It will be interesting to see what products are released outside the US and how those compare with products designed for the US market.

The losers might be those living in a saturated market governed by absurd patents and an uncertain legal process where billions can depend on the uninformed opinion of a small group of people who can choose to ignore the advice of a judge.

I don't think the jury was really at fault, were they? They ruled that Samsung infringed on a few patents and they probably did. They infringed on patents that should never have been issued.

According to NPR yesterday, they also ruled on whether the infringed patents were valid. So yeah, that's the jury's fault.

"They infringed on patents that should never have been issued."

My point exactly.

Do you really believe companies should have the freedom to clone successful products and flood the market with knock-offs?

Imagine if some up-and-coming auto maker started making cars that look exactly like (insert your favorite luxury brand here) - except it doesn't go as fast, the steering sucks, the upholstery has gaps, etc. And then imagine a bunch of consumers not only buying these cars, but naively insisting their car is actually better than that luxury brand they've never owned and ridiculing the owners of the luxury brand for being gullible fanbois for overpaying for "premium" quality that they don't (and probably can't) appreciate.

It's not that I'm a snob (I drive a rusty Subaru if you care), but I am glad we live in a place where good design and good engineering is valued and where companies unwilling to invest in design and R&D cannot simply steal the hard work of others.

Samsung phones are not exact copies of iPhones. Not even close. Your argument is "not even wrong"

Why would anyone care that someone else has purchased a cheap knock off of something he owned?

Unless, of course, the only reason to own it is status.

But I'd hesitate to equate a Samsung smart phone with a knock off Louis Vitton handbag, for example.

I don't really understand the undying adoration of Apple. The tech industry has always been a fast moving, ultra-competitive industry where blatant ripping off of features is expected. If my competitor has a new feature that people like, you can bet the farm that everyone else will implement that same thing and try to leap frog the others in the process.

"Why would anyone care that someone else has purchased a cheap knock off of something he owned?"

It could lead the manufacturer of the original product to end support for it, or to even go out of business.

That's a victory of the free market. Giving people what they want at a price they can afford, not overpriced luxury.

Because of the chilling effect on design or because there are less and less handset manufacturers? Or another reason? Please don't vaguebook me.

It could be bad news even for Apple users, since now Apple will increase the fraction of resources allocated to legal bullying (since it works) at the expense of making better phones.

I'm pretty sure Apple has enough cash to fund both the R&D and legal departments at 100%.

The first one. Patent law has run amok to the point there really isn't any distinguishable difference between the trolls and the legitimate businesses any more. If you can patent pinch-and-zoom you can patent anything.

Say what you will about patent abuses, a firm that is utilizing their patents is qualitatively different than some shitballs in a two person office in Houston suing for damages of a patent vultured at some tech company's bankruptcy proceedings.

Hey, they paid someone for those patents. Someone who would not have been paid anyway. Do the inventors not deserve compensation?

A windfall profits tax on transferred IP would be interesting, so IV and the like couldn't suck all the value out of the tech industry.

I think an "exercise or surrender" sort of clause would do wonders. Of course, the patent system is brutally complicated and rife with unintended consequences, so tinkering with it is pretty fraught. The world isn't a theorem to be proved, there's no right answer. We all have to learn to deal with ambiguity better.

Well this entire trial and damages awarded have to do with a long series of wilful copying on Samsung's part, not just pinch to zoom.

Just because Samsung perhaps did something morally or legally questionable it doesn't make the patent insanity any less insane.