Ah, but it doesn't mention pinching, what it is is a method to determine an action based on the fact if 1 (resulting scrolling) or 2 fingers (resulting in a gesture) are on the screen. It doesn't define the gesture, whence the workaround mentioned in the article of having 2 finger scrolling so this patent is circumvented because there is no differentiation being done based on the 1 finger -> scroll, 2 fingers -> gesture method. Or so I gather, I am no lawyer.

Meh, maybe someone will actually read the article and take away a new insight or learn something they didn't before, I know I did. I'd call that a win. The comments here will be ... well like they always are, good or bad that's Slashdot.
I don't think this court case is a defining moment, but the rise of smartphones and tablets is and at te very least all these court actions expose what the main players are thinking, where they come from and where they want to go. At the same time there's the entire discussion that keeps raging about patents and what should and shouldn't be patentable. I think it's definitely interesting and worth following closely. Also: huge arguments about tiny details, it's what geeks do best.

Nilay Patel of the verge, an actual honest-to-god copyright lawyer not just someone who plays an expert on the web, disagrees in his aptly named "The myth of pinch-to-zoom: how a confused media gave Apple something it doesn't own":

"So let's just be extremely clear about this: the jury ruled that 21 of 24 accused Samsung phones infringed claim 8 of Apple patent 7,844,915, which specifically covers a programming interface which detects if one finger on a screen is scrolling or two or more fingers are doing something else. It is one possible step along the road to pinch-to-zoom, but it is definitely not pinch-to-zoom itself. And — crucially — it may not be that hard to design around."

Maybe read up there too ?

I submitted this article because firstly this has been such a huge story in the mainstream press that it's good opportunity to investigate how reliable the information coming from them about tech matters is and secondly because there is a lot of confusion even among geeks about what was at stake in this trial resulting in a low signal to noise ratio in the discussions. Personally I do also believe we are at a defining moment in the modern computing industry so even if this lawsuit may end up being of little to no importance the close attention is warranted.

You've got the floor here. Offer any kind of proof or even a plausible argument instead of baseless allegations. I've never seen anyone do that instead of just insinuating things.

He says "Build quality is terrible even by Samsungs low standards." I assume that since this is a review on an Android site he sees a fair number of these. Thought it was interesting, I'm not into Android so I can't gauge how that community actually feels about Samsung products but clearly some are less than enthusiastic. And of course I love the glass and aluminum thing so anything plastic (and I do own that kind of gadget) feels cheap and creaky so it speaks to my biases.

Possibly. In the end it's all just speculation. Could be just a marketing push that was scheduled to precede the expected new iPhone launch for example. We'll not know until some time has passed and we get quarterly figures (and even then.)

Truly an example of the intelligent and discerning Android customer.

(OK I admit it, this one is little troll-ish but come on.)

Samsung ... the underdog ? This is a mega conglomerate that had a revenue of $247.5 billion in 2011 compared to Apple's $108.249 billion

When a recent review for a Samsung tablet by an Android site says something like this I doubt it :

"The build quality. Terrible even by Samsung's low standards. The back is actually squishy, and you can feel it deform while holding it. It's noisy too, the plastic creaks, groans, and grinds when you pick it up. Regular, strong plastic would still be unacceptable when everyone else uses aluminum, but this... this is insulting for a $500 tablet"

ALL these numbers are suspect including the ones cited by Forbes. These "tech analysts" are notoriously unreliable, and you can find one willing to support any argument you want to make.

Marketwatch sees a completely different phenomenon :

"While many experts predict Apple Inc.’s court victory over Samsung could shake up the wireless industry over the long term, it’s already having an impact on one key area: the resale market.

Since the $1.05 billion verdict Friday — which found that Samsung infringed on six Apple AAPL -1.04% patents — customers of Samsung have been dumping their Android products on at least one major resale site. Gazelle.com reports a 50% increase in Samsung smartphones over the past three days, which has led to a 10% drop in prices for those devices"

It's a planned economy coupled with cargo cult economics ("if you build it they will come".)

It also has a GDP nearly that of the UK, despite having 25 million less inhabitants. To compare, the UK is £1,278.2 billion in debt with an unemployment rate of 8%. Tech is also a growth industry which the UK needs since it is now too dependent on financial services, a sector that hasn't been doing especially well. That said I don't think this scheme will succeed but you can see why they would want it to.

That wouldn't displace enough poor people.