"The ability to get a design patent on a user interface implies that design patent law is broken. This, to me, is the Supreme Court issue in this case. We can dicker about the 'facts'... but whether you can stop all people from having square icons in rows of four with a dock is something that I thought we settled in Lotus versus Borland 15 years ago. I commend Apple for finding a way around basic user interface law, but this type of ruling cannot stand."
Michael Risch, Madisonian.net
"The emails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, [Apple] showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea – I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."
Juror Manuel Ilagan, quoted on CNet
"On December 14, 2007, Apple laid claim to the supposed novel invention of 'list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display,' the formal title of United States Patent 7,469,381 B2, with a patent application granted after a year-long review by the patent office that apparently didn't include watching this scene from 2002's Minority Report, where Tom Cruise does all of those things and more with a spiffy 3D interface.
Maxwell S. Kennerly, The Beasley Firm
"The $1bn+ win by Apple will now be used as a precedent against any of the other Android licensees in the US and likely be used as a core factor in the ITC decision to block Android products in the US. This should not only improve Apple's competitive position (effectively they will now profit from every conforming Android product sold going forward) but it will make Microsoft a far better source for a competitive licence than Google."
Rob Enderle, The Enderle Group
"The Samsung trial recalls the interesting peace agreement that Apple and Microsoft forged in 1997, when Microsoft 'invested' $150m in Apple as a fig-leaf for an IP settlement... The interesting part of the accord is the provision in which the companies agree that they won't 'clone' each other's products... Microsoft and Apple saw that an armed peace was a better solution than constant intellectual property conflicts. Can Samsung and Apple decide to do something similar and feed engineers rather than platoons of high-priced lawyers (the real winners in these battles)?"
Jean-Louis Gassee, The Guardian