# The Samsung/Apple verdict: What does it mean for existing Droid users? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 25, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617 "2012-08-25T16:37:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ekedolphin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ekedolphin/32/10003_2.png) [@ekedolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekedolphin)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/1 "2012-08-25T16:37:32Z")
I understand that of course, there will be legal challenge upon legal challenge, and that the battle isn’t over yet. But assuming that the verdict is ultimately upheld, what would it mean for _existing_ users of Samsung products using the Droid operating system? Would Samsung be forced to remotely “brick” these products? Massive product recall? Will the ghost of Steve Jobs come along and smash my phone with a hammer, what? ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/2 "2012-08-25T16:42:33Z")
Zombie Steve Jobs is more dangerous than you would ever believe … ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/3 "2012-08-25T16:52:13Z")
If upheld, Samsung will have to give Apple a lot of money, and going forward it might make non-Apple smartphones more expensive if Android manufacturers have to license the rectangular shape from Apple. ---
**Author:** ![ekedolphin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ekedolphin/32/10003_2.png) [@ekedolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekedolphin)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/4 "2012-08-25T17:38:12Z")
OK, but I mean, will it have any effect on my current phone, the amount of money I pay to Verizon every month for my phone service, the continued willingness of companies to create apps for the Google Play Store, et cetera? ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/5 "2012-08-25T18:08:26Z")
I use and enjoy Apple products, but I was really surprised this case was even allowed to proceed, and I really hope this verdict gets thrown out. The fact that Samsung wasn’t allowed to present proof of prior art is appalling. In many ways Apple is like [Mandy Patinkin in Elmo in Grouchland.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5mWEWTb6A) ---
**Author:** ![Harmonix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Harmonix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harmonix)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/6 "2012-08-26T08:01:50Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > I use and enjoy Apple products, but I was really surprised this case was even allowed to proceed, and I really hope this verdict gets thrown out. The fact that Samsung wasn’t allowed to present proof of prior art is appalling. In many ways Apple is like [Mandy Patinkin in Elmo in Grouchland.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5mWEWTb6A) Cite for Samsung not being allowed to show prior art? That seems utterly ridiculous for a patent case. ---
**Author:** ![kferr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71e660/32.png) [@kferr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kferr)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/7 "2012-08-26T08:33:25Z")
> [@Harmonix](#): > > Cite for Samsung not being allowed to show prior art? That seems utterly ridiculous for a patent case. There’s one story on it [here](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/02/apple_sanctions_samsung_patent_trial/). ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/8 "2012-08-26T17:20:31Z")
> [@kferr](#): > > There’s one story on it [here](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/02/apple_sanctions_samsung_patent_trial/). This story indicates that the evidence was not about prior art, it was to support an interference. Prior art is what is out there in the public domain when a patent is applied for. The story talks about something Samsung was “working on”. The point here is that if Samsung had been working on technology that Apple patented, the patent should go to whichever side can show the earliest start of a contiguous effort up to the time of the first filing. It’s got nothing to do with prior art. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/9 "2012-08-26T17:47:29Z")
From what I read the case was handled very ineptly by the law firm Samsung hired. Lots of stuff that could help them was throw out they could have included if it had been submitted in timely manner. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/10 "2012-08-27T01:02:54Z")
> [@Napier](#): > > This story indicates that the evidence was not about prior art, it was to support an interference. > > Prior art is what is out there in the public domain when a patent is applied for. The story talks about something Samsung was “working on”. The point here is that if Samsung had been working on technology that Apple patented, the patent should go to whichever side can show the earliest start of a contiguous effort up to the time of the first filing. It’s got nothing to do with prior art. [This](http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-not-allowed-use-2001-a-space-odyssey-prior-art-argument-during-apple-trial-105229/) is what I’m actually talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Grendel\_s\_Father](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grendel\_s\_Father](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grendel_s_Father)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/11 "2012-08-27T15:09:09Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > [This](http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-not-allowed-use-2001-a-space-odyssey-prior-art-argument-during-apple-trial-105229/) is what I’m actually talking about. Is science fiction eligible as prior art? I thought it had to be a working product patent or prototype. Are flip-phone patents invalid because similar devices were imagined for Star Trek? Anyway, this point seems to be moot because the jury denied Apple’s claim against Samsung for all tablet patents, only upholding iPhone and iOS related patents. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/12 "2012-08-27T16:10:45Z")
Something else that was mentioned in articles I’ve read: this case was heard in a courthouse that’s pretty much in Apple’s backyard. Thus, it’s an open question whether Samsung really got a fair trial or not. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/13 "2012-08-27T16:18:09Z")
> [@Grendel\_s\_Father](#): > > Is science fiction eligible as prior art? I thought it had to be a working product patent or prototype. Are flip-phone patents invalid because similar devices were imagined for Star Trek? > > Anyway, this point seems to be moot because the jury denied Apple’s claim against Samsung for all tablet patents, only upholding iPhone and iOS related patents. Apple was claiming infringement of design elements – rounded corners, arrangement of icons and so on – even though they’re just variations of designs that have been done before. As [this Forbes editorial](http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2012/08/26/why-the-apple-vs-samsung-verdict-is-a-big-mistake/) points out, design is not invention, especially when it’s something as common and obvious as rounded corners. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/14 "2012-08-27T16:55:01Z")
> [@ekedolphin](#): > > But assuming that the verdict is ultimately upheld, what would it mean for _existing_ users of Samsung products using the Droid operating system? ? Nitpick: The operating system is _Android_. “Droid” is a particular brand of Motorola phone hardware and has nothing to do with Samsung. ---
**Author:** ![lil\_jimmy\_norton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f6c823/32.png) [@lil\_jimmy\_norton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lil_jimmy_norton)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/15 "2012-08-27T17:09:14Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Nitpick: The operating system is _Android_. “Droid” is a particular brand of Motorola phone hardware and has nothing to do with Samsung. While the operating system is _Android_, “Droid” is not specific to Motorola, it is specific to Verizon, and Samsung does actually make a “Droid” branded phone. > **[Mobile | TV | Home Electronics | Home Appliances | Samsung US](https://www.samsung.com/us/common/notfound.html)** > > Discover the latest in electronic & smart appliance technology with Samsung. Find the next big thing from smartphones & tablets to laptops & tvs & more. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/16 "2012-08-27T17:38:49Z")
> [@lil\_jimmy\_norton](#): > > While the operating system is _Android_, “Droid” is not specific to Motorola, it is specific to Verizon, and Samsung does actually make a “Droid” branded phone. > > [http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SCH-I510RAAVZW](http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SCH-I510RAAVZW) I did not know that. Thanks for the correction. ---
**Author:** ![ekedolphin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ekedolphin/32/10003_2.png) [@ekedolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekedolphin)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/17 "2012-08-27T22:12:56Z")
Respectfully, I still don’t believe the original question has been answered. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-samsung-apple-verdict-what-does-it-mean-for-existing-droid-users/632617/18 "2012-08-27T22:20:26Z")
1. It will absolutely not effect current phones. Assuming this verdict is upheld 100% what would normally happen is an injunction will be placed against Samsung barring them from releasing similar phones, they will pay the financial judgment levied against them and possibly down the road they’d work out a licensing agreement with Apple that would allow them to release new phones of a similar design. Generally these cases try to result in stopping future infringement and compensate the infringed party, but generally there are no consequences for people who already purchased the infringing product. 1. Android OS was not really a prominent part of the case. Most analysts I’ve been reading on sites like Bloomberg, [WSJ.com](http://WSJ.com) and etc say that while this could push some manufacturers to try and make more Windows Phones and market them heavier (since Microsoft essentially is an 800 pound patent gorilla Apple wouldn’t dare litigate against in the mobile space) nothing in this judgment is going to have any immediate impact on any other Android handset manufacturer.