The jury found that various Samsung products violated Apple patents covering things such as the "bounce back" effect when a user scrolls to the end of a list on the iPhone and iPad, and the pinch-to-zoom gesture that users make when they want to magnify an image. Samsung was also found to have infringed Apple patents covering the physical design of the iPhone.
"Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer," Samsung said Friday night after the ruling. "It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies."
Apple had no immediate comment.
Lucrative licensing feesThe ruling could lead to higher licensing fees, which companies pay one another to use proprietary technology. Such higher costs could eventually raise consumer prices and send more profits to Apple should it choose to license its technology.
"Clearly Apple is the winner here in financial terms, with things coming from licensing down the road," said Al Hilwa, a technology analyst with International Data.
He predicted the net effect would be price increases for consumers. "Someone has to swallow these licensing fees," he said.Is the real loser the reputation of Thomas Penfield Jackson who ruled that Apple was not a competitor to The Monopoly in US v. Microsoft? Or, perhaps, the not so dynamic duo of Paul David and Brian Arthur who made their careers claiming that Microsoft would use their 'lock-in' to bring all technological progress to a halt?