However, in case you have already taken sides and are waiting to jump in joy for the verdict; drain out the adrenaline, because this judge has silenced both parties in the interest of the consumers, giving us another excuse to prove to you the need for more Female judges.

So, here’s taking you through the entire adventure of how to extinguish the most ridiculous cross fires with a composed demeanour. The two had first attended a court in San Jose, California in August when, a nine member jury had given their verdict in favour of Apple. They awarded the firm with an infringement fine of 1 billion dollars, to be paid by Samsung, for infringement of Apples design and utility patents.

Earlier this month, the two tech gurus were back in court in order to take the issue forward. Yesterday in the evening, Judge Lucy Koh denied requests made by both the parties. While Samsung argued that there are only three products on sale in the US which Apple is against, Apple lawyers tried to convince the judge on their theory that the infringement has diminished the value of Apple’s brand.

Koh concluded that if Samsung has redesigned the existing three products in order to avoid offence against Apple’s patents and stopped the sale of the offending devices, then Apple “cannot credibly claim to suffer any significant hardship”. She added: “The public interest does not support removing phones from the market when the infringing components constitute such limited parts of complex, multi-featured products.”

The crux of the situation, as pointed out by Koh, is that the phones that offend Apple’s patents contain a broad range of features and only a small fraction of those are covered by Apple’s patents. Hence, to ban an entire product in order to protect a few protected features is an argument in vain.