Apple vs Samsung Patent Battle a Threat to Innovation

APPLE VS SAMSUNG PATENT BATTLE A THREAT TO INNOVATION Rather than innovate and dilate its own engine room and a unique Samsung style for its Smartphone product and computer tablets, Samsung choose to copy Apples applied science user inter expression and installation style in these infringing products. Apple had accused Samsung of copying its intellectual property, including its very(prenominal) broad design indubitables for rectangular electronic devices. And Apple wants to use those plains to stop its competitor from selling items equivalent the new (rectangular) Galaxy tablet and (rectangular) Android-based Smartphones.On Aug. 24, a San Jose jury awarded Apple Inc. a whopping $1. 05 billion in damages. Apple-Samsung jury Verdict The cardinal-person jury in the trial between the two tech-giants faces a wildly multiplex form to determine the winner. SAN JOSE, Calif. There is little doubt that the trial between Apple and Samsung taking belongings here is complex, and perha ps nowhere is that cleargonr than in the form that jurors will have to fill out on their way to paying a verdict later this week. The document, which both sides have yet to agree on, is remedy in its draft stage. In Samsungs case, its 33 questions long, and stretched across 17 pages. For Apple, its 23 questions spread over nine pages. Both forms ask jurors to check off which products infringe on specific patent claims, an exercise that includes termination through charts that sometimes span several pages. On Apples form there are some 225 checkboxes regarding patent infringement. The other parts of the verdict form ask slightly more nebulous questions, like whether claims indoors 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-pe rson jury, who must reach a unanimous decision. Result The jury award shows the growing importance of design for electronic makers. calcium jury awarded Apple $1. 05 billion in a patent dispute with Samsung. The share price of Samsung electronics dropped nigh 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 foodstuff with their crafts 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 re quire 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 community like patents which were conceived to underwrite investments in innovation but to serve the wider interests of society It will lead to few choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices, Samsung said in a written statement. It is unfortunate that patent constabulary 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 tatty and clear message that stealing isnt right. This highlights a central issue in todays innovation-based economy. Intellectual property integrity 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 contrary 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 sketch a lonely genius toiling away until he or she finally has an aha moment. In fact, innovation is often an incremental, collective and competitive suffice. And the ability to build on existing creative work to draw off 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 enchant Samsung accused products in U. S market. Consumer con fusion 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. DONT MIMIC BUSINESS DNA. WE ALL DO WRONG STUFF BUT IF YOU adopt NOTICED AND WARNED BE SMART.