Enough said.

1) The US Patent Office is a disaster area of technology comprehension incompetence and slug-worthy speed.

2) Worthless, decaying and self-destructive biznizziz ripoff anything they can lay their parasitic hands on. That includes Google, Samsung, Motorola…

P.S. The GT 10.1 did not infringe any iPad patents. It couldn’t infringe any iPhone patents because it isn’t a phone.

Thus, no ban.

So the verdict reached by the jury is appealable, yes. And Samsung has appealed, and that is all that’s preventing Samsung from having to cut a check right now. The judge has not yet established a punitive damage amount. That will be appealed as well, I’m sure. So what? Apple doesn’t need the money. The point of this whole exercise is to deter Samsung and others from future infringement. I would argue that Apple has largely accomplished what they set out to do. Samsung may insist on saving face by continuing to try to produce their current products, but going forward, when Apple updates current devices or creates new ones, other companies will think twice about simply ripping of Apple’s designs and functionality.

Perhaps Apple could use some grammar warriors?

Pepsi guy with the Ivy League MBA settled for pennies on the dollar and a cross licensing fee. Gates, Allen , Ballmer and Co’s fortunes are all sourced in that theft.

Current day
Google is Microsoft in the play. SameSong is a warmup.

If Apple doesn’t sue Google they are crazy.

Duplication is NOT innovation.™©

In the wake of the spill, thousands of people, including government employees, private citizens, and Exxon employees, worked to contain and clean up the oil. The cleanup continued until 1992, when the State of Alaska and the U.S. Coast Guard declared it complete. However, 18 years after the spill, it continues to negatively affect the ecosystem of Prince William Sound.

Immediately after the spill, Exxon voluntarily paid $2.2 billion toward the cleanup. The State of Alaska sued Exxon for compensatory and punitive damages, and the United States indicted Exxon for violating the Clean Water Act and other statutes. As a result of this litigation, Exxon paid $1 billion in settlements to the Alaska and United States governments.

Exxon also paid approximately $300 million in voluntary settlements with private parties. In addition, a large group of private parties-including Alaska landowners, Native American groups, and commercial fishermen-filed a suit against Exxon for economic harm beyond what Exxon had paid through its voluntary claims program. In 1994 a jury in an Alaska district court awarded the plaintiffs $287 million in compensatory damages. The court later reduced this amount to roughly $20 million to reflect released claims and settlements Exxon had reached during trial.

The jury also found that both Captain Hazelwood and Exxon had been reckless, and awarded the plaintiffs punitive damages. The jury awarded $5,000 in punitive damages against Hazelwood and an unprecedented $5 billion against Exxon.

The punitive damages amount were equal to a single year’s profit by Exxon at that time. To protect itself in case the judgment was affirmed, Exxon obtained a $4.8 billion credit line from J.P. Morgan & Co.

Exxon appealed the ruling, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the original judge, Russel Holland, to reduce the punitive damages. On December 6, 2002, the judge announced that he had reduced the damages to $4 billion, which he concluded was justified by the facts of the case and was not grossly excessive. Exxon appealed again and the case returned to court to be considered in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, which caused Judge Holland to increase the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest.

Exxon appealed 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on January 27, 2006, the damages award was cut to $2.5 billion on December 22, 2006.

Exxon appealed again to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. In a decision issued June 25, 2008, The Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that the punitive damages awarded to the victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill should be reduced from US$2.5 billion to US$500 million.

In 2008! 19 years after the oil spill (and 14 years after the suit was filed) that check for punitive damages was finally cut. Gary is right, Samsung could appeal this decision for 14 more years, have the damages cut by 90%, and let time render the verdict meaningless. I too will believe that verdict has meaning when Samsung cuts Apple a check.

Again… if’s and maybes.

Convicted in a court of law means a jury presented with the evidence said “guilty”.

As things stand Samsung owes Apple $1.05 billion.

Enough about articles that quote “if” in every sentence.