The big loser here though might be America. Mobile hardware companies like ZTE or Huawei who are probably growing at the fastest pace right now are just going to deem the American market too risky to be made a priority and focus on Asian & European markets.
This exact point is something no one here on HN has realized. I'm living outside the US and this patent war means nothing to me (as of now). And when I was there, I was surprised to talk to my relatives and find out that before the iPhone all they had were crappy dumbphones. No Nokia S60 phones, no SonyEricsson P series UIQ phones, no nothing.
After this, I think many Android handset manufacturers might feel that the US market is too risky to enter. As it is, their mindset regarding a cellular phone is completely different as compared to others. They treat it as a service (which is why subsidized plans with criminal monthly rates exist) instead of decoupling the device from the subscription plans. Although in their defense it doesn't help that each of the carrier rolls with their own tech making cross-compatibility virtually impossible.
Apple will have no problem following them into European courts. I'm sure Asia is the same, assuming they feel they can get a fair shake there. Many of the types of patents they are suing for are international in nature.
Different courts have come to different conclusions about the same companies. In the UK, Apple had to say Samsung didn't copy them. In other European countries, Samsung's products had to be changed to avoid a permanent ban. In Korea, Apple and Samsung managed to ban some of each others' products.
In other words, these lawsuits demonstrate international inconsistencies in patent laws, courts, and markets, and will only serve to fragment the international market and make developing a smartphone riskier and less predictable. Who loses? Consumers and smaller hardware and software companies.
Good luck getting this kind of ruling anywhere in Asia except perhaps Japan. Most Asians are going to be baffled by this, if they don't see it as an attack on a successful Asian business by an American bully.
Apple is going to regret this in the long run, I suspect. They should have spent their energy going after the Chinese iPhone cloners that put junk hardware in an actual iPhone case instead.
No, you can also make an Android phone. You just need to avoid infringing these specific patents either by removing functionality or implementing it in another way.
This lawsuit did not find that "Android" helplessly infringes Apple patents in all cases. Just that the combination of Android, Samsung's software modifications to Android, and Samsung hardware, together infringed several very specific Apple patents.
You could but who's to say that Apple can't find other patents in their portfolio to come after you with (or MSFT can't extract their Android licensing for you). Apple wants to destroy the Android ecosystem and they're going to take any legal measure possible.
With Windows Phone, you're protected from this through MSFT's cross-licensing deal with Apple - Apple even pointed to the Nokia WP phones as an example of being able to do something different.
No, you can also make an Android phone. You just need to avoid infringing these specific patents either by removing functionality or implementing it in another way.
As magicalist points out elsewhere in the thread, it is utterly impossible for anyone to build anything resembling a modern smartphone without infringing claim 8 of Apple's '915 patent. You can build a phone or a tablet, but whatever you build will not be capable of competing with an iPhone or an iPad.
Regardless of what you think about Apple, the iPhone, or patents in general, it is not OK for a judge or jury to hand an entire market over to a single player for 20 years. Claim 8, by itself, is enough to do that. By granting it, the USPTO walled off all possible competitive approaches.
Apple doesn't have a patent for one finger scrolling or pinch zooming. If the claim you are talking about is one finger scrolling, having that feature is not enough to violate the whole patent. The patent in question is about a method to detect transition from scrolling to zooming. It will be worked around.
How in the world do you interpret the language in claim 8 as "detecting a transition from scrolling to zooming"? The plain language just describes a single system that can process both single-touch scrolling input and multitouch gestures. Anything that does both appears to be covered by the claim.
I don't exactly know what the patent is. But it was clarified by Samsung attorney in the trial that you do not infringe Apple patents by having one finger scrolling and pinch to zoom. So it is possible to make a modern smartphone.
But it was clarified by Samsung attorney in the trial that you do not infringe Apple patents by having one finger scrolling and pinch to zoom. So it is possible to make a modern smartphone.
Those would be the same Samsung attorneys who just lost a $1 billion patent suit?
I haven't been following this closely, but if I understand correctly, the jury found against Samsung on the Nexus S. That is a Google phone built straight from Android and with no specific Samsung code at the UI level.
(Don't think a disclaimer is necessary in this case, but I used to work at Google. Not on Android.)
The case was only against the Nexus S 4G - the Sprint version - which hasn't been updated to Android 4.1. The AT&T version was not part of the case. Android 4.1 removed infringing features.
I hope that's true, do you have a source? It would be a nice silver lining if this ruling resulted in manufacturers sticking closer to stock Android and moving to the latest versions more quickly.
Microsoft has already applied a reported $5/device licensing fee to Android. It varies I guess but they have most vendors signed up.
If the outcome of this is that Apple effectively gets $10/device for Android then Windows Phone at $15/device has something approaching price parity.
However if I was a phone vendor I would still prefer Android for various reasons including the optional nature of the license(s), the flexibility, superior third and first party apps, the fact that Nokia has better access to WP7, etc.
Microsoft at least will offer a license and most manufacturers have taken it (including most Android partners). Motorola seems to be the main exception.
Any of those are atleast a couple of years away from becoming realistic. Windows Phone has an app ecosystem today, the muscle/deep pockets of MSFT behind it and frankly, it's a pretty good OS. It's a slam dunk at the moment.
1. You go with Android and have both Apple and Microsoft come after you.
2. You go with Windows Phone.
I suspect the Windows Phone team is breaking open some champagne now.