The first shockwaves of Apple's momentous US patent win against Samsung have started to ripple out, with the Korean Android manufacturer's share price dipping seven percent in the first day's trading since Friday's verdict.
The aftermath of the verdict, which awarded Apple $1.05bn (£665m) in damages for Samsung's infringements of iPhone design characteristics and patents, has also seen a series of memos and statements issued by the companies involved in the case — with all parties predictably standing their ground.
Additionally, there are questions over the speed at which the jury wrapped up its findings. The jurors had to reduce the damages by around $2.5m almost immediately after issuing that verdict, due to some flawed adding-up, and some observers have seized on post-verdict quotes from jurors as evidence that the whole thing was rushed.
Indeed, the jurors took just three days to decide a case that featured 700 questions. According to the foreman, they did so without reading the instructions they were given by the court.
As expected, Samsung will appeal the verdict. Late on Sunday, the manufacturer also reportedly asked judge Lucy Koh to lift a preliminary ban she had already granted Apple on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, as the jury had not found Samsung's Android tablets to be infringing.
Samsung's share price fell by seven percent in Seoul on Monday. According to the BBC, analysts fear the effect a sales ban might have on the company.
Apple has requested that the US courts ban the Samsung devices named in the suit, but these are no longer in the Korean firm's current smartphone lineup. The worry seems to be that Apple will try to drag flagship handsets such as the Galaxy S3 into the argument.
Apple will formally try to have those devices banned at a 20 September court hearing.
Apple said "the mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew", and argued that the case was about "values", as well as money and patents.
"At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behaviour wilful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right," the company said.
Samsung, meanwhile, said the verdict was "a loss for the American consumer".
"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," the firm said, while also noting that some other courts around the world had rejected similar infringement claims from Apple.
Google, the driving force behind Android, also weighed in, saying most of the patents asserted in the case did not "relate to the core Android operating system".
"Several [of the patents] are being re-examined by the US Patent Office," Google said. "The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don't want anything to limit that."
Several observers, including Pamela Jones over at Groklaw, have seized on the speed at which the jurors reached their decision, as well as certain inconsistencies in interviews subsequently given by jurors.
If the jury did rush its verdict, that would be a factor in Samsung's favour when it comes to the appeal.
One juror, Manuel Ilagan, told CNET News.com that "once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same".
However, jury foreman Velvin Hogan — himself a patent-holder and by all accounts something of a mentor to his fellow jurors on the subject — told Reuters that jurors evaluated each device separately.
Hogan also said: "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist… We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
Jones noted that the 109-page instructions, which Hogan said the jury had decided not to read, specifically stated that "the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer".