[ghost91]

But pinch to zoom is not invented by Apple. Microsoft Surface implemented it before, also it was shown in some scifi movies way before then.

[andybak]

I'm not clear on this and haven't got around to reading the patent to try and figure it out.

This is the patent in question: http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381

This patent is more limited: http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 as discussed here: http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-pat...

However - it was granted after the first patent (2010 vs 2008)

[m_eiman]

That first one isn't related to multitouch, it's about bounce-back when scrolling with a single finger.

[StavrosK]

That's true. Can't someone successfully contest it, then?

[intended]

Iirc the groklaw point was that

1) Yes there is prior art

but Samsung lost because

2) It was shown that Samsung was willfully trying to make its products similar to Apple's.

There are some further murky corners to the verdict, one aspect which seems will be contested is the size of the damages. The Jury foreman stated that they valued the damages to be "more than a slap on the wrist".

Whereas the instructions given clearly state that the jury is not to levy punitive damages, but to recoup losses incurred by the infringed.

Edit: Going to double check just to be sure.

Update:

Iirc the groklaw point was that

1) Yes there is prior art

but Samsung lost because

2) It was shown that Samsung was willfully trying to make its products similar to Apple's.

There are some further murky corners to the verdict, one aspect which seems will be contested is the size of the damages. The Jury foreman stated that they valued the damages to be "more than a slap on the wrist".

Whereas the instructions given clearly state that the jury is not to levy punitive damages, but to recoup losses incurred by the infringed.

Edit: Going to double check just to be sure.

Update: From the verdict:

Patent invalidity, Samsung had to prove apple invalid - No, across the board for all patents brought up.

Apple contested that 3 feature related patents and 4 design patents were infringed

  a) '381 - rubber band - valid / Samsung infringed
  b) ’915 - pinch to zoom or scroll - valid / Samsung infringed
  c) ’163 - multi-tap to zoom - valid / Samsung infringed

Samsung also was found to be willfully infringing.

  d) '667 - iPhone front design - valid / infringed /willful
  e) '087 - iPhone back design - valid / infringed /willful
  f) '305 - iPhone home screen - valid / infringed /willful
  g) '889 - iPad design - no infringement 

Apple has only proven that the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress is protectable. Negative on the iPhone / iPad combo and the iPad / iPad 2 trade dress

This is a pretty broad sweep of the verdict, a lot of the verdict breaks down onto whether Samsung Telecom America (STA), Samsung Electronics (SEC) and Samsung Engineering America (SEA). This is further broken down over each product which is found to be infringing.

Sources:

http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/

http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/301948/apple-patent-bre...

http://www.bgr.in/manufacturers/samsung/samsungs-patent-tria...

yet another edit: Also to be noted is that none of Samsung's claims against Apple were found valid.