(Vascellaro).
"Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer," said Samsung. "It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices" (Vascellaro). .
An Apple spokesperson also presented a statement following the trial: "The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew" (Vascellaro).
According to Brian Love, an assistant professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, because Apple successfully proved that Samsung willfully infringed upon the patents, Judge Lucy Koh could not grant Apple three times the damages award. "This is a huge, crushing win for Apple," he said (Vascellaro). .
Samsung reiterated by claiming that they were simply following market demands and giving consumers what they wanted - smartphones with big screens and easy-to-use capabilities. Within these capabilities, many of them were determined to be the sole rights of Apple, including the "bounce back" feature when a user scrolls to an end image and the ability to zoom text with a tap of a finger (USA Today). .
Aside from the award amount due to Apple, the jury's decision also affects how smartphones and tablets will be made in the future. Apple relied on their patents to stifle the growth of Google's operating system, Android, which is used by Samsung and other device makers. In the second quarter, Android phones represented 68% of smartphone shipments, while Apple only held 17% of the shipments (Vascellaro). .
"This decision should not be allowed to stand because it would discourage innovation and limit the rights of consumers to make choices for themselves," said Samsung's lawyer John Quinn. Samsung plans on asking the judge to toss out the verdict (USA Today). .
As a result of the trial, Apple was given a tremendous amount of power in the industry, making it easier for them to maintain and even strengthen their market position and high profit margins.