[BREAKING] Apple V. Samsung Jury reaches verdict.


Recommended Posts

Too bad that's not true on Neowin and various other sites/forums. Thread comes up about Google's plan to sue Apple, and suddenly everyone's on their feet goin "DO IT, DO IT!!"

How quickly the worry over consumer choice and innovation fades. :laugh:

Countersuing a patent troll and forcing them to settle under reasonable terms - as opposed to $30-40 per device - has proven to be a very good way of protecting consumer choice and innovation. I don't see any hypocrisy here, sorry.

Look at the George Foreman grill, it's just a grill pointed downwards so the fat runs off, pretty obvious and basic but they have made billions of dollars from something like that and I believe it is patented or secured in some manner.

Fact is, Apple got there first and they spent many years and lots and lots of money to get there, Samsung could have been first but they were not.

The design of the George Foreman grill is the whole purpose of the grill. The design of the grill IS the grill, because it's what allows the grill to do what it does. What purpose does rounded corners serve for the iPhone?

I'm afraid you need to come up with a better analogy.

  • Like 3

The design of the George Foreman grill is the whole purpose of the grill. The design of the grill IS the grill, because it's what allows the grill to do what it does. What purpose does rounded corners serve for the iPhone?

I'm afraid you need to come up with a better analogy.

Oh whatever, seriously. No talking to some of you on here, you're just too bitter that Samsung lost and Apple won.

It's just a normal grill at an angle. It's pretty bloody basic stuff. Just like slide to unlock or tap to zoom.

Oh whatever, seriously. No talking to some of you on here, you're just too bitter that Samsung lost and Apple won.

It's just a normal grill at an angle. It's pretty bloody basic stuff. Just like slide to unlock or tap to zoom.

So when you can't come back with a counter-argument, you fall back on calling me bitter? I think it's really obvious who's the bitter one here. The fact is that the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone.

So when you can't come back with a counter-argument, you fall back on calling me bitter? I think it's really obvious who's the bitter one here. The fact is that the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone.

Why would I be bitter? Apple won and I think they should have won. I think you need to find a better counter argument to my argument calling you bitter. Which you clearly are.

Why would I be bitter? Apple won and I think they should have won. I think you need to find a better counter argument to my argument calling you bitter. Which you clearly are.

I never claimed that you were bitter. Why rush to defend yourself? Maybe because deep down inside you know who actually is bitter?

Thanks for trying to cover up your complete lack of an argument with ad hominem attacks, by the way. Why do you need to be so desperate when Apple won the court case? To repeat the question: the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone.

Thanks for trying to cover up your complete lack of an argument with desperate ad hominem attacks. To repeat the question: the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone.

I like how you completely ignored the part where I mentioned slide to unlock and tap to zoom and keep going on about the rounded corners. I guess you're just a one legged horse.

Ignore more please.

I never claimed that you were bitter. Why rush to defend yourself? Maybe because deep down inside you know who actually is bitter?

Because you insinuated I was the bitter one and not you, and you just did it again. I have no reason to be bitter, I always believed Apple would win and they did. You are clearly very bitter about the result while I think the result is excellent.

I like how you completely ignored the part where I mentioned slide to unlock and tap to zoom and keep going on about the rounded corners. I guess you're just a one legged horse.

Ignore more please.

Because rounded corners is the issue here. But it looks like you're continuing with your complete lack of a valid argument. You're trying to pick a fight here by slinging insults like a badass-wannabe instead of answering the question. It's not working. The question is: the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone. Why should rounded corners be patentable?

It's not really that difficult... is it?

Because you insinuated I was the bitter one and not you, and you just did it again. I have no reason to be bitter, I always believed Apple would win and they did. You are clearly very bitter about the result while I think the result is excellent.

Of course not. That's why you're desperately slinging ad hominem attacks instead of answering the question, amirite?

Because rounded corners is the issue here. But it looks like you're continuing with your complete lack of a valid argument. You're trying to pick a fight here by slinging insults like a badass-wannabe instead of answering the question. It's not working. The question is: the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone. Why should rounded corners be patentable?

It's not really that difficult... is it?

First of all the rounded corners are one part of the phone. The rounded corners do not make the phone work they are insignificant parts of the phone. Similarly the angled grill of the George Forman grill does not make it a grill it still works as a grill without being tilted downwards for the fat to run off. They hold a patent for a tilt, a very basic design where by the back legs are higher than the front ones. The rounded corners on the phone are pretty insignificant too.

Grills are still sold, phones will still be sold. Just don't infringe on peoples patents that hold those design elements. A tilt on the grill obviously doesn't stop grill manufacturers from making grills and rounded edges on a phone won't stop Samsung selling phones. The fact is Apple had the patent and Samsung didn't and they should not have infringed it and I'd expect the company behind the George Forman grills to go after companies that sell tilted grills in the same way Apple has gone after Samsung.

Even if you don't agree with the patent you need to abide by it or tackle it in court before you start releasing devices utilizing it. Samsung did not do that and they were penalized for it as they should be.

This is just one of the many patents Samsung infringed upon like the tap to zoom functionality.

And I'm sorry for identifying your bitterness, I didn't realize it would make you so angry to be called out on it.

First of all the rounded corners are one part of the phone. The rounded corners do not make the phone work they are insignificant parts of the phone. Similarly the angled grill of the George Forman grill does not make it a grill it still works as a grill without being tilted downwards for the fat to run off. They hold a patent for a tilt, a very basic design where by the back legs are higher than the front ones. The rounded corners on the phone are pretty insignificant too.

That's precisely my question: the tilt allows the fat to run off. The tilt serves a purpose. As you have admitted yourself, rounded corners are insignificant. Why then do you think rounded corners are patentable?

Repeating my question back to me doesn't answer it, sorry.

That's precisely my question: the tilt allows the fat to run off. The tilt serves a purpose. As you have admitted yourself, rounded corners are insignificant. Why then do you think rounded corners are patentable?

Repeating my question back to me doesn't answer it, sorry.

The tilt in the George Foreman is a unique feature their competitors don't have. Apples rounded corners were a unique feature their competitors didn't have. I really don't see a difference here. If Samsung believed Apples patent with regards to the rounded corners were invalid they should have contested that in a separate court case way before Apple brought a suit against them. They could have used prior art to invalidate that patent, they didn't do that.

Take it up with Samsung buddy.

The tilt in the George Foreman is a unique feature their competitors don't have. Apples rounded corners were a unique feature their competitors didn't have. I really don't see a difference here. If Samsung believed Apples patent with regards to the rounded corners were invalid they should have contested that in a separate court case way before Apple brought a suit against them. They could have used prior art to invalidate that patent, they didn't do that.

Take it up with Samsung buddy.

I'm taking it up with you because you're defending that rounded corners should be patentable. For something to be a feature, it needs to serve a purpose. Repeatedly insisting that rounded corners are a feature doesn't make it so. The tilt serves a purpose, therefore it's a feature, and if it's a feature it's probably patentable. What purpose does rounded corners serve? Apple is trying to patent a SHAPE here - a shape that serves no purpose to the function of the product. They might as well be trying to patent the color black, and frankly speaking I wouldn't be surprised if they already have.

I'm taking it up with you because you're defending that rounded corners should be patentable. For something to be a feature, it needs to serve a purpose. Repeatedly insisting that rounded corners are a feature doesn't make it so. The tilt serves a purpose, therefore it's a feature, and if it's a feature it's most likely patentable. What purpose does rounded corners serve?

Making it easier to hold in ones hand? Making it more visually pleasing. How about making it so it isn't sharp and doesn't stick you when you try and hold it?

Fact is they got the patent on it and no one contested it, just because we don't know definitively its usefulness doesn't mean it doesn't have one. And besides I'm pretty sure Apple took them to task over the rounded corners because Samsung copied the exact angle Apple had used which caused brand confusion when combined with all the other similarities of the device, basically Apple was saying Samsung had ripped off their design language to willfully deceive consumers in to believing they were purchasing an Apple device when in reality they were purchasing a Samsung one.

Making it easier to hold in ones hand?

And the evidence of that is?

Making it more visually pleasing.

I don't believe "visually pleasing" is a patentable feature.

How about making it so it isn't sharp and doesn't stick you when you try and hold it?

And the evidence of that is?

Fact is they got the patent on it and no one contested it, just because we don't know definitively its usefulness doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

If I can't find any money in my wallet, does it mean that there might be money there and we don't definitely know for sure? Fact is when you can't find any feature that rounded corners serve... there probably isn't one to begin with.

And besides I'm pretty sure Apple took them to task over the rounded corners because Samsung copied the exact angle Apple had used which caused brand confusion when combined with all the other similarities of the device, basically Apple was saying Samsung had ripped off their design language to willfully deceive consumers in to believing they were purchasing an Apple device when in reality they were purchasing a Samsung one.

It's already been shown in court that next to no one bought Samsung phones because they thought it was an iPhone. You'll need to come up with better arguments than claims which have already been debunked by the evidence.

And the evidence of that is?

I don't believe "visually pleasing" is a patentable feature.

And the evidence of that is?

If I can't find any money in my wallet, does it mean that there might be money there and we don't definitely know for sure? Fact is when you can't find any feature that rounded corners serve... there probably isn't one to begin with.

It's already been shown in court that next to no one bought Samsung phones because they thought it was an iPhone. You'll need to come up with better arguments than claims which have already been debunked by the evidence.

In your world if something has a pointed edge it can't stick you? Okay then. I think we are done here. :D

The tilt in the George Foreman is a unique feature their competitors don't have. Apples rounded corners were a unique feature their competitors didn't have. I really don't see a difference here. If Samsung believed Apples patent with regards to the rounded corners were invalid they should have contested that in a separate court case way before Apple brought a suit against them. They could have used prior art to invalidate that patent, they didn't do that.

Take it up with Samsung buddy.

Sorry, I had a smartphone that was rectangular with rounded corners...BEFORE the iPhone came out.

Oh, and they tried to user prior art...but the judge dismissed that claim. Were you even following the trial?

In your world if something has a pointed edge it can't stick you? Okay then. I think we are done here. :D

Really? First ad hominem attacks, now blatant cop-outs trying to disguise the fact that you don't have an argument? You're half-right on your last sentence, at least - you're done here.

Sorry, I had a smartphone that was rectangular with rounded corners...BEFORE the iPhone came out.

I never said Apple invented it, I said no one contested it like they should have done. The fact is, Apple held the patent and so Samsung should have fought to invalidate that patent long before this case even began. Samsung can blame their legal council for not doing that.

If I had a patent on rounded corners I'd be suing people too. Apple should never have got that patent, but they did, and now Samsung is in fault of it because they were too incompetent.

I too had handheld touch screen devices with rounded corners before the iPhone and iPad showed up.

Really? First ad hominem attacks, now blatant cop-outs trying to disguise the fact that you don't have an argument? You're half-right on your last sentence, at least - you're done here.

According to you I need evidence that things without rounded corners can stick you. I think you need to do some homework on that one yourself as you looked pretty silly saying that.

sorry, not trying to take sides here, but I've just gotta ask, what?

And the evidence of that is?

that people generally like holding round objects than pointy ones?

I don't believe "visually pleasing" is a patentable feature.

very true :D

And the evidence of that is?

the evidence is that when a corner is sharp and pointy instead of round and smooth, it sticks out more, since our hands feel better when we put them on smooth surfaces instead of pointy ones that poke us ?

Fact is when you can't find any feature that rounded corners serve... there probably isn't one to begin with.

Except that he just gave you two features and you somehow dismissed them asking for "evidence" ?

hold a phone with rounded sides &/or corners, and then hold a rectangular phone with pointy sides/corners. Which one do you like better? Which one feels better in your hand?

It's already been shown in court that next to no one bought Samsung phones because they thought it was an iPhone. You'll need to come up with better arguments than claims which have already been debunked by the evidence.

agreed - I honestly don't think there was any kind of major deliberate patent stealing going on here - but IMO your arguments against his evidence (and your refusal to acknowledge the fact that he has any evidence at all) just don't work.

  • Like 2

the evidence is that when a corner is sharp and pointy instead of round and smooth, it sticks out more, since our hands feel better when we put them on smooth surfaces instead of pointy ones that poke us ?

My hands feel better when holding my sharp-edged Lumia and Xperia phone than they do when holding my iPhone. The former two phones' sharp edges don't poke me at all. Does this count as evidence invalidating the poking claim? If not, then you might begin to understand why the evidence in favor doesn't count as evidence either.

Except when he just gave you two features and you somehow dismissed them asking for "evidence" ?

agreed - I honestly don't think there was any kind of major deliberate patent stealing going on here - but IMO your arguments against his evidence (and your refusal to acknowledge the fact that he has any evidence at all) just don't work.

Because it doesn't naturally follow that a phone with rounded corners is easier to hold. That's why you need evidence. I can also say that phones with rounded corners are more difficult to hold and declare it as unassailable fact without evidence, too, but I'm not going to because such a line of argument is nonsensical. IMO, you don't understand how logic works.

I never said Apple invented it, I said no one contested it like they should have done. The fact is, Apple held the patent and so Samsung should have fought to invalidate that patent long before this case even began. Samsung can blame their legal council for not doing that.

If I had a patent on rounded corners I'd be suing people too. Apple should never have got that patent, but they did, and now Samsung is in fault of it because they were too incompetent.

I too had handheld touch screen devices with rounded corners before the iPhone and iPad showed up.

Indeed. I edited my post (while you were likely typing this one) to state the Samsung HAS brought up the prior art argument using multiple examples, and were denied.

According to you I need evidence that things without rounded corners can stick you. I think you need to do some homework on that one yourself as you looked pretty silly saying that.

You ARE aware that "can stick you" isn't the same as "WILL stick you"... right?

Maybe it's just me, but it's really ironic when someone like that tells me I looked pretty silly. Sigh. Not to mention that you're defeating your own claim. If it's impossible to make non-rounded cases without sticking into users, then there's all the more reason that rounded corners shouldn't be patentable, or at least licensed under FRAND terms.

I'm looking silly. Ooohkay. :rolleyes:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!