 Hey and welcome to a very special edition of the Verge cast. The jury has come back with their verdict in the Apple vs. Samsung case and we're here to discuss it live. And it's actually still unfolding. I'm Josh Topolsky, of course, and with me now is David Pierce in the studio. And there he is right there. And we have Matt McCary on the phone. One of our legal experts, sorry, on Skype. There you are. And also Ross Miller, our senior editor, who is currently in Georgia right now. That's not a picture. That's actually live video of Ross right now. He's covering this live from Georgia. We wanted to get the Southern, what's the Southern take on this? And until we have it. Sweet tea. Anyhow, Nilay Patel will be joining us in a little bit. He's actually still covering this as it happens. So let me just give you the, if you guys don't know and I don't know how you possibly found this broadcast and are listening to it, if you don't know what's going on. But the jury came back today to deliver their verdict in the Apple versus Samsung case. They deliberated for just about 22 hours, which is a very short amount of time. I think the general perception here is it's a very short amount of time for this jury to deliberate. They came back after about 22 hours of deliberation, said that they had a verdict, and they found predominantly in favor of Apple in this case. There are a couple of, I think as of right now, there are a couple of issues with the verdict form. And so we're going to hear a little bit more on that. Samsung has issued a statement, which I'll read in a minute. But right now I want to get Matt, who is intimately familiar with these, with what this verdict means and sort of can break it down for us. Matt, can you tell everybody, can you tell me what does this mean? What actually happened here? Where did they find for Apple? Where did they not find for Apple? And what ultimately is the breakdown? And I just want to add one more thing is that the jury has awarded damages to Apple right now of $1,051,000,000 in change, which is short of the 2.0, I believe it was 2.25 billion that could have been, maximum amount of damages that could have been awarded. So Matt, can you tell us what is the verdict, break down the verdict for us? What did we see about an hour ago? What does it really mean? Hold on, we don't have audio on Matt. Matt, hang on one second. We don't have audio. It was my fault, sorry. There we go. Stop muting yourself. Okay. So what does it mean? Break it down. What actually came in today? Well, what it wasn't, it wasn't a clear, you know, they didn't take every checkbox and mark yes or no for Apple. Obviously, they checked a lot of yes boxes, but they went through and on the software patents, they pretty much gave them a straightforward win. We're talking about Bounceback, Tap to Zoom patents of Apple's and then on the design patents, it was kind of a mixed bag, but it was obviously, you know, 90% Apple, but there were a few, you know, cases where they actually did their job and looked at the phones and said, this, you know, this doesn't copy the design patents or I think also on the trade dress side for certain models, which I think probably should never have been included under, some of the S2 models don't really match up very nicely with the design patents. So what were the places where Apple actually didn't get what it wanted? I mean, can you be more specific about those spots? Yeah, there's quite a few of them. They're kind of broken up and for instance, on the software patents, on a 381 Bounceback patent, they had every device infringed. Now, again, these are the devices that came out before they did their design around for the Bounceback. On the Tap to Zoom, I believe it was the Ace, Intercept and Replenish were the only ones that were found not to infringe. Does that seem odd to you? Those devices were singled out amongst others? I wasn't aware that there was really any difference when it came to the software. I could see this happening on the design side because there were some changes in the design. It was a little, perhaps, yeah, I don't know. I mean, I don't know why if you're talking about the same touch with. It's the same OS, right? Yeah, the same touch with. This is odd to me. I mean, does this make you feel like this jury didn't fully understand some of what they were looking at? Because to me, if you're looking at the software and you see the, you know, the Bounceback infringement happening on the Galaxy S2 and it's running the same software as, and by the way, maybe I don't know for certain that this is the case, but my impression was it was a, is this a particular version of TouchWiz that they are saying is on all these devices? I don't know the actual version that was running on each of the devices they'd seen, but if it didn't have the fix, basically, the workaround, wouldn't they have had to find that for all of those devices? Doesn't that seem, I mean, the software is the same, right? Yeah, and this is the part during the trial that was pretty wonky, is that, you know, they really didn't have enough time to go through all these particular devices. So a lot of this analysis, the jurors did in the deliberation room, and I'm not sure why the Ace and Interceptor Replenished wouldn't have the same exact software features as the rest of the devices. I mean, I can tell you on the design side why there were some, you know, some no votes on infringement. Feel free, please do. So if you go through those, you can see that they, I'm pulling it up because it was hard to track during the actual reading of the verdict. Well, I'll tell you what, why don't you take a look, I know there's a bunch of stuff that you're just getting up to speed on because this just came through. We'll get back to this. I want to read the statement that Samsung issued over this, if I can just find it in my notes here. They issued this statement. This is from Samsung. Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as 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. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case, or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple's claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer. So let me get the opinion of everybody here, David and Ross, feel free to chime in. Is Apple appealing this? And Matt, obviously, your opinion is very valuable here. Does Apple come back? Sorry, not Apple. Is Samsung appealing this? Are they going to come back and say, we're sticking around, we're not budgeting? Well, I mean, my question to you is, why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they not appeal this? I mean, it's clearly a loss in almost every sense for them. Yeah. Well, I mean, they could say, hey, you know what? We got beat. We're going to keep doing what we're doing. We've already worked around most of this stuff. We don't need to keep staying in litigation. That costs money, and it takes time. Actually, that's a question I want to ask Matt, not to derail too much. Matt, in your sense, do any of Samsung's newer products fall at risk now? Is the S3 at risk for many of these decisions today? Well, the S3 is in a different case. So it's actually different patents asserted. But just taking it kind of looking at what they got infringement on, Apple, I mean, Samsung's statements are a little crazy because for the most part, we're talking about damages here for past wrongs. You're not talking about injunctions for a lot of these features because their designs are different. So you don't really have a product that's going to be a problem for the design patents. And for the software patents, at least the bounce back, we know they have a design around. And I'm sure it's not even an issue anymore with regard to infringement of that software patent. So a tap to zoom is still alive. And tap to zoom, as far as I know, is still fully functional inside of TouchWiz and Android in general. And in these findings, I mean, they found for Apple in the tap to zoom piece, correct? Yeah, that was the 915 patent. So, yeah, right. So does that set a precedent now? I mean, does that mean that anywhere tap to zoom exists, Apple can safely go after it and win? I mean, if the precedent is set with this, does that mean that all they need to do is say to a jury, look, the courts have already found for us. I mean, can they go to HCC? Can they go to any other manufacturer and just roll out the same argument? Well, not really. I mean, it's obvious it's great leverage for Apple going into a courtroom, but they still have to align this new claim against a new device, whether it's HTC or LG or anybody or Motorola. So there are, sorry, not to interrupt, there's a statement from Apple here that apparently they gave to, I don't know if they've given to a number of, this is in the Times. The amount of evidence presented during the trial show that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew, said Apple spokeswoman Katie Cotton. We should make these products, we make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story, and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence, oh, sorry, sorry, that's the first part of it, then the mountain of evidence. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were much more about patents than money. They were about values. 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 behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right. So that's Apple. Not surprising that they are pleased with the verdict and they see this as a kind of a, you know, this kind of proves their theory that they've been ripped off. And, you know, I will say the trade dress claims and we talked about this on the Vergecast, I think this weekend, the week before, and Matt, I'm sure you guys have discussed this at length. I think the trade dress claims were clear, particularly in the case of the phone OS. I mean, there was some really flagrant stuff there, and it did seem like Samsung went into it saying Apple's doing X, Y, and Z. How do we copy that for our product? Well, and the evidence to that effect was brutal. There was so much of, you know, slides of the iPhone side by side with the Samsung phone. Yeah, the document. Here's what they did right and here's what they did wrong. Where they have a 141 page document that's kind of like, hey, they just did this page after page trying to figure out how to copy. Feature by feature. The patent stuff seems, I don't know, I guess the patent stuff seems more surprising to me, and it seems especially surprising given the fact that it was left out of certain products that would have, you know, presumably had the same feature. I mean, I guess what I'm more, I'm not concerned with the idea that Apple, that they found in favor of Apple. What I'm concerned with is that this jury didn't know exactly what they were looking at. Does that seem? Well, that's where the 21 hours of deliberation thing becomes something I'm worried about. Like Matt, do you think it's feasible to say that in 21 hours and 37 minutes or whatever it was, they actually did their true due diligence on every single device to find every single thing? Because it's like you said, Josh, these phones presumably have the same OS with the same touch wiz, and yet they're finding, you know, the bounce back scrolling on one and not the other. Right. That seems really off to me. Yeah, I don't understand it. I think they, yeah, I think, here's what I think. I think they did about half their job. I think they went into it, and I think they took their time initially probably and got through a lot of those charts. And I think they, there might be something we're missing with regard to whether or not the bounce back is exactly the same in all the devices. I don't know. But how can they bring a, I know they're going against the specific devices, but how can they bring a case about this patent if the versions of software are different across devices? I mean, I understand that there's a certain, I mean, you know, there's a certain implementation of that. I mean, can they just say, well, it's a broad sweep of, you know, four different versions of your software do it? Is that what this was? Or was it more about a specific version? I mean, obviously these might have different versions of the software loaded up. I have to assume that they do. So they're cutting it off. I mean, they're not including ICS in the claims. I mean, and I don't think that, I think, and I can't remember what the number was, but they might have kept it like 2.2. Or I don't know if you guys know when they, some of these design arounds came about, but it's only been a few months. But the design around didn't come, but the bounce effect, was it even in Android originally? I don't recall. I mean, maybe they took it out, maybe they took it out of 2. I think 2.3 was where they introduced the little bright pop at the end of the list. So 2.3, if it was in stock Android, then yeah, I don't really recall at this point. But if they're only looking at devices that are within, you know, up to 2.2, then I can understand if those devices were on 2.3. And I think we need to find that out. And I'll have Michael do a little research on that. You want to do a little research and find out if the devices they didn't find for the bounce back patent, if those were gingerbread, if they were 2.3 or not? Okay. Okay. So we'll look into that. But it's interesting. I mean, I mean, they took their time. I mean, on the first part. Now, I think it's pretty clear now, we're starting to see some mistakes that they made towards the end of the verdict form. I guess there's a couple more that just came up since we went on, dealing with patent exhaustion, whether or not they should have ruled the way they did there based on a previous answer. What does that mean? Can you explain that a little bit? Patent exhaustion is when you, Apple's argument was that Samsung sold these broadband chips to and licensed them to Intel, who then sold them to Apple. So therefore, Apple gets a license indirectly through Intel. Therefore, you can't come after Apple for infringement. So you can't double dip. If you're Samsung, you already got your money, your license fees out of those patents by licensing and selling a product or allowing Intel to create a product that Apple then used in its devices. And apparently, there's some inconsistency now that the jury's going to have to go look at. And all this is at the end. Is it that they didn't understand the difference? I mean, I think they got through. I mean, it's pretty clear that there was no intention going into this to really reward Samsung in any way. Right. Well, no, Samsung is zero dollars rewarded to them, right? Yeah, they got, I mean, I think there's probably arguments that they didn't even find them to infringe the Fran patents. I think that's right. Yeah, I think that's right. That's crazy. I mean, it's a 3G standards. It's a little weird that they would infringe a patent that they, in theory, have to implement. Well, see, so to me, this kind of reinforces my feeling that like, I think it's, and Neelay said this a bunch, and we talked about this, but it seems a little crazy to put nine regular people in a room and say, decide something. And it's not just, you know, it's not just like somebody broke into my house and stole something, and I want to get my money for the thing they stole, or I want to get that thing back. This is like a couple of these questions are, you're going to set a precedent for what this means. Like, can you, like when a future trial happens, right, they're going to look at that, the Fran stuff, and someone's going to say, well, look, there's a precedent for this. In this trial, they didn't find for the Fran, for Samsung and the Fran stuff. And so, so the question is like, well, I mean, I mean, the debate, I think, is, is like, is this the best way to decide? Extremely complex, extremely technical. I mean, I don't think, I don't think a team of Verge editors could have done a much better job with this, and this is something that we do for a living. I mean, this is really highly technical stuff, and you've got to have a real understanding of what this means, both from a legal standpoint, what it means legally and what it means technically. And so I don't, I don't fully, I don't fully, I worry that like, this is not who I want deciding what will dictate, you know, some points of innovation in this, in this industry. I do think that Samsung had something coming to them in terms of this verdict, you know. I do think that, that there were clear, there was clear infringement. I just worry that this, that putting nine random folks in a room and saying, decide if, you know, if this patent is valid or if they've infringed on very technical aspects of a product is quite difficult for them. Do we have, do we have Nilay? What is the, is he ready to go? Yeah, he's ready. Okay, Nilay is here. Just get ready. Things are about to get crazy. Nilay Patel is presumably on the air with us now. I believe Nilay has already written something like 10 million words on this trial. Has Ross, has Ross dropped? Do we lose Ross? Okay, it's Nilay now. So we've got Nilay and Matt, who along with Brian Bishop, who is, who was in the courtroom tonight and has been there throughout this trial and will continue to report on it from the scene. Am I here? Can you guys hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Can Nilay not hear us? No, I can hear you. I didn't know if you could see me. We can see you. You look like, you look like you just witnessed the verdict. I look like hell. You look like you just witnessed the verdict being turned in for this trial. So dude, go ahead. What do you make of it? So here's what I think. Just having listened to it and as it was coming out. The jury basically, I think what they did was they decided that Samsung had copied Apple. They decided that Apple was right. And then they went through and said, this is a patent on bounce back scrolling. Let's look at all the Samsung devices in the box and see which ones have it. Okay, these, most of them do. So those all infringe. This is a patent on tap to zoom, which ones have it? And they did all that hard work of saying everything here is valid. Let's see which Samsung devices actually infringe. But Apple is mostly right. And then they went and said the only thing that Apple lost, the only kind of major piece here that Apple lost was on the iPad design stuff. The jury said the Samsung tablets, the Tab 10.1, the older one that looked pretty much exactly like the iPad. They said this one doesn't infringe the iPad. People aren't confused about it in the marketplace. It doesn't violate Apple's patents. That's the only place where Apple really lost is protecting the look of the iPad. And that's crazy, which is the only one where they had an injunction going into it. Which is odd. This is the thing that strikes me as so bizarre is that the one place where you could have really, I think, given a good argument, you know, like you said, there was an injunction. There was a pretty good argument like, yeah, they did kind of rip this off and they didn't find there, which is like, where does that, where was the thing that they didn't find? I don't understand. So, like, here's what I'm saying. Like, I think the jury decided that Apple was right. I think Apple won. Like, ultimately Apple's case was we spent all this time and money creating these revolutionary products and Samsung didn't spend the time and money. They didn't take any risk and they just make products like ours. And we've been saying all along, it's a good story. And I think the jury bought it and they did a little bit of the work to figure out exactly what devices. You know, they didn't say the droid charge looked like the iPhone design patents. You know, they understood that. They definitely got that. Yeah. But then they got to Samsung's case and it was clear at that point, I think they ruled against every single element of Samsung's case. Like down the line, they said none of Samsung's patents are infringed. Even the patents that are part of the 3G standard, which is like, dude, like the phones connect to the network. You know, the patents are part of like, there's probably infringement. Let me be clear. You don't have to be technical about it. It's like an A to B relationship. I want to be clear. You would say in your estimation, and Matt, I'd like to hear from you, they got that wrong. Like Samsung was infringed upon for those patents. Is that what you're saying? I mean, I'm saying unless you're an electrical engineer or like a cellular data engineer, there's no way for you to know. I don't know, but I do know that Samsung says that the patents are part of the standard. The devices clearly make use of the standard. Intel, which puts the chips in the devices, has a license to the patents. Like the logical explanation. I think there's a lot of emotion here. I mean, I think they were like, you're right about the story. And I think they said, look, Samsung's the bad guy here. They screwed up. We're not going to give them something. I think they kind of threw them a bone almost with the Galaxy Tab infringement, right? Or with the Galaxy Tab stuff saying like, yeah, you know what, it doesn't really look that, or the charge. But those are easy. I think those are just like, okay, Samsung's not going to get hit with every single thing. But it did seem like with the standard stuff, they were just saying, you know what? Samsung didn't win any. And they didn't do the hard work. Samsung did win one where they said the patents, it doesn't infringe the standards patents. And so Samsung doesn't violate Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. And you can like, that's the sort of question where they're like, look, we already decided most of the case. We decided Apple won. We gave them a billion dollars. No, who cares? No, they didn't violate it. I don't even know what that means. No. And you get that feeling towards the end of Samsung's case where it's very technical, very dry, very did they use the doctrine of patent exhaustion? They're like, no, screw it. And Samsung's lawyers are in court now saying, well, they can't say our patent, Apple has a valid defense of patent exhaustion because they said they didn't infringe the patents. So like there's, you know, like there's this wonky stuff that the jury just didn't do correctly because I think they already decided that Apple won. And I don't think there's any way to interpret this. You know, I've been saying and, you know, there's a lot of shades of gray between Apple winning and Apple losing. Like 50 at least. At least 50. Easily 50. There's a lot of sexy shades of gray in this case. But this one is very much closer to Apple. I mean, I think it's a definitive victory for Apple. They didn't win everything. I think the iPad, I think Samsung's story, you can't patent a rectangle. I think that came through with the iPad. I think they said, look, the Galaxy Tab doesn't look like the iPad. Unless it's a rectangular icon. Yeah, well, you know, they upheld the grid of patent. Oh, that is patented. Right. Okay. Yeah, they upheld it. They said that a lot of the devices infringe. You know, to me, I think the jury made a decision that Apple won. And then they went through exactly what winning meant. And then they decided that Samsung lost. And it was easy for them to go through what losing meant because they just had to hit no a bunch of times. All right. So here's a question. This is for everyone. David, Matt, Neil. I'd actually really, Matt, I mean, do you agree? I mean, Matt, I've been talking with this. I'm curious if he agrees with my take on this. Yeah, I do. I think when I was looking at it and I saw these periodic no's and non-infringements and, you know, when they did throw them the bone, I felt like when you're taking, like you cheat on an exam and, you know, I got to miss a couple and I got to throw a couple in there so it's not obvious. That's what it felt like to me. I really felt like they were going into it knowing exactly where they wanted to come out. You're saying they gave it a little realism by saying that the Tab didn't. Yeah, it can't be 100% for Apple. Then they just look like schmucks. Right. So, obviously, Apple's pleased. I mean, this is a huge win for them. What I want to know is I have two big questions and I think everybody, this is the question that tomorrow and Monday and for the rest of our lives until the Earth is destroyed in December of 2012. I think everybody's going to be asking, there's two things. One, what does this mean now? You know, what happens now, like in terms of what Apple does next? You know, what is the next, like in this war between Android and iOS, which is really what it is, what's the next immediate move for Apple or for Samsung or for anybody who's making an Android device? You know, like what are the repercussions of this? And then the next question is, and we'll take that one and then we'll go to the next one. The next one I want to know is what does this mean for, how will this affect, how will this case affect the way people come at designing and innovating in technology and particularly in the mobile space? I'm just wondering if you have a sense of that. But like I'd like to talk about the first one. Like what does this mean now? Does Apple just go, is this license to go completely crazy? Were they already going crazy in the sense of like they can just sue anybody they want and win? Well, who's left to sue? Well, but you know, but they could, well, I don't know. You tell me who's left to sue. No one. ThePurge.com. They're coming after us. Do we have any rounded rectangles on the site? We need to do something about those immediately. Even if they're already suing everybody, doesn't this make their case against everybody else really easy? No, that's what I'm saying. It's like really obvious now. So what are the next steps? Like are there more people to sue and how does this affect the cases that they have and are there more cases to come with companies that they already, you know, I know they've already got some in the works. So I always believed that this case would settle. I always thought that the jury would take forever. You believed wrong, basically. I was wrong. The reason I thought it would settle, and I think one of the most underreported parts of this case has been the lengthy settlement negotiations that have occurred between Apple and Samsung and the slides we have from Apple that are like we would prefer Samsung to take a license. Here are some license rates that you can pay to make your devices that use all of our patents because you're a partner and our friend. And Samsung said no. Right. So now Apple can say to Samsung, look, we can do this again. We can do this in a few months. The Galaxy Nexus, we can do it again with a new Galaxy Tab or you can finally come to the table. We won't make you pay the billion dollars. Is the suggestion that Samsung didn't come to the table? You know, they didn't. They didn't reach a settlement agreement. And, you know, I think part of that was because they both wanted this additional leverage. And as Apple has a lot of leverage, right? They won. But if Samsung didn't come to the table or didn't, you know, go for whatever their terms were, is it possible that whatever they were proposing was far more damaging than what the outcome of this case was? Yeah, I think it was a huge number. I mean, Apple wanted 30 bucks a knife or 30 bucks a Samsung phone. I mean, to me, this is like if Samsung has to eat the billion dollars, which by the way, they can eat. I mean, it's not nice. Nobody wants to like lose a billion. But Samsung's a very large company. Yeah, that's not a crony. Somebody just sent me a tweet that said this case is actually good value for Samsung. They've paid a billion dollars to become the world's number one phone manufacturer from basically nowhere, which is, you know, they were basically no few. It is a good point. I mean, I'm not saying that they are the winner here, but I will say that, you know, if Apple wanted 30 bucks a phone or whatever and what they ultimately have to pay is a billion dollars and they get a, you know, hey, don't steal our stuff anymore. Yeah, kind of made out OK. So they've got to pay the billion dollars is to be very clear. The billion dollars isn't the end, right? The billion dollars is that's what the jury decided that Samsung would have paid to Apple if it had properly licensed everything. It plus whatever Apple's lost sales would have been. Plus, you know, a punishment because Samsung did it on purpose. Right. Yeah. Now that's done. So that's everything in the past. You've been punished. And now in the future, Samsung has to pay another royalty rate. And like Matt is saying, Apple wants absurd royalty rates. Right. They want 30 dollars. Can they dictate those royalty rates? I mean, because they've been I think they have much more. I think they have much more leverage in negotiations. I think, you know, like any negotiation you come out. I'm sorry. Royalty rates on what devices? Yeah. Want to retroactively find. Yeah. So you want to find 30 bucks a device for each. No, no, no, no, not like that. And Matt, correct me if I'm wrong here. But the way this would work is Samsung and Apple pay to settle the outstanding litigation. Right. And then they say in the future, just like Apple's agreement with Microsoft, we're going to sign a cross licensing agreement where Samsung pays Apple some amount of money in the future per device. And then we'll put in it an anti-cloning agreement where you can't make any devices that look just like our devices. And that's the agreement Apple has with Microsoft. It clearly works well. They're not suing each other. They're very friendly. It's working great for Microsoft right now. I mean, they don't have to worry about it. But let's be clear. Even with that in place, I think if Microsoft achieved enough success in this space, they could find something. I think they could find something to have a problem with. I don't believe that like Microsoft is just being left alone because they've got these agreements in place. They're being left alone because they're not a threat. They're not in any way a realistic threat at this point. Sure. They're years away from being a threat. So let's just keep in mind that the history of the mobile industry has not been one of lawsuits. It's been of Apple coming out with the iPhone, everybody else making products that look like the iPhone, and Apple saying, hold on a minute, you've got to pay us, or hold on a minute, you can't do that. And that's what happens after every sort of disruptive innovation. But usually the industry is really good at cross licensing. So for example, Nokia still makes a lot of phones. They're competitive with Apple. They sued Apple for violating its patents. And they settled, and Apple paid Nokia a bunch of money and gave it some of its patents. How much of this is actually driven by this? I mean, what I assume based on Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs, there's clearly somebody, I think Matt Panzarino from the Next Web tweeted the quote right after this verdict came down, which was, I'm going to go thermonuclear. I'm going to destroy Android because it's a stolen product. Which is ridiculous. But I mean, we know intellectually it's ridiculous. But how much of this is driven by what was presumably a mandate when Jobs, before his death at Apple, that we got to go after Android? It's true, but Jobs got it wrong for one big reason, is that this case doesn't implicate every Android phone coming out. I mean, this case in particular deals with 90% of phones that don't exist anymore. You're talking about a lot of things that won't even affect the market. You're not talking about injunctions of a matter, and you're not talking about Android going away. But if they go after HTC, and if they go after Samsung, and they go after every little bit that they think infringes, it's like a war of attrition, isn't it? It's a death by a thousand cuts eventually. But HTC doesn't infringe most of these patents. No, but they've got other claims, no? And this is also where my big question is about trade dress. And I think this is where this comes in a lot, is that you can design around some of the bounce-back scrolling and stuff, but a lot of what seems to have been set here is that Apple's devices look the way they do, and that's significant. They own the way that device looks. But you wouldn't confuse a Galaxy Nexus with an iPhone. No. No, but I wouldn't confuse a Galaxy Ace with an iPhone either. Are you sure, David? Because they look very similar. No, no, no. I think there is a series of Samsung devices that they specifically and unabashedly, I would say, designed to look like an iPhone. Okay, yeah, the Galaxy Ace is a bad example. The Galaxy is the Galaxy. What's the one that was on T-Mobile? The original Galaxy Ace on T-Mobile, was it the Vibrant? Yeah. Was just brazenly ripping off the 3GS design. It had the silver band. The shape was the same. I mean, you put them next to each other with the screen off. I mean, it really looks like, I think there was a period where Samsung was doing that. I think that, I feel like there was a brief period where that happened, and then everybody was like, we got to make something that looks unique. And I think most of the phones are on the market now. I mean, there's no question, Apple definitely revolutionized the market when it said, we're going to do this touchscreen phone. Yeah. But, you know, there has to be a point where you get beyond like, it's a touchscreen. I mean, if they found for the charge, I think that's a kind of a good sign that even this jury was willing to say, all right, look, there's some obvious points here where you haven't, there's not infringement on the design. But, so what I'm saying is, I guess getting back to this point, they're going after HTC for some other stuff. They've got some other Samsung stuff lined up. I mean, who else is there really? Who else? Oh, Motorola. Motorola. Right? Yeah. But keep in mind, I mean, to David's point, the other cases against Samsung don't have any of this trade dress stuff in it. Don't really have any of this design patent stuff in it. The case against HTC, none of the design stuff, no trade dress stuff. Motorola is the same case. But they're going after the things they can go after. So what I'm saying is, if they find, if Apple is found for, you know, in this case, and HTC has to worry and Motorola has to worry. I mean, everybody, and by the way, everybody online right now is saying like, boy, Microsoft really made out nice in this one because everybody's looking at Microsoft going, we've got all this protection. Microsoft has all this protection and all these agreements in place with Apple, as we just discussed. This would be a nice safe haven if I want to make a unique phone and sell it in Verizon store. I don't have to worry about Apple coming after me for infringing on something because I've got the protection of Microsoft. So everybody's saying like, boy, Microsoft made out like a bandit. I mean, isn't the goal here to obliterate Android? Isn't it like, isn't it truly a war of attrition where if you make it hard enough for these manufacturers, and by the way, it's a business strategy. I'm not arguing against it. I'm just saying that it does seem like they could make it hard enough and worrisome enough that they drive these guys to somebody like Microsoft, who in this case, by the way, is like, how great is it if you break up what Google is doing in the market and then drive people to your, and then drive people to your, your, you know, fourth place competitor? Yeah, but Apple, you know, you'd be in a position they're in right now. Hold on for one second. I mean, you know, one of Steve Jobs earlier quotes that is, I think, probably more important than we're going to go thermonuclear war on Android is when he said for Apple to win, Microsoft doesn't have to lose. And they, I mean, these two companies, they work more closely together than I think we ever give them credit for. He didn't say that about Google though, did he? He hasn't said that about, well, he didn't say that. He never said that about Google is my point. But I, you know, but Apple is not run by the ghost of Steve Jobs or some misplaced loyalty to his anger. No, no, no, I'm not suggesting that. No, but there are obvious business concerns here. But what I'm saying is simply that as a business strategy, it would make sense to chip away at your biggest competitor. Yeah. Which would drive, which would drive those. I've heard for a long time that Apple and Google talk about blanket licenses for Android, about settling all this stuff, about getting back to business. And they, they're big companies. They're both in the valley. I think they talk a lot. And, you know, again, like I just wrote this, what does it mean post? And the last line is, well, if this is the chip that Apple needed, it's up. If this is the chip that Apple needed to get Google to sit down and pay the money, then maybe it's time. You know, maybe it's time for Google to just suck it up and say, look, we built this thing. We built Android. We built it really fast. We didn't, you know, we basically created it out of nothing. Obviously, you know, it has a lot of patent issues because it's built on Linux and Microsoft has always said Linux has patent issues. All of our OEMs are paying Microsoft. Maybe it's time that we have them pay Apple or maybe we pay Apple and we can all go back to building shit. If that's the outcome, that would be a great outcome. That would have made all of this worth it. If the outcome is Apple's on the warpath and they're suing everybody and Google keeps insisting that Android is safe and the OEMs keep insisting they didn't copy anything. You know, I don't think that accomplishes anything. And I think the other important thing to keep in mind is that, you know, for every lawsuit Apple has open, they've got to pay for it as well. And you know, that billions of the bank. I don't think they're worried about that. Look, hundreds of they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this case. They're spending hundreds of million dollars on cases around the world for other things. And, you know, they might have billions in the bank and they might make billions every quarter, but that's still money that they could spend in other places. I don't think anybody likes paying a lawyer. I will say something about this. That's why I work for you now. Yes, that's true. As a man who's paid lawyers, I can tell you it is highly unenjoyable. Can I just interject with one quick procedural note? So we're done. It's over. The jury has been dismissed. It's finished. What did they change? They came back. There were two issues were there were two patent issues that they charged damages for but found no infringement for. And they've dropped the total number of damages down to one point oh four nine billion. They chopped off a little cash. Wow. Two and a half million dollars. I think that's a victory for Samsung. Absolutely. And they also changed from yes to no on both devices saying that they didn't infringe. So that's the jury being lazy again. Right. They're like, well, we don't want to figure it out. Doesn't infringe. We'll rearrange the money and we'll lower. I mean, like, that's not a you can say maybe the mesmerized it infringe or whatever the other device was. The intercept, the intercept, the phone. That was the best thing about this case was the phone names. It's a huge list of shame for Samsung. Yeah. I just don't think like that. You know, Matt and I have been saying for a long time that the huge complexity of Apple's case made this a logistical nightmare for them to convince the jury. And I think that was borne out. And I think it was borne out in both, you know, as an advantage and as a huge disadvantage. And I think the advantage was they made it so complicated for the jury to say Apple won that they just said that they won. Right. They're like, screw it. We're not figuring this out. Apple won. Check a bunch of boxes and we'll go. And they made the as we're seeing they made some mistakes. Right. The disadvantage is now they've provided Samsung a lot of opportunities to challenge what the jury actually said. Matt, can you take us through kind of the appeals process here? I know you probably had a better handle on it than I do. Well, the biggest thing coming up right now is everybody's going to file motions. Even Apple's going to file motions to challenge certain parts of the jury for it, because, you know, if you don't get everything, you still try to get everything after the case. But what happens now is they file post trial briefs and Apple's basically or Apple and Samsung, mostly Samsung, setting up their case for appeal. They have to raise all these issues and challenge the verdict so that they can appeal it to the federal circuit. But one of the big things that's coming up is Apple's affirmative brief. They're going to file a motion because the jury found willfulness that they're going to file for a motion to triple the damages. So the statutory provision allows for if a jury finds willful, which, by the way, they often do, if they find infringement, they often find willful because they don't know the difference. It's really nuanced. Right. So they find willful and the judge can make a determination to triple those damages up to three times what they are right now, which, you know, three billion dollars is a lot of money. I don't see it happening. It's a rare event for a judge to take it and triple it. That would be in the neighborhood of what Apple originally asked for. That would be really close to what they originally asked for. It was just shy of three billion dollars. I mean, it would be more, but it would be in the neighborhood. I have trouble. By the way, can I just point out that we're now at the point where we're saying five hundred million dollars is in the neighborhood of something? Well, it's actually more like seven fifty. I thought it was two point two five. It was two point five. Two. Oh, two point five. Two five. OK, but I've been totally in the neighborhood of numbers left, right, center. As soon as they announce the dollar amount, I typoed. I did one point five to one point oh five, which then apparently a bunch of people retweeted, including like Associated Press and other. And so congrats to me for ruining news. You know, just just when you're when you're excited and hurriedly typing, just when it's a number and it's billions, make sure you know. But one thing I'll say about this and by the way, like if they do come back and get triple damages, I feel like it's kind of a nasty move. But I also feel like that's going to be difficult to do, considering the fact that this jury wasn't exactly. I mean, yes, there is there is a lot of affirmative for Apple, but I think it feels like it's not like just they went down the line and said Samsung. I mean, I know it does. It does seem that way. But I think that a judge would be able to look at this and go, well, the jury wasn't, you know, so resolute on every piece of this that like Samsung just got to get hit with the with, you know, had the book thrown at them. Right. Well, can I tell you one thing about triple willful damages? The judge has a bunch of factors to look at. And two of the key factors are one, whether you can show evidence of intent to copy, which we've seen a lot of that with Samsung. And the second one is totally outside of infringement. It has to do with litigation tactics. So if the court feels that Samsung is acting inappropriately during the litigation, she can take that into account and whether or not the triple damages are somehow multiplied damage above what they are. Oh, God. That's rough for Samsung. Does Samsung endanger themselves by going back if they appeal? I mean, is there there aren't worse repercussions if they appeal, right? Or do they have to go? I mean, what? I mean, the court, the appellate court could say, well, you know, the jury was wrong in some respects. And it's even worse for Samsung than we thought. But mostly it's either going to, you know, kind of affirm everything or chop it down. And when an appeals courts don't run around overturning juries. No. Right. And when they get Samsung has a big mountain to climb. Right. So they can also say no. I mean, that's like, you know, Samsung can say we appeal the entire case. The appeals court can say, well, there's only one issue here that's worth appealing. Or some of the right. Some alert, some merely dismiss the entire thing and say, no, we don't want to hear it. And so what is the and so what is the danger at this point for what is the danger at this point for Samsung if they don't appeal and they just I mean, they have to go. Do they have to go into talks with Apple about how much they will award them per device or can they can they skirt that? Can they get out of it? Can they avoid it in some way? It would be hugely irresponsible for either Apple or Samsung to not immediately start holding additional meetings about further licenses and settlements. I mean, they've got other outstanding cases out there. The Galaxy Nexus case is out there. They have to do it. You know, like they this isn't like. It's not like sports. You know, it's funny, you know, the other side of our company is a sports company and they they have wins and losses. You know, at the end of the year, somebody wins a Super Bowl and then we all start over again next year. This isn't like that. This is business and it'll keep going tomorrow. So Samsung. Yeah. So Apple won a huge, decisive victory. Right. You stole our stuff. Now they've got to go back and say, well, what are we going to do about all this other outstanding conflict we have? We have to resolve it so our companies can move forward. So I'm sure they're going to like talk like immediately. Maybe, you know, they'll probably take the weekend. So Apple's lawyers can get drunk and Samsung's lawyers can get drunk. I think they're both getting drunk for very different reasons this weekend. You know, it's actually really interesting that Samsung's lawyers represent everybody else. And there's a lot of talk that Google paid Samsung's firm, Quint Emanuel, to represent Samsung, HTC, Motorola. So they've got a lot. You know, Google has a lot riding on this. Samsung has a lot riding on this. But that law firm has an enormous amount riding on it because they're representing all these companies against Apple and all these other cases. So so here I got a couple of questions. Do you want to say something? I'm going to veer into a totally different direction. So let me ask a couple of questions and then make a statement and then we'll veer wherever you're veering. So so so my first question is. And this kind of these two are kind of tied together. So the new version of the latest version of Android has things that we two things are happening. The latest version of iOS has stuff that's definitely could be you could say you look at and say that's from Android, like the notifications, for instance. Now, I don't know if Google has patents on that or not, or any of these other companies hold patents. Maybe Motorola holds a patent on that. I have no idea which is now owned by Google Mobility, at least. And then there's new things that were introduced in an ice cream sandwich that are definitely like iOS, like the way the icons will auto rearrange on the screen, for instance. Yeah. You mean jelly bean, not I.C.S. No, in I.C.S. they were introduced. You could the icons would rearrange on the screen. I thought that was it doesn't matter. No, no. Or even like full. It's in full. It's in folders. It was in folders. It was in folders in I.C.S. and now it's everywhere system wide on the on the home screen. Sure. These seem like when what's that? It doesn't matter. These seem like places where Google almost break like kind of out of went out of their way to do it like nobody had asked for it. There were other ways you could have dealt with it or you could have just left it as it was, which is that it didn't do it at all. Is there do we feel like I'm just curious to know, are there protections at this point? Like it's Google not going to go after Apple for this notifications thing. And is Apple not going to go after Google for stuff like that for some other reason? Or do we is it possible that they go that they actually do go back for things like that? I'm just curious. Like those two in particular stand out to me as like as as notable as a bounce back. So I'm wondering if like there are further cases to be had in that situation or if Apple doesn't just Apple doesn't want to go to straight to Google. And it's harder to pin some of that stuff on. I mean, who makes an I.C.S. phone right now? Samsung. Well, well, I mean, Matt, you want to go out for this one? Yeah. So two things first. I haven't seen any evidence that Google has a patent on notifications or anything really. That's they have an application on the notification. Yes, it's pending. And I guarantee you at this point, Google has a pretty good grasp on Apple's portfolio and knows what they need to do in certain respects to avoid it. There's no way they're designing jelly bean or even before that with I.C.S. without not just the pads that Apple's asserted, but the patents that they actually have in the pipeline. So you think you think the icon rearrangement is not something that Apple can move on? I doubt it. I haven't seen a patent for that. And I'm pretty sure if they had one, Google would have known about it. So I'm pretty sure they're smarter about it now. So to my and this actually brings me my next statement, which is like I think that if you look at what Samsung did in terms of design, both hardware design, in terms of what Android was doing with infringing on this bounce back patent, which like, you know, at the time we could I think, you know, there was a point where we were all like, well, what's the big deal? It's a bounce back patent. But now you see when you when you start to get into it, when you see a trial like this unfold and when you talked about it enough and when you see the different ways you could do it, you start to go, OK, I get it. I mean, I don't think that patent is really that important. And I don't think people see the bounce. I don't think people see the bounce back and identify that as being an iPhone behavior. I think that like things like bounce back and slide to unlock exist in reality. And that's why they made sense. I thought the expert say it was like fifty dollar value. Yeah, I mean, I mean, it's ridiculous. I think that's outrageous. But but what I will say is, you know, I look at the the Galaxy Nexus as a product of avoiding copying. And there's a bunch of really good stuff in there, like a bunch of good ideas, new ideas, stuff that we didn't see in other phones or variations that are like, well, it's kind of like that. But they tweaked it and they moved it and it's actually better for the end user. And so I feel like does this is the I mean. Is Apple kind of getting what it wants here in the sense that it doesn't want people copying and is that I mean, I know we talk about how bad this could be, you know, with the precedent that it sets. But isn't it in some way if they can't go after them, you know, for, hey, you put like a color burst at the bottom of your list. Doesn't it actually improve? I mean, doesn't it actually mean that people have to innovate more? Well, I can't. I don't know where this tweet was, but somebody who was obviously a fan of Samsung tweeted to me, good job, Apple. You forced Samsung to innovate faster and outpace the iPhone more, which is true. I mean, you know, you can argue you can say that the patent system sucks. You should have intellectual property. But if you're not allowed to do one thing, that means you have to do another thing. And a lot of times seeing what's been done and thinking I have to come up with a new idea forces you to come up with a better idea. And, you know, I think there's a lot of that in Google's current phones. I think particularly Jelly Bean has a lot of very different ideas about how an operating system should work. And I think that's great. I think it's for the best for Samsung to stop copying other devices. You know, I've I've forever said, you know, Samsung is really great at making cheap copies of other devices of other things. And I think it's, you know, Samsung is a huge company with a lot of money, a lot of clout, a lot of power, a lot of influence. And it's for everyone's benefit if they say we have to start really competing with Apple. We have to make devices that are way better than Apple's devices and not just take their ideas and improve on them and iterate on them. And that's that's Apple will never be in this good a position again. I mean, what they had with Samsung with their early S1 and S2, even some of their S2, but mostly their S1 devices and variants of it was something they will never have again. You'll never see these design patents asserted again in in reality, maybe. But, you know, it's it's it's a it's a weak claim because you had really a situation like the perfect storm where you had trade dress. You had all these design patents. You had these early software patents on some of the features that were lined up perfectly with all these first generation. It's first generation kind of S1 devices. You're not going to have that. I mean, you don't have that anymore. So so I mean, Samsung themselves, they've moved past it. They're not doing it anymore. Right. Well, not in this not in this version, this iteration of the iPhone and Android competition. But if Apple if in September, October, whenever we see the new iPhone, they come out and they're like, we have a whole new iOS for you. You know, we've revamped the whole thing. They'll take them five years to get those patents. I mean, it takes a long time to get a patent. So, I mean, Matt, you know, Matt's also right in that Apple put up the Steve Jobs stood on stage and said, here's the iPhone. Boy, have we patented it. And he met those applications are all pending. Like we've applied for them before and nobody knew what Apple Patent 381 list translation on a touch screen display meant until the iPhone came out and they said that's bounce back scrolling. Right. I don't think they can do that anymore. A that the climate is different. Everybody reads the patent applications on every Tuesday and goes nuts over them. And B, they're not leading up to some huge category killing device like the iPhone again. And I think you even saw that a little bit with the iPad. They had the iPad design patents and the jury said, no, you know, that's not you can't say another black rectangle infringes that you can say it about the Galaxy S2 or the Galaxy S. It looks exactly like which is flagrant. Yeah, I mean, flagrant. Do you want to go in a veer? So where I where I get confused. I just remembered something. One one last point. I have heard from a few people that Google believes Jelly Bean solves all of its patent problems with Apple. I don't know if it's true. Does it? Not the unified not the unified search. This is a perfect segue into what I want to know. The universal search is I don't think. No, you're wrong. It's apparently tried. Well, I'm going to actually I'm going to I.C.S. It was I.C.S. that had the universal searchers banned and then they updated it with Jelly Bean and came back in the market. Wait a second. I'm going to find out. OK, because I've got a Jelly Bean device here. I don't mean I don't know. But this is what I search. I'm going to search for Neeli and see what comes up. So while he's looking, my question is what what does Google do now? Because I've seen even as this has been happening, a lot of people saying, like, oh, this is definitely universal search on this. There we go. I mean, no question. Like if I search for eBay in the search window, I get eBay dot com. I like that you search for eBay. Well, I want to find something that I'd have an app and that you'd find online. Yeah, because that's what you mean. I don't know. So I just heard it has it. It link out to search the phone. Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, they changed the latest version of Jelly Bean to fix it. Right. I mean, I don't know. I'm saying I've heard anyway, David, go ahead. Well, so I'm not I'm not going to don't nail me to the wall on the patent thing. I'm nailing you to the wall. And Eli, you just got nailed. I already have. Enjoy it. Just enjoy that nailing. So what does this mean for Google? That's my primary question. Like everybody's talking about this as an iOS versus Android debate. And it seems to me that well, you know, Google makes Android. Right. I'm saying I don't I don't get the sense that it is an iOS Android debate. Like the big thing was here. Big thing here was devices. And even the software stuff. Well, they can't. I'm looking at this patent thing and it's like these are where are rounded rectangles. Right. This is touchable. But this is touch with this is not Android. Those are not the things in Android that they're concerned about, which is why when they go after HCC for whatever the universal searches or the tap to dial a phone number, those are specific patents. Yep. And they're the next piece. And they're trying. They don't want to go to Google with a big case of all these things. And I'm sure they could have. What's that? I said they could have and they didn't. They clearly don't want to. Well, Google doesn't get paid for Android. Right. So what would the damages be if you didn't make any money off of the devices that Samsung sold? Well, I think they'd be more money. They could prove damages through ads and things like that through Android. Right. It's a much more complicated complicated case than saying, like, hey, Samsung, you made a phone. It looks like ours. You. Yeah. You. Well, keep in mind. You made $200 on it. Right. You made $200 on it. Oracle just tried to do this. Right. I mean, they sued Samsung for I'm sorry, cheese. They sued Google. Oracle sued Google for copyright infringement, patent infringement on Android. And they had to make up a damages amount. And they struggled. Right. They put up a bunch of numbers. The jury was like, we don't believe you. You know, I think this case changes a lot if it's Apple versus Google. And I think like Matt is saying, Apple is never going to have it this good again. Right. They're never going to be able to say this copied us this way again. They're going to say this technical feature of Android copied us or this UI element of Android copied us. And Google can design around it. And that's fine. But at this point now, you know, they're they have to go after the core pieces of Android. They can't go after these little these interface leaks or these hardware designs because the companies are going to be too smart to fall for it. Yeah. No LG, Google, HTC, Motorola. Nobody's going to create those documents that Samsung created ever again. Well, only the idea of creating those documents. I'm sorry, but you got to admit Samsung should have known a little bit better than to blatantly. I mean, Paul actually made a great point about this in the podcast, but on the Vergecast a couple of weeks ago. But it is one of those things where they were like they weren't like, hey, they're doing this. Like, we should do something better than this. They were like, we should be doing this. Hey, designers, they're doing this. Can you do this? Yeah. Can you guys do that? But it is and it is like the paper trail is a mile long, 10 miles, 100 miles long. Yeah. If they just had said it out loud, they'd be all set. No, I'm honestly if they didn't have 141 pages of like how to copy the iPhone. I bet you this jury, I have a feeling this jury may have found differently. Well, yeah, that was a that was a nasty when I saw the thing. I mean, I was up until the closing argument up until that document. I was like, Samsung might have a case here, you know, that they did kind of independently riff on some of this stuff. But when you saw that document and there was just like, here it is. Now, how do we make it? It was like how any human is going to look at that and go, I don't buy it. You know, I don't I don't buy the Samsung didn't willfully knowingly copy what Apple was doing for personal and personal gain. And, you know, and the, you know, Apple's closing argument was, you know, you've heard a lot of witnesses. You've seen a lot of stuff, but you should just look at the documents and look at this timeline of phones before the iPhone and phones after the iPhone and like, use your head. And they did, you know, like that's what I'm saying. I think they decided Apple won and they filled out the form. I think the bigger question for Google is how do we stop this? And I think the bigger question for Apple is how do we stop this? Like Android isn't going to go away. Apple can't sue Android. Are you sure? I mean, are you sure? I mean, if they scare enough, I'm just saying if they scare enough of the manufacturers and they start looking at Windows Phone and going, you know, actually, we don't have to worry about this stuff and we can make really nice devices. And basically, you know, given all the crazy licenses we're now paying, it would kind of cost the same. I hear BB10 is great. Let's get let's get real here, people. Maybe. Honestly, I mean, we know Windows Phone 8, big improvements. I think, you know, we just ran a report today. Chris ran a report, is there room for a fourth place? And you see Windows Phone starting to creep in with market share. I mean, I think that, I mean, Google's got to do they've got to get all their ducks in a row and they have to ensure they have to say to their partners, this won't happen again. We have protection. You know, Josh, you've been saying, well, I do have to, you know, that's what Microsoft says to its partners. You license our software, we'll indemnify you or at least, you know, we'll pay the vast majority of your bills if you if it's our software, that's the problem. Google's never said that to anyone. Again, onto the table, everybody thinks they're paying for a quantum manual to represent these firms, but that's not the same as putting it on paper, you know. But, you know, I think the bigger I don't think Android is going away. I don't think it should go away. I mean, Josh, you've been saying this thing over and over again, like the age of partnerships is kind of over. Yes. And I think that's that's really sad. And I'd like to see this bring us back to Google and Apple working together. I mean, I said this, I mean, a week ago when we were talking about the maps thing. And I said, you know, it was so cool that you could get the iPhone, the Apple product with the slick UI with Google's great maps product on it. And, you know, I feel like as every, you know, we talked about this at length, but as every one of these companies tries to create its entire the whole, you've got to own the entire ecosystem end to end. You do lose something of like I think there is some real value in having the variety and having the choice of different, you know, these people being able to partner on things. And I don't know if it brings us back to Google and Apple will end up there. I mean, because if you look back to Microsoft and Apple case, Apple got spanked and it ended up in a license agreement that, you know, for whatever whatever it was worth, allowed both companies to operate how they do now. So I don't think there's any indication. It's early. I mean, I don't think there's anything that keeps Apple and Google from eventually getting there. Except I think, yeah, I don't think Google is going to I don't think Apple is going to sue Google. Only I think only way those two are going to end up in court is if Google makes it happen. And we don't have any indication that they could make it happen. Well, hey, I mean, are you sure? Because Google owns Motorola and Motorola sued Apple yesterday. Well, they all deal with each other indirectly through Motorola. What was the suit? I mean, I guess you can call that Google versus Apple. What was the suit? It's a case of the International Trade Commission. Actually, there's news on this right now. Those are old patents. I mean, this is like, it's just kind of like amazing. It's like yesterday, Google sued, you know, Motorola can't do what Google doesn't want it to do. Google owns Motorola. So Google, Motorola sued Apple for two more patents. Google knew about it and said it was OK. And then today, Motorola's old case with two other patents got tossed up by the ITC, which is actually breaking news. I'm like, Matt and I should go hit it. But who cares? I mean, you have to go hit the news. I can just say, can I just say it is 925 on the East Coast on a Friday night. And, you know, we've been talking about this legal stuff for a while. And by the way, when we started The Verge, Neelai was like, I want to have killer legal coverage of all the stuff that's going on in technology. We all fell asleep. We fell asleep. We started snoring. I mean, he didn't even finish the sentence and we were snoozing. No, but Neelai was like, I want to do this. You know, I want to cover this stuff. And we've been covering, you know, we've had, I think, incredible coverage from Brian Bishop and from Matt and Neelai. And the whole team has pitched in. But these guys are really leading it because they know they know what they're doing and we're just pretending. But right now our traffic is like off the charts. Yeah. I mean, I'm so chat. Chat is telling me, by the way, that we have a ton of new viewers because we are posters on the front. It's on the front page of Reddit. So hello to hello to Reddit. But we also had to shut down the we also had to shut down the live chat on this. Also, hello. Also. And apparently nine gag was somehow involved in this. But let's just for all the new people, let's recap. Yeah, let's let's do recap. OK, I'll give a quick recap. So if you're just joining us, here's what's happening in the world of technology. Hello, Cincinnati. Yeah. Hello, Cincinnati. So the verdict has come down in the Apple versus Samsung trial just a few hours ago. The jury deliberated for about 22 hours, which is not a long time. They had over 30 questions, 700, ultimately 700 different answers they had to give in places where to answer whether or not Samsung had infringed on Apple. And they predominantly I'd say I'd say overwhelmingly found in favor of Apple. This is a win for Apple. They're awarding they've they've awarded Apple one billion. What is it now? Forty nine. One billion forty nine million. One billion forty nine million change and change. And and there are only a couple of places where they didn't find for Apple, particularly in the whether or not the the Galaxy Note 10.1 infringed on the iPad. The tab, the notes. Sorry. The tab, the Galaxy tab. The note is the new one. You know, if they just come up with better names, that wouldn't be a problem. And and, you know, Samsung and Apple have both issued statements. Samsung, the gist of their statement is this is horrible for American innovation. And an Apple statement is this is great for American innovation. And we're glad that we're glad that the jury saw that we had obviously been been ripped off. And and that's is have I have I missed anything in the update? Now, that's I mean, that's it. I mean, the question is we've been we've been talking about it for the last hour or so trying to figure out trying to make sense of it. And actually, Neil has got a great piece on the site. If you haven't seen it, it's it's the title of it is Apple decisively wins Samsung trial. What it means where he breaks down kind of, you know what? Well, what it means, really. So I have I have a purely like procedural legal question. How significant in all of this is the willfulness stuff? Like if they had found that, you know, you made the Galaxy Ace, which I've now decided is the phone that looks the most like the one that you cited earlier as the phone that I. Didn't look like I don't recall saying you like the Galaxy. I don't know what the problem is. That's the first phone looks normal. So if they had found that that infringed on the patent, but couldn't like that, that it was somehow completely unintentional. And that was just the only way to design a phone. How different would this trial have come out? Like how important was it that it was not if it's not willful, it was like an accident. Right. And especially going forward. So how important is it that these documents existed saying like, look at the iPhone, let's build that exactly. That's like specular. Well, no, it's the jury would come up with a number and then the judge wouldn't be able to triple it if she felt that, you know, the elements of trouble damages were met. Right. So I mean, it's really important because another judge has discretion. And also when the jury was coming up with its initial number, they're not supposed to think about willfulness. But Apple's lawyers were like, you know, if you just slap Samsung on the wrist, they won't change. They did this on purpose. Look at the documents. They've got to pay the real money. So but it's not supposed to factor into that initial decision. No, it's just out there to let the it's a notice to the judge that we decide it's willful. Now you take it from here and determine whether or not you're going to increase the damages. It's I guarantee you, if the jury was allowed to decide willfulness, this damage award would be much higher. They're not, though. I mean, and the judges are very reasonable and triple damages are its egregious behavior that usually warrants that kind of increase. But I'm not so sure the code doesn't have a little bit of just I don't want to say justification, but for Samsung didn't behave itself. Samsung did not behave. But you also but you also asked the Apple lawyer if he was smoking crack. So it's not I mean, I'm not saying Apple behaves itself. I don't know. She doesn't think anybody was behaving behaving themselves. But between the two companies, they filed over 2000 objections in this case, which is like paperwork at three in the morning that the judge and her staff really judge codes. Judge codes in the robe at the office at three in the morning, like writing. I'm saying they they're filing the motions at three in the morning and in the courts like electronic filing system. And then the judge and her staff of four shows up and there's a new stack. So I'm sorry. So, Matt, your suggestion is that the judge may want to be vindictive towards Samsung because they find too many objections. She may want to she may want. Yeah, I imagine that's not her take on it. But but I mean, that's what I read from what you're saying. Like, well, I guess I'm pissed her off. You're right, though. There's this aspect that, you know, you think willfulness is like, OK, it's the acts of the the defendant. If they did something wrong, they copy with bad intent, then they should be punished. And maybe that's triple damages. What but what the law allows for is basically the judge's attorney. I mean, the parties, Samsung's attorneys, if they acted wrongfully during the litigation, that's a factor, which is nuts, really. I mean, you shouldn't impose a sanction on the punitive damages, essentially on on the party because their attorneys are, you know, sure. Well, it's not it's designed to make them settle. I mean, the whole goal of the structural nature of the legal system is to make people not go to court. It's to say you're in a conflict, you're adults, you're sophisticated billion dollar companies. You're paying a lot of lawyers. You should be able to come to an agreement. And if your lawyers are going to parade around saying you're going to win and file 2000 motions, we'll be able to increase the damages against you. I mean, it's not necessarily the right structure, but it's the structure. Here's a little update. We just had a post go up that the next step in Apple versus Samsung preliminary injunction hearing on September 20th. So for what's that? It's actually a permanent injunction. That would literally be the injunction they're trying to get based on the verdict that would. Oh, wait, this would be this would not be preliminary, but this would be. No, there's there's nothing preliminary about it. Change that headline. Probably. Somebody tell Dieter he's messed up bad. So what kind of what would the injunction be? You know, right now, for instance, the Galaxy tab had the injunction, which is that now going to be lifted. But there could be injunctions in place for these other products that were found to infringe, including S2 variants that exist. Right. I mean, you guys know I'm better than I do. But there's S2 models being sold. Yeah, yeah, there are models in the market. There's S2 all over the world. I think cricket or leap or somebody in the United States just put out an S2. I mean, they got problems. Just announced it like last night. Yeah, boost. What are they now? The one of those two for God. Make it stop. That even be upgraded to ICS? Probably not. I hate Android. Touchwiz is good. I'm going back to the iPhone. You say at least they'll update it. Damn it. Go on. I'm sorry. But that's an important part of this case. I mean, if you think about if all Samsung came out of this with at the very end of the day, the worst case scenario was paying out between 1.05 million and $3 million. That's really not that big a deal. I mean, it's real money, but it's Samsung and they have a lot of real money. So but if they had an injunction on products. So the worst case scenario on the injunction side is that you get injunction on all these models. And really, what percentage of these models exist? And if they exist now, are they going to exist in six months when the injunction would probably be in place? Because they're going to brief this thing for the next two or three months trying to figure it out. So I really don't I don't see injunctions being an issue. I really don't see this case affecting innovation, affecting the market that much, because all the other products that we're talking about that people care about, like the S3 or the Nexus or in the other case, they're going to trial next year and they go through all this again. I mean, we're going to be back. We're going to be back doing the same thing next year for the universal search and the and the let's just say for the universal search. Yeah, that's the that's the one patent. They got the injunction off the Nexus. Yeah, I mean, well, the S3 would just be when they just be highly encouraged to settle at this point. I mean, yes, they should settle. But I mean, without question. But again, if Apple wants like ridiculous damages that don't make financial sense, if they know they're going to get hit with wealth, it's going to be, you know, if this was if this was trade dress and all of these patents, you know, a handful of patents and the damages were two point X million or sorry, billion, then what's it going to be for the universal search? I mean, that I mean, how high could that especially aren't they aren't they specifically going after the Galaxy Nexus as a device? Well, there's more patents in that case, too. Yeah, they are. They are the S3s in that case, but it wasn't part of the injunction because it didn't come out in time. But in that case, you have other patents. But just like this case, the preliminary injunction stage when they got the Nexus on the injunction doesn't include all the patents in the case because, you know, Apple kind of picked and choose the strong ones that it felt were strong and they had a best chance at. So when they get to trial next year on this case, on that case, they're going to have a whole slew of other patents. But they're not design patents. They're not trade dress patents. They're wonky software patents. And I'm not sure that's going to really they're not going to be sitting in this position. They're not going to. I think it's I think it's really this is the case that kind of is the peak possible opportunity for Apple. And I agree that they should use that as leverage to settle. My problem is that I just don't know. I mean, because really no one's settling this case on either side without a blanket settlement that takes into account every single case around the world. No smart company, no board of directors is going to sign off on a settlement that doesn't take into account every single case and get rid of everything. Right. And that's a lot of money. And I can't imagine Apple's ever going to accept a settlement that doesn't have a huge amount of money coming their way. Right. But I mean, but as Apple just said in a statement, this isn't about money. That was a PR guy. Well, I know that is actually Katie Cotton, who's the head of basically the head of their PR. But I mean, but but the statement is they're saying it's not about money. But Apple doesn't need Samsung's money. Isn't this about competition? I mean, isn't this really about saying, like we want to we want to we want people to if we have to have I mean, let's just say if we take them at face value, isn't this about them saying we want to compete? We want you to compete with us fair and square. And if you don't compete with us fair and square and if you heard us, we're going to take you to court and we're going to be awarded damages because we deserve that. But we don't need your money. Aren't they saying like we don't want to be stolen from? And if and for future companies, if you want to create a product that competes with us, great, go for it. But don't steal from us or we'll take you to court. Well, except that they went, you know, they obviously went even Steve Jobs and Tim Cook went to Samsung back in 2010 and 2011. And, you know, they say these things. But in reality, there's a dollar amount that will get them away from the courtroom. Right. But but a dollar amount that Samsung didn't think they wanted to pay. Yeah. But they might start to think it looks a little better now. Well, but but didn't we say but no, but didn't we just say I mean, what's the impact of Samsung here? Is it there? The vibe is impacted like by the way, there may be a Samsung phone called the vibe. So that's not what I mean. But the impact is also there may be one called the impact. I'm sure there is a little over a billion dollars, not a little over a billion dollars and 50 million dollars. A little over. It's a little over. No, it is. It's a lot of money. A million more is not a big deal. It's a it's a billion dollars. That's the impact. And this Samsung vibe is a real phone is a real. Just so you're wondering, of course, Samsung, Samsung already made also made like the Galaxy rant or something. I mean, they're all now. And then there is the smiley face. It was just an emoticon. Yeah. But but but so what I'm saying is like Apple doesn't need their money. No, I think they want to stop. Samsung presumably needs their money. Samsung, you know, money very badly because they got to pay Apple. No, but but what I'm saying is Samsung sorry, Apple. OK, there are two things they're saying out loud. They're saying one, we don't want to be stolen from and no, they're just saying one thing we don't want to be stolen from. And so and so if that's what they're saying. I mean, I guess they could clean I guess they could they want to clean up on damages. Seems like a roundabout way to get it. I mean, they could have. Does it seem likely they could have struck a settlement that would be more money in their pocket? That seems likely to seems like in that case, Samsung is Samsung are the guys saying we don't want to do the settlement because we're only going to lose. You know, a billion bucks here, two billion bucks and we can afford that. Am I crazy? And the thing that seems really odd to me, I mean, belabor this point. No, but it also seems like from Samsung standpoint, you know, money aside, because both of these companies have a ton of money and can afford to pay a billion dollars. Yeah. But from purely just an appearance standpoint, you know, the vibe as it were, the from the vibe for Samsung to come out, it seems like the best thing to do would have been to come out and say, listen, we screwed up. Like, here are the documents that proved we tried to copy the iPhone, but now we have these other great devices. We've moved forward. You know, here's some money. We're sorry, Apple. And we have these great devices. We've innovated beyond the iPhone. That would have been a good line. They're just on it from that guy. Right. And now let's just all move forward and be happy about it. Right. And it doesn't seem like it seems like Samsung had nothing to gain. So they're never going to do that. They're never going to say they were ever wrong about anything. What they're going to do is they're going to either fight about how there is a miscarriage of justice. They're going to fight about how the patent system is broken and Apple owns a rectangle. And if they ever settle, they'll say, we're delighted that we both can continue to make our innovative product. Right. I mean, I mean, Samsung, Samsung is not going to Samsung's not going to say Samsung is not going to. They're finished the trial where they've been arguing about how right they are. And then Apple was they go, well, we were kind of wrong. We were out of line. They should have done this a long time ago. We were out of line and we shouldn't have ripped off. They should have never done it. I mean, they should have never done it. I mean, look, these companies should have settled. The judge has been telling them to settle. And what the jury has accomplished is it came up with a business deal for them to be a part of. Right. And if they had been smart, Samsung would have been paying slowly this billion dollars to Apple over the past two years, iterating its devices. And Apple would be fine. I mean, it's still silly to me that the jury returned a verdict. It's a slam dunk for Apple in many ways. It's silly that they returned a verdict. That was their entire job. Well, no, but it's silly that Apple and Samsung ever let it get this far. I mean, it's still stupid. No, but I think you're I think you're missing something very clear, which is Apple presented an emotional case to them with a lot of great evidence that struck an emotional chord. I mean, I think we felt an emotional response when we saw the document where Samsung said, do this, take this, make it more like this. And I think they knew at that point, I think they felt very strongly. And after seeing what Samsung produced, whether or not they discredited their witnesses, that they had an emotional they had made an emotional point that would resonate with the jury. And that that that that what happened is the jury winning looks much stronger for Apple than them settling with Samsung, settling with Samsung in the midst of this trial. I think Apple is saying there's stuff on both sides. We get it. We want to make things work. What they've done now is position themselves to the public and to future and to future combatants in the in the courtroom as the company that won the company that was found to be. Right. The company that a jury of of regular people said these guys were right. They got hurt and they should be awarded something. And I think that's like a much stronger position to be in for Apple than having settled in the midst of this. Now, they may decide in a week or two weeks or in a month or whatever, that there's a settlement out there that makes sense to them. But I think the emotional impact of letting these people decide for them sends a really big message to like the rest. Look, here we are talking about it. You know, there's a would we would we be as would this seem as important? Had they settled settlements happen all the time and these companies make part of their businesses figuring out how to get something from another company and keep making their product. I mean, they do that all day, every day. But but to hear someone say Samsung, you stole from Apple, really vindicates them and shows their position in the market now. We're like, hey, average people can see it. You know, an average jury was able to see we got ripped off. And I think that makes a powerful statement moving forward. I think it gives them a lot of leverage they wouldn't have had to settle with at that point. I mean, it has to be Google, right? They're not going to settle. It has to be only Google. I mean, the truth is, these are all about I mean, you know, the design of the ace and the S whatever the vibrant aside. This really is. And, you know, the tab. This really is about the software. And it is about two big, big companies trying to do the same thing, which is own the smartphone market and the smartphone ecosystem and the mobile market in general. I don't see how they can settle. I don't I mean, I guess they could cut individual deals with all these. They don't care about it. They offered Samsung a deal that was, I think, unique to Samsung. I mean, how quickly could Apple buy HTC? I mean, how much is HTC worth? You know, what's the value? What would HTC sell at? Hold on. Let me consult the chart of HTC's value that I keep with me at all times. Can you just get that out? Don't you have an app on your phone that shows the value of all companies? But I'm just saying, I'm just saying HTC is not Apple's problem. Samsung has been Apple's problem for real. I mean, they really are a monolith in the mobile industry right now. They were the leading. They were the leader. I would. Why have you just have you identified HTC's market cap or something? Yeah, HTC's market cap just lost, quote, hundreds of millions of dollars, according to economists. You mean like right this moment? I think it's somewhere in the 30 billion dollar. 30 billion dollars. Apple loses that in a seat cushion. OK, 30 billion is like Tim Cook has a very big cap. That's like when somebody's got a birthday at Apple, a regular employee, they spend 30 billion on their birthday party. So, I mean, I'm just saying I agree with Matt. I don't think HTC is the problem. And I don't think it's Google. If Google's driving Android, if Google's decided tomorrow to stop doing Android, Apple wouldn't have a problem. They'd have to worry about Microsoft again or RIM. But keep in mind that Apple and Microsoft have a deal. They worked it out. They have an anti-cloning agreement in their deal. So, you know, like you're right. If Microsoft suddenly turns into a huge player, Apple can say you're violating our anti-cloning agreement. But there's so much at play between the two companies that they would just adjust the terms of the deal. And I think that's really important. You know, I think the Nokia case, you know, Apple and Nokia. Nokia sued Apple, right? And then they settled. Like Apple was a huge threat to Nokia. They're using a bunch of their patents and they figured it out. Apple paid the money. And I think ultimately this comes down to Apple might have been strident. They might have been going for this victory. But Samsung decided at every opportunity to not pay the money. And maybe, you know, maybe Apple's demands were too high, but Samsung made a choice. They also went to the jury. They said we're going to win. And they did not win. They lost. Like this is absolutely categorically a loss for Samsung. I can almost guarantee that Samsung's not asking or Apple's not asking for 30 bucks a phone anymore. That was two years ago. I bet it's significantly lower. I mean, it's still high. You mean for these phones or for phones going forward? For just generally a license agreement under any sort of agreement. Because they're doing a cross license for the whole portfolio. I mean, what are they licensing at this point in an ICS device? It doesn't matter. As far as Samsung's concerned, they're just getting an entire free ride on Apple's portfolio. And Apple gets Samsung's portfolio. So no matter what happens from issued patents or current patents that are pending, they don't have to worry about being a target. So you're saying that the agreement, the settlement here is you pay us money. We both agree to not sue each other. Yeah. No one's got to settle otherwise. I mean, you've got to have some sort of assurances that you're not going to get nailed again. So is it your perception that if they were in settlement talks, that what they were talking about is we've got to zero this out? Like we've got to make it so that we're not going after each other? Or when they were in settlement talks, was it Apple is saying, hey, we want you to pay us X, Y, and Z, and we'll evaluate you down the road? I mean, there's a slide we have from two years ago that said Apple presenting to Samsung. And it says, Samsung chose to embrace and imitate the iPhone. We worked hard on it. We would have preferred you got a license in advance. Cool. You know, like these talks have been happening. And that's what I'm saying. This is underreported in this entire case is that they've been having constant talks about settlement. I mean, what's funny about it is that if there had been any inclination that Samsung was going to copy, let's say really blatantly copy Apple's product, or if Samsung had come to them and said, like, hey, we're about to release this and Apple had seen it and said, you're ripping us off, you're going to have to pay a license on that or you're using our IP or patents or whatever, they would have just changed it, wouldn't they? I mean, they would have just said, you know, it's not worth the trouble. Why don't we just tweak this? They wouldn't have paid it, would they? Who knows, man? I mean, maybe they would have designed around it. Right, they would have designed around it, exactly, which is what they should have done. Well, they didn't immediately because they had these phones. I mean, when they went to Samsung, it was just the Galaxy S, really. And, you know, really, I don't think much of the design arounds came until, I mean, they started, I guess they started creeping up after that. Oh, so you're saying, I'm sorry, you're saying earlier, I don't know the timeline exactly, but earlier in this process when the original S was out, Apple came to Samsung. It's like immediately after that, right? They said, you're infringing, here's what, we need to settle this, right? Yep. And so, and then they went on to make, well, I mean, the S was pretty egregious. Yeah. I think they did start making changes after that. Physical design changes. I don't think they started making software changes right away. They kept working on that big document. Yeah, how to get it. They're like, have you seen the latest update, the iOS update? Ten more pages. They changed the icons a little bit. We got to fix this. All right. We should wrap this up. I know, I agree, we should wrap up. I think we've talked this thing to death. So here's, so just so if you have joined us or are not brought up to speed, I'm just going to recap this and then we'll talk about what happens next, you know, very briefly. Jury found for Apple, predominantly for Apple in the Apple versus Samsung trial. They've been awarded, at this point, the jury has awarded them $1,049,000,000 in damages. It is possible that that could be increased by the judge or that Apple would, well, it's possible that could be increased by the judge and I'll leave it at that. They deliberated, the jury deliberated for about 22 hours and it was, I mean, I think a very speedy and no one was expecting this to come in tonight, as far as I know. Certainly, I don't think Matt, Matt, Mila, our legal experts here were definitely not like sitting around waiting for it to happen. And there's going to be an injunction hearing on September 20th in the case. Samsung is going to fight this. I mean, they're appealing is the point, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, there's more to come, but this is the state of the world for a long time yet. The next big question is whether Apple can get injunctions. We'll find out in the next two or so weeks whether Apple can get injunctions against the Galaxy S2, which I believe is the only product that's still on sale from this case. And then from there, Samsung has to decide what to appeal and the court has to decide what appeals it's going to take. Right. That's where we're at. Well, I think it goes without saying that we will be covering this intently. Well, I mean, what else are we going to do? My living nightmare will continue. Mila Patel's waking nightmare will go on for really an indefinite period of time, I would say. Years. He loves it. For years. But I will say that this wave, this swell will greatly diminish. I mean, we have been covering this like crazy. There have been so many developments in this. We've been live blogging it. This well has now dissipated and the surf is going out. I don't know what this water thing is. No, I mean, unless something crazy happens, like these are the ends. I'm trying to make a water analogy. It's like 10 o'clock on Friday. It's been a long week. You just want some water. I just want some water. I'm just thirsty, okay? But, you know, we'll keep tracking this, obviously. Just keep your eyes on theverge.com for more action. And I want to thank David Pierce, Ross Miller, who was on for like five minutes and said one thing and then left, Matt McCary, and Neelay Patel, obviously. And Brian on the ground. Oh, yes. Brian Dixon. Let's just say we could not overstate how clutch Brian has been in this reporting. He's been in the courtroom every day, live blogging this thing, putting together stories. Just incredible, incredible reporting from him. Very happy to have him on the team. And when I see him soon, I'm going to kiss him on the mouth, full on the mouth, open mouth, tongue. No big deal. We're all grownups here. And he's earned it, really, when you think about it. It's very possible that he is chasing a juror to their house right now. Yeah, we're totally positive. They snuck out the back. Yeah, the jurors. Oh, really? Yeah, in case you're wondering, the jurors snuck out the back. We've not gotten any statements from the jurors or the attorneys right now. We'll be working on that. And we'll obviously have a post-up when you see it. Thanks, everybody here who's tuned in, especially all the new Redditors. We love you. And you can come anytime you want, come back anytime you want. And we will be back on The Vergecast this coming Thursday, as always. So that's our show. Thanks so much. And now go have a drink for the love of God. Have a good weekend. Yeah, and have a good weekend.