Don’t they have to show more than that the phone acts superficially like the Apple phone in order to make a patent infringement case? As in, they have to show that the Samsung was reverse engineered so as to mechanically perform the same functions?
Anyone who holds an advanced science degree and becomes a patent attorney can do very well for themselves. The nuances of these patent cases can be very tricky to wade through.
Anyway, corporate espionage is nasty stuff. And not all countries respect patents, either. It is very difficult to hold on to intellectual property... intellectual property theft is a big hindrance to innovation.
When I was in graduate school (for biochemistry), some lab published the description of a genetic construct that was identical to one patented by our principal investigator. They had never asked us for the construct—which we would have provided for free—they claimed it was all their own work. The principal investigator was *not* happy about this. Oh, it was a Korean lab.
The first trial was about "Trade Dress" and "Design Patents." Look at these photographs with the young-in-cheek heading.
And finally, here is a link to the an article with the entire 132 page "smoking gun" document from Samsung in which the upper management directed their engineering department on exactly what features of the iPhone to steal.
Patent infringement is all about the claims, and sometimes (like when the claim says "means of doing blahblahblah") looking at the body of the patent to find what "means" have been described.
A patent claim that only claims function (and this can be a tough line to draw) isn't valid. The patent has to teach HOW to accomplish the function. For example, I can't patent something as vague as "3,000 pound car that gets more than 78 miles per gallon of gasoline." I have to describe (and claim) some way to get to that end. The point of patents is to make the "how to" a matter of public record, to teach the public how to practice your invention.
Anyway, reverse engineering isn't required (patent, unlike copyright, give the first inventor rights over a second and later independent inventors), and performing the same function isn't enough. BUT, if the infringing device does the same thing, the same way, that the patent claims, then there is supposed to be a finding of infringement. That finding is supposed to attach even in the absence of any copying or reverse engineering.
I am opposed to business method and software patents, because I think they are a drag on innovation, and they create a no-value-added industry of patent filing, prosecution, and infringement litigation.
I think the patent office royally screwed up when it granted the design (ornamental appearance) patent for a rectangular prismatic object with four rounded edges. I once had an inventor who asked about getting a design patent on what amounted to a triangular pocket (of fabric, but the claim would have covered paper or any flexible material). It's not supposed to be possible, because a triangular pocket, without more, lacks "ornamental appearance." But, I said, if you put some artwork on that item, THEN you have an object that is within the scope of "ornamental design."