The Reg never liked Apple to begin with...
What is funny is that almost all of the assertions by Android fans are incorrect:.
1. Apple didn't patent and stop Samsung from using rounded rectangles. Indeed, that one got thrown out.
2. Apple actually offered to license Samsung key patents in 2010 and Samsung refused. That's why Apple sued. How is that stifling competition?
3. Samsung can and does create phones that don't infringe on Apple property. As do many other companies. Take a look at Nokia, the Lumia series of phones are beautiful and well designed. Others too, like Sony, RIM, etc can design a phone that looks nothing like an iPhone
3. Apple competes in the courtroom not in the marketplace. I guess that's why we have an iPhone 5 just around the corner, updates to iOS and new and innovative features being added to these products all the time like Retina Displays and so on.
4. Pinch to Zoom, Rubberbanding, Tap to Zoom 'All Obvious" . This meme oft repeated by the Android fans is wearing thin. How is it so obvious that right up until Apple implemented it in the iPhone, nobody else thought of doing it? And then straight after, everyone else scrambled to use it?
As for preventing everyone else from using it - Hello Microsoft? They seem to have got round Apple by, erm, cross licensing their technology! Therefore destroying one of the principle claims that Android fanboys like to repeaet. As for 'Prior Art', well, Apple bought Fingerworks, who invented the technology in 1999, well before the Diamond Touch display and other so called 'prior art' evidence Samsung brought up. Also those examples were nothing to do with what is implemented and patented by Apple!
5. Samsung could have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they didn't copy Apple by being allowed the refused prior art? Rubbish. Firstly none of it was from a working and released product. Secondly, it looked nothing like the iPhone. Closer to a Nokia N95 actually. It was considered irrelevant and late. Samsung's typical tactic in this case was to spread FUD and bring up tenuous examples of Prior Art.
6. Samsung stated they weren't copying Apple at all, then tried to invalidate all the claims by bringing up such examples of Prior Art that weren't actually prior art. They either did copy and need to invalidate, or didnt ad therefore dont need to invalidate, which is it?
7. The court were biased because they are from the US, and therefore would always award a US company in a case like this.
Oh come on, how childish are you? Samsung vetted and vetoed anyone they thought might have undue bias. That argument might work in a forum of teenagers arguing over wether iOS or Android are better, but in the real world, evidence, fact and reality get in the way of such nonsense.
8. IOS steals ideas from Android. Nonsense. How can you steal from a free, open source OS? It's also only been since Honeycomb that Android really started to carve out it's own identity.
The fact is, Android fans are upset that the Appple fanboys got 'one over' on them and somehow this is just too irksome for them to tolerate.
The reality is that any ban or fine will take years to come to fruition, Samsung are already working round Apple patents and have a bloody good phone in the S3 that isnt infringing on Apple patents. Most of the stuff Apple got Samsung for are Touchwiz UI features, and Android itself is quite safe.
The end result will probably be that Apple gets a license fee from other Android makers that infringe, and that'll be the end of it.
Symbian,, Windows Phone and Blackberry OS managed to not infringe on Apple IP for many years, so there's no reason to not expect Android to do so too.
What wont happen is that companies like Google and so on wont take shortcuts to success by blatantly copying others innovations, and will instead have to spend money researching stuff themselves.