Editor's note: We're listening to you. Every day, we spot thought-provoking comments from readers. Here's some comments we noticed today.

Apple and Samsung have been involved in a long battle over the design of Samsung devices that Apple says were "ripped off" from iPads and iPhones. Samsung also countersued Apple for infringing on some of its patents. After a federal jury in California recommended Friday that Apple be awarded more than $1 billion in damages, readers are talking about patents and the ways people define product designs.

Jury: Samsung should pay Apple more than $1 billion

Many readers were outraged, saying Apple's suit appeared malicious.

Jerad Howell: "What a ridiculous verdict. There are only so many ways you can design a touchscreen device. Apparently, this jury believes that Apple should be allowed to have a monopoly on touchscreen tablets and phones."

ogive17: "Apple's new motto 'litigate, not innovate.' Yes, I wanted Apple to lose."

Stnley Kubrick: "This sucks. Sanity once again defeated."

But some said there were some obvious design similarities.

TheH0LYT0AST: "For the life of me I don't understand how anyone can look at the picture at the top of this article and say, 'What? I don't see anything wrong with that.' "

Clint4CNN: "GOOD! Samsung is a thief, and they got caught!"

Nicholas Bloom: "Like Apple needs the money. They charge an arm and a leg for their products. Fair is fair, though."

Some made jabs at the U.S. patenting system.

kalatu: "Thank you Apple for confirming that you invented the 'rectangle.' "

justanother1: "No, because they get patents like 'rounded edges' and 'making a line on a touch screen' and then use their million dollar lawyers to sue anybody that dares to compete against them."

Ribbons21: "It seems like Apple has been allowed to patent way way too many things. I use Apple products (laptop and iPad), but my phone is a Samsung galaxy nexus. Trying to sue competitors out of business because the patent office allowed patents like slide to unlock is just ridiculous in my opinion."

Bull31: "I agree. Samsung obviously ripped off Apple's technology."

wave9x: "Awesome win for innovation, terrible loss for copycats. Buh bye Samsung – try to come up with your own ideas. Doubt anything worthwhile will come of that!"

alientech: "Before the iPhone, smart phones had keyboards and looked like the Blackberry. After the iPhone, smart phones have touchscreens and look like the iPhone. Apple's idea was obviously worth copying."

Readers debated what was going on with Apple.

Tom Thompson: "This is why I dislike Apple products so much.Their hardware has always been cutting edge and pretty cool but this proprietary take-no-prisoners business model is the same reason they fell from grace in the '90s. Not only do they not play nicely with others, their devices don't either. Compatibility across platforms is an essential requirement for a piece of technology to proliferate. Once the Kool-Aid and novelty wears off people will wake up and realize it's not worth paying twice as much for a device and Apple will be left in the dust once again!"

Daktaklakpak: "No, the reason they fell from grace in the '90s was because of being continually ramrodded my Microsoft, and having all their software innovations blatantly ripped off by the competition. This is the first time in history that a major decision like this has gone Apple's way. It probably does have to do with them suddenly being the big kid on the block, but they deserved some vindication all along."

Does it matter to the end user?

809do.com: "This situation is getting annoying! It's like a bunch of male teenagers comparing their rod sizes! In the end, these legal battles will hurt the evolution of software and hardware technologies big time ..."

TheH0LYT0AST: "How is copying = evolving?"

What do you think? Do you take one side or another? Share your opinion in the comments area below and in the latest stories on CNN.com. Or sound off on video via CNN iReport.

Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.