Apple vs Samsung Patent Battle a Threat to Innovation

APPLE VS SAMSUNG PATENT BATTLE A THREAT TO INNOVATION Rather than innovate and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung style for its Smartphone product and computer tablets, Samsung choose to copy Apple’s technology user interface and innovation style in these infringing products. Apple had accused Samsung of copying its intellectual property, including its very broad design patents for rectangular “electronic devices. And Apple wants to use those patents to stop its competitor from selling items like the new (rectangular) Galaxy tablet and (rectangular) Android-based Smartphone’s.
On Aug. 24, a San Jose jury awarded Apple Inc. a whopping $1. 05 billion in damages. Apple-Samsung jury: Verdict •The nine-person jury in the trial between the two tech-giants faces a wildly complex form to determine the winner. •SAN JOSE, Calif. — There is little doubt that the trial between Apple and Samsung taking place here is complex, and perhaps nowhere is that clearer than in the form that jurors will have to fill out on their way to reaching a verdict later this week. The document, which both sides have yet to agree on, is still in its draft stage. In Samsung’s case, it’s 33 questions long, and stretched across 17 pages. For Apple, it’s 23 questions spread over nine pages. •Both forms ask jurors to check off which products infringe on specific patent claims, an exercise that includes going through charts that sometimes p several pages. On Apple’s form there are some 225 checkboxes regarding patent infringement. The other parts of the verdict form ask slightly more nebulous questions, like whether claims within the patents from both sides are valid, and the all-important dollar amount that one side or the other is owed as a result of any infringements. •On the bright side, certain patent features are greyed out since not all products carry the identical feature set. That could be a welcome sight for the nine-person jury, who must reach a unanimous decision. Result •The jury award shows the growing importance of design for electronic makers. California jury awarded Apple $1. 05 billion in a patent dispute with Samsung. •The share price of Samsung electronics dropped nearly 7. 5 %in trading THREAT TO INNOVATION •Industry has used copyright as a means of preventing innovation. Copyright was a deliberate weapon to stop innovation, and thus maintain the status quo. The patent system is being used similarly •Whether the patent system prevents people like them from entering the market with their inventions is unknown. They are more than likely to continue working because they are optimists chasing a dream of seeing their invention realised; of being rich, or just creating something that serves a purpose. •The barriers to them achieving their goals for themselves and how they are shared to all must be removed. That means renovating the current system to enhance the opportunities for innovation. •It will require legislators with the will to change the rules and protocols in the face of opposition from vested interests. It is possible, but the motive may not originate from a wish to assist the corporation – like patents which were conceived to underwrite investments in innovation – but to serve the wider interests of society •”It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices,” Samsung said in a written statement. • “It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. •Apple, meanwhile, praised the court for “sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right. ” This highlights a central issue in today’s innovation-based economy. •Intellectual property law is based on the notion that copying is bad for creativity. It is usually cheaper to copy something than create something wholly new. If innovators are not protected against imitation, they will not invest in more innovation. •The real world, however, tells a different story. Imitation is at the centre of an enormous amount of innovation.
Rules against copying are sometimes necessary. But in many cases, they serve to slow down innovation. Copying, in short, is often central to creativity. •How can copying be beneficial? Because it can enable as well as inhibit innovation. When we think of innovation, we usually picture a lonely genius toiling away until he or she finally has an “aha! ” moment. •In fact, innovation is often an incremental, collective and competitive process. And the ability to build on existing creative work — to tweak and refine it — is critical to the creation of new and better things. Copying can also drive the process of invention, as competitors strive to stay ahead. AFFECTS ON CONSUMER •Consumers are the real loser in this verdict. •Consumers do not get Samsung accused products in U. S market. •Consumer confusion between products and functions. •Now consumer may not get better existing products for lower prices. BUSINESS LESSONS FROM APPLE VS SAMSUNG •INSPIRATION NOT IMITATION. •DELIGHT LEADS TO DESIGN AND NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND. •DON’T MIMIC BUSINESS DNA. •WE ALL DO WRONG STUFF BUT IF YOU GET NOTICED AND WARNED BE SMART.