Apple and Samsung failed to reach a settlement this week, so it's now up to a jury to decide whether or not Samsung "slavishly copied" Apple's mobile devices, and who deserves to pay. While the jury deliberates over dozens of trade dress claims and a complex countersuit, we look back at some farcical moments from the trial and forward to how the results could change the face of the tech industry (or not).

So wait, my Samsung Fascinate isn't an iPhone?

Apple was forced to open the market-research vault.

Samsung: the Galaxy Nexus was a bug on a Cadillac's windshield.

Are you smoking crack?

Kent Van Liere, an expert witness called by Apple, was present to represent folks who decidedly aren't experts. Apparently, the way to judge whether Samsung's devices infringed the trademarked "look" of Apple's is to ask people who might have trouble telling the difference: Van Liere said 37% of those surveyed thought they were looking at an iPhone.Remember when Steve Jobs said "We do no market research"? Apparently the company's extensive, confidential surveys of what users like or don't about their iPhones and iPads don't count. Needless to say, Apple was not happy when Judge Koh deemed the results necessary evidence, making them publicly available.Well okay, not exactly. Apple's lawyer Mark Perry referred to the Galaxy Nexus as “the top of the line, Cadillac phone they trotted out to compete with the iPhone.” Samsung claimed in response that the Galaxy Nexus's market share was too “minuscule” by comparison to damage iPhone sales.

Arguments wrapped up with under a minute to spare.

The verdict will be 20 pages long.

Guess who's making the call:

Of course, this isn't over...

When Apple filed a 75-page brief and tried to Call 20 extra Witnesses on the last day before closing arguments, Judge Lucy Koh responded, "unless you're smoking crack you know these witnesses aren't going to be called." Apple lawyer William Lee's awesome deadpan response: "Your honor, I'm not smoking crack. I can promise you that."In order to keep the companies' attorneys from putting "everyone into a coma," their arguments were limited to 25 hours. Would you be surprised to learn both sides wrung out every last drop of time (short of facing sanctions for going over)? Neither were we.The question "Did Samsung rip off Apple" has been at the center of most coverage for the trial, but it's a seriously simplified version of the story.Apple's dozens of trade dress counts put Samsung in a corner, and their countersuit strategy was a three-fold, arguably inconsistent argument that complicated the proceedings immensely: (1) We didn't infringe Apple's patents. (2) Well maybe we did, but they shouldn't have been granted those patents. (3) Even if the patents are valid and we infringed them, we didn't sell enough of anything to really hurt Apple's revenue.Each juror has a 20-page fill-in-the-blanks document to fill out - if any of their forms disagree: hung jury.Nine jurors who have no prior experience dealing with patent law, contract law or antitrust law. In order to mitigate confusion (or ignorance), Judge Koh took them through an extensive crash course as part of her 109 pages of jury instruction. Still, whatever they decide will echo big-time throughout the entire US tech industry. For a lawsuit like this to make it all the way to a jury trial is extremely rare.No matter what the decision is, there will be an appeal: there's just too much at stake for both sides. But if Apple manages to get an injunction against Samsung - with the new iPhone imminent and the holidays approaching - that could devastate Samsung's Q4 earnings.

Jon Fox is a Seattle hipster who loves polar bears and climbing trees. You can follow him on Twitter and IGN