Samsung smartphones/tablets ruled in violation of Apple patents (images)

Samsung smartphones/tablets ruled in violation of Apple patents (images)

Summary: Tim Cook's first year anniversary as Apple CEO was rewarded with a $1 billion jury verdict in his company's patent trial with Samsung. Here are the Samsung devices in question.


 |  Image 21 of 25

  • Thumbnail 1
  • Thumbnail 2
  • Thumbnail 3
  • Thumbnail 4
  • Thumbnail 5
  • Thumbnail 6
  • Thumbnail 7
  • Thumbnail 8
  • Thumbnail 9
  • Thumbnail 10
  • Thumbnail 11
  • Thumbnail 12
  • Thumbnail 13
  • Thumbnail 14
  • Thumbnail 15
  • Thumbnail 16
  • Thumbnail 17
  • Thumbnail 18
  • Thumbnail 19
  • Thumbnail 20
  • Thumbnail 21
  • Thumbnail 22
  • Thumbnail 23
  • Thumbnail 24
  • Thumbnail 25
  • Transform

    The Transform from Sprint: The jury ruled 1 patent violation.

    Photo by: Josh Miller/CNET

  • Vibrant - T-Mobile

     Vibrant from T-Mobile: The jury ruled 5 patent violations.

    Photo by: Sarah Tew/CNET

  • Infuse 4G from AT&T

    Infuse 4G: The jury ruled 5 patent violations.

    Photo by: Josh P. Miller/CNET

Topics: Apple, Patents, Samsung, Smartphones, Tablets

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Related Stories


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Serious problem??

    Seems like most of these are US models and not really in use in Asia (correct me if I am wrong) where the bigger market shares resides. No doubt Samsung will emerge with more competitive and value added products in the very near future.
    • This case only applies to the US and its laws

      Other countries patent laws may be different. The UK for example ruled in Samsungs favor in a similar lawsuit.
    • Tech cases in USA

      Brings back memories!
      Remember MSN versus Apple the windows case ANYWHERE ELSE Apple would have won. MSN did copy APPLE windows system and Apple were not the first with windows either.
      THE FIRST WINDOWS WAS Xerox. but I think they were not aware of what they had!
      Brian Bevan
      • Microsoft didnt copy

        Apple just tried to sue Microsoft for something they had stolen. Just like Apple sued Samsung for something they "took" from Sony; the design. Even though the Samsung devices are not like Apple devices they still ruled in their favor. No company will have a fair trial against patent troll Apple in this corrupt nation.
        • Why do you comment on matters you know nothing about?!?

          Apple sued MS for items they developed themselves. MS stole them, blatantly. That was never the issue. If you knew anything about the trial, it would be clear to you that the case in question was not decided on that basis, but rather on the basis that Apple licensed UI features to MS to be used in MS Office for Mac. Apple sued when MS then went on to try to use that license to develop a complete OS based on the ideas, which Apple (rightly) felt was not part of the original licensing agreement.

          More to the point, Apple did not steal ANYTHING from Sony here. The mockup in question was made in house BY APPLE, to show what they thought a Sony-esque design might look like.

          P.S., as has been asked repeatedly would you PLEASE look up the word patent troll, since you CLEARY don't know what the word means.
          • both Apple and Microsoft copied the Xerox star

            The Apple Lisa team saw it in 1981, and changed their product to match it. Bill gates bought one.
            Xerox couldn't patent it because of antitrust limitations.

            Xerox alto and Xerox star:

            Both Apple and Microsoft hired people from the Xerox Star project.
            Apple did not invent this interface.
          • And again, I was an Alto user

            So I know first hand that you are wrong. A significant amount of the UI in the first MacOS was developed in house. As I have asked repeatedly, please give a run down of how users entered commands into the UI of the Alto and contrast it with the method in the Mac. Then get back to me about Apple stealing from XEROX.

            And seeing that the Star came well after the Alto, what is your point regarding MS FINALLY getting around to hiring a few staffers? The real question is: how much did MS pay XEROX? What? $0?. How about Apple? Last I checked, paying $150 million counts as NOT STEALING.
          • Are you talking about the original sue in 1988 or the later appeal claims?

            Concerning your statement, "If you knew anything about the trial, it would be clear to you that the case in question was not decided on that basis, but rather on the basis that Apple licensed UI features to MS to be used in MS Office for Mac. Apple sued when MS then went on to try to use that license to develop a complete OS based on the ideas, which Apple (rightly) felt was not part of the original licensing agreement."

            The original sue was about features in Windows 2.0 and Windows 3.0 including overlapping windows, not about Office features used in an OS. Apple did not license anything for MS Office to be developed for Mac at the time.
          • Jeeze, not only is this information freely available online...

            ... but I already wrote it above.

            Yes, the suit was over Windows. However, the court found that MS was not in violation of the law because Apple had previously licensed the UI and featured to MS to be used in the creation of Office. The court found that this license extended to Windows.
        • The iHate is strong with this one

          As there are several things wrong with your post. Apple did not steal from Xerox but licensed the UI and mouse tech in exchange for stock options. Microsoft stole Apple's contribution to the GUI and incorporated it into Windows 3.1. Apple did not "steal" from Sony - the so-called evidence you keep referring to is an internal Apple document that was an internal designer's prediction so to what Sony would do IF Sony made a smartphone. Samsung was found to have violated Apple's IP.
      • You even acknowledge you are wrong - but blithely ignore it

        How can MS have copied Apple if they both copied Xerox?

        Xerox were aware, but they assumed (wrongly) that such a software construct wasn't something they could profit from.
        • The same goes for you

          As an actual user of the XEROX system, the Alto, make no mistake about it, most of the UI in the first McOS was developed by Apple.
          More importantly, unlike Bill Gates and MS, Apple paid Xerox 150M to access their work, and subsequently hired many of their engineers to work on the Lisa and Mac.
          MS gave XEROX nothing, and stole code (complete with comments with references to Apple staff) directly from Apple.
          • made up nonsense again

            the xerox star OS:

            look familiar? Yes Apple stole it.
            When Apple launched the court case against Microsoft for Windows 2.0, Xerox sued figuring that if anyone was going to make money out of the GUI, it would be them.
            In the end Apple's case was thrown out because of the 189 Apple "inventions" like overlapping windows (see Xerox desktop - no Apple didn't invent Overlapping windows - they stole it), 178 were already licensed to microsoft for Windows 1.0.

            Microsoft ended up employing many of the people from Xerox Alto/Star projects.
            "stole code" - yeah right. That would have been clear copyright infringement. but guess what - it didn't happen. If there was code there, it was licensed.
          • Do you even do ten seconds of research before you post your nonsense?!?

            Nonsense? How about facts:
            1) XEROX Star: introduced 1981. Apple Lisa: work began in 1978. Who stole what?
            stevey_d FAIL
            2) You might want to look at that court case again, as that had nothing to do with why the case was thrown out. In fact, Apple's claims were found to be valid, but the court also found that Apple's licensing agreement with MS, giving them the right to use those features in Office, extended to OS development. Your statement that they were licensed to MS for Windows 1.0 is categorically false. They were licensed to MS for what became Office Mac.
            stevey_d FAIL
            3) As for stolen code, this is common knowledge. Even MS admitted it, and had to rewrite huge sections of Video for Windows. They had even left in code comments that referred to specific Apple employees, kept variable names unchanged, and parameter passing unaltered.
            None of this is even remotely debatable (which is why MS admitted it).
            stevey_d FAIL.
          • Indeed

            MS stole DOS from IBM as well and didn't even have the decency to rename it or change much of the code.
          • Actually, MS bought it (originally QDOS) from a small Seattle based company

        • Some clearly are too stupid to know their history

          Thanks for the great post dimonic, anyone disagreeing with you is clearly not very bright. If you compare Apple OSs before PARC and after PARC, the difference is painfully obvious. That Apple changed a couple pixels is as irrelevant as Samsung changing the aspect ratio. Apple clearly copied PARC and clearly overstepped their bounds which explains why Xerox sued Apple. Xerox was extremely mad at Apple for their backstabbing ways. Ever since then, no one has trusted Apple.

          As for MS copying Xerox, Xerox never sued MS so clearly Xerox themselves did not believe MS stole anything. While Apple did sue MS, Apple lost BIG TIME. They lost the whole case. MS was proven innocent. MS did nothing wrong, as was proven in a court of law. Anyone claiming that MS did anything wrong are clearly unable to read court transcripts.

          Oh, I just read deus's post. Wow, that guy is horribly uninformed.
          • uninformed?

            First, if you are claiming I am wrong, the word would be "misinformed" not "uninformed". English much?
            Second, I am neither. In fact, as I have repeatedly said, I am well-qualified to post on this matter as I am one of the few people to have EVER used the XEROX system in question and did so on a regular basis. I had my own drive partition on a XEROX Alto housed on the third floor, Wean Hall, Carnegie Mellon University. What is your claim to experience with the platform, pray tell?
            Third, I never said MacOS was not influenced by the Alto. Of course it was. The PAID XEROX 150M and hired key engineers to design the system. Duh. That said, however, the final UI was miles away.
            ow listen, I know your modus operandi is to be a coward, and run away every time you are called on to present citations or other evidence, or answer pointed questions that would show how little you know about the subject matter, but how about you man up.
            Please describe for me the UI on the Alto and the method of entering in commands to the OS. Then, as extra credit, contrast to the Apple Finder.
            As for your explanation for the XEROX suit, back to Wikipedia for you. XEROX made NO attempt to sue Apple until Apple sued MS. At that point the new XEROX executives thought they smelled a payday. In what was clearly a preemptive strike, they sued Apple on the contingency that Apple would prevail against MS, thus allowing then to go after MS, and potentially even bigger targets, like IBM.
            As to the claim that no one ever trusted Apple after that, how about you provide some documentation? Again, many of the key engineers eventually went to WORK for Apple.
            Now, as to your logic, the fact that XEROX never sued MS has NO logical bearing on whether they felt MS stole anything. In fact, the were the next target down the line if the suit was successful against Apple. It wasn't.
            Nor were MS "proven innocent". Again, back to wikipedia for you. The trial was decided based on the belief that MS's licensing agreement with Apple for Office applied to the OS as well. The judge failed to understand the distinction, as was clear in the court transcripts, which yes, I have read. Unable to read court transcripts? Look in a mirror buddy, as I doubt you even tried.
            And, in fact, there were two cases involved here. One was over the OS, the other was over QT. MS most certainly did NOT win that one, and in fact were caught red-handed stealing code.

            But again, let's hear your description of the Alto Executive, and how it is clear Apple stole this from XEROX.
          • straw man

            Apple stole the Xerox STAR interface, not Xerox Alto. the fact that you used Alto is irrelevant.

            Microsoft has not been the cleanest corporation in the world by any stretch of the imagination, but..

            Microsoft did not steal Apple code.
            It was alleged (but not proven) that the San Francisco Canyon Company used some code from when Apple contracted them to port Quicktime to windows in writing a video driver for intel that Microsoft subsequently used.
            Almost immediately they rewrote the driver without any code from San Francisco Canyon Company.
            how did it end? Apple putting IE on the mac.
          • Do you even know what a straw man is?!?

            Clearly you do not. A straw man is when you misstate another's argument and then proceed to disprove the misstated argument using the misstatements as an attack vector. That did not happen here.
            As pointed out above, the Star came out in the early 80s. The Lisa dev team started work in the late 70s, and had the interface developed in 79-80. The Apple team went to XEROX in 1979, and ONLY saw the Alto (not surprising, as the Star did not even exist then). At NO point did Apple ever see the Star prior to its release. And they only got ONE brief demo of the Alto. They NEVER saw the Star. The other demo was for SmallTalk.
            You simply do not know what you are talking about.
            As for QT, it most certainly WAS proven. In fact, that was the basis for the $150M in non-voting stock that MS agreed to buy from Apple as part of a settlement instigated by Jobs to put the matter behind them. MS admitted the theft. They also admitted to knowing about it PRIOR to deployment of code contracted from SFCC. It had NOTHING to do with a video driver. That does not even make sense! What possible code from QT would be used in a hardware driver?!?
            The code was use in Video for Windows, the precursor to WMP.
            As to how it ended, it ended with MS promising continued Office dev for 5 years (later extended to 5 more) AND IE on Mac, AND 150M in stock purchases. This only ended this way when Jobs returned to Apple, as he made it clear he wanted to end the suit. Again, MS was caught red-handed, and was let off the hook.
            Check your facts.