There's been a constant drumbeat in the US press this election year bumming up US workers and doing down their foreign competition. I wonder if that didn't influence the verdict by creating a climate of "if a foreign company has it, it must have been nicked from a US one" in the minds of the jurors.
Apple, after all, aren't immune from using the odd bit of intellectual property law as a commercial weapon themselves. HERE's a critique of the flimsy pretext for the suit against Samsung.
Is anyone surprised by this a Korean company loseng to an American one in a US court where the judge deemed some of Samsungs evidence inadmissable because she said it had come too late and not that it might add something to Samsungs defence. She also got pissed off with Samsungs lawyers when they released the evidence to the general media despite her telling them they couldn't. This could get intreasting as Samsung make many of the critical chips found in apple products, expect this to go the distance with multiple appeals that make the British asylum process seem streamlined.
Most of Apple's supply chain still seems to be with Foxconn/Hon Hai and if the amount of money they've sunk into upgrades to facilities is any indication they've no plans to switch in the near future.
What'll be really interesting is when they go to court against a fellow US company like Google. After all, if Microsoft can be taken to court for restrictive practice over the default search engines issue, surely Apple must be guilty of a similar ill by blocking Google Maps, YouTube, etc. from their products?
That was Samsungs defence evidence the judge wouldn't allow. Sony were working on a phone whose design Samsung tried to say influenced both Apple and it's self, so how could Samsung be guity of copying Apple? The Judge wouldn't have any of it. Unfortunately we are going to see a lot more litigation as the patents for the telecom industry are becoming more focused in the hands of the few remaining big players.