shitty behavior again.
A little deeper:
Actually, if you are against Apple for such bad behavior, you have no other choice, than to boycott them. A few months back, my idea was to create a better tablet than Apple did and show the world that they aren't the only ones who can do it and they are over-hyped as hell. I contacted Chinese OEM's, display guys, etc. But, later I realized, it will be of no use, because I will be as vulnerable as Samsung was...and I don't even have the money to defend myself or my tablet startup. Hence the only way to screw Apple right now is to stop buying their products.
Thanks for reading.