I think that's what's so frustrating to me as an engineer. Samsung's technology patents were clearly violated, but did not win in court. Why? Perhaps because they aren't common sense. They are complex and intricate. THAT is what patents should be about. Not common sense.
Samsung had a contract with Qualcomm that said they wouldn't sue Qualcomm or, critically, any of its customers over use of the 3G patents. Apple bought chips from Qualcomm.
Samsung wanted ammunition to countersue Apple over its patent claims, so they rescinded the contract with Qualcomm. Apple then approached Samsung offering to pay a fair and reasonable amount for a license. Samsung thought they should pay much more. Apple disagreed and continued to use the chips, which was their sole violation as far as I can tell.
The Dutch ruling basically forced Samsung to accept fair and reasonable licensing fees from Apple, and the US court today said Samsung was infringing on many of Apple's design patents.
If I'm wrong, please correct where I'm wrong, but I don't understand how you are letting Samsung off the hook. Design patents are not necessarily common sense, just as hardware design is not necessarily "complex and intricate" to someone familiar with hardware design.
Patents don't need to be complex and intricate. They simply need to be non-obvious, useful, original, and not on the list of things that aren't patentable (music, literature, etc.).
I take it you couldn't be bothered to understand the case.
Samsung lost its counterclaims due to patent exhaustion which common sense suggests they deserved to lose. You can thank Intel for siding with Apple on this one.
