Most seem to say let the Patent Officer Grant the Patient and it will be challenged in Court to see if it's valid, however here the Jury accepted every Patent as being Valid and then argues on their interpretation of how they understood them.

The personalities where they think that the Samsung Execs where being shifty is just that a Different Culture with different ways of doing things and the US Side on the Jury not understand the difference. If the Samsung Execs had of behaved like Americans and the Apple Execs had of behaved like South Koreans it would have been interesting to see how Apple fared.

Col

Let me start that out of all the patents, I agree that Samsung violated the bounce back and pinch to zoom patents. The bounce back isn't a necessity and while it could be negotiated as an Industry standard, I can see this one remaining valid. The pinch to zoom had sufficient prior art in my opinion to prevent it being a valid patent, but even if it did not, I think it's safe to say it's an Industry standard by now.

Back to my argument, however, the patent on the shape and size of the phone had numerous cases of prior art, including that of phones by Samsung. Someone at the patent office was beyond a moron granting the patent. There is not one person who could look at a smartphone and confuse any of the Samsung phones for being an iPhone.

Another, the "admission email", at least the one displayed, is something EVERY company in software development does including Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. All it talks about is a competitor (the iPhone) and the user experience of one (the iPhone) is better than the product they're developing. Nowhere in that email did it say (we need this picture to look like this picture). A good UI (and in that regard User Experience) is a long process where you need to ensure everything flows together and ensure your product is better than anyone else's in your market.

rounded corners. Wait, everyone is doing that. How ugly.