With the first leg of the beginning of the initial portion of the Apple v. Samsung trial finally over, many people are left uncertain, while others are left confused and a choice few are left befuddled.

As always, Alt Text is here to clear things up with the latest in our FAQK (Frequently Asked Questions, Kevin) series.

What was Apple awarded in damages? ———————————-

More money than you could possibly conceive of if you sat right down and did nothing but conceive for the rest of your life. So much money that if you turned it into a swimming pool, a la Scrooge McDuck, that swimming pool would legally qualify as Lake Michigan, assuming Duckburg is somewhere in Minnesota or Ontario. In other words, a tiny fraction of Apple's net worth.

What did Samsung do to deserve such damages? ———————————————

According to the jury, the company infringed on a number of Apple's interface and design patents, and also was kind of a jerk about it, although not enough to meet the legal standard for statutory jerkiness.

What kind of patents? ———————-

Allow me to quote one: "A computer-implemented method, for use in conjunction with a portable electronic device with a touch screen display, comprises displaying at least a portion of a structured electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes of content, and detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the structured electronic document. A first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture is determined. The first box on the touch screen display is enlarged and substantially centered."

Buh? —–

Something to do with touching.

Did Samsung actually infringe the patents? ——————————————-

I listened to a number of legal professionals weigh in on the merits of the case, many of them experts in the field, and their consensus was: "Buh?"

If law experts don't know if it was infringing, then who does? —————————————————————

Twelve random people who showed up at the courthouse, apparently.

Wasn't it all about rounded rectangles? —————————————-

Oh, heavens no, that would be silly. The rounded rectangle form was actually the one patent that the jury did not find Samsung guilty of infringing. The company was instead found guilty of copying such unfathomably original ideas as edge-to-edge glass, having icons arranged into a grid, and the color black.

Will Samsung have to stop making phones? —————————————–

No, Samsung has already started making phones that don't violate those patents, like the new burlap-screened purple phone where the icons are arranged into a pentagon.

Will this lead to a substantial change in patent law? ——————————————————

That depends on who ends up in power after the coming elections. If Obama stays in the White House, no. If Romney replaces him, hell no. However, if the election goes to Elwisk the Pixie King, running on the Wishes and Rosebud Wine Party ticket, maybe.

What happens now? ——————

Samsung will appeal, Apple with appeal the appeal, Motorola will sue Apple, Microsoft will sue Motorola. Then in 2026, smartphones will be replaced with blink-activated thumbnail computing devices, Apple will patent glossy black thumbnails, and it will start all over again.

- - -

Born helpless, naked and unable to provide for himself, Lore Sjöberg overcame these handicaps to become a lawyer, a scholar and a bother.