“I spent some time on the weekend digesting the results and implications of the verdict [from] the Apple and Samsung patent trial,” Ben Bajarin writes for TechPinions. “I watched my Twitter stream flow continuously with many remarking on the negatives of the verdict and many remarking on the positives. I am yet to see a convincing analysis one way or another as to whether the win for Apple is good or bad, which leaves me thinking that only time will reveal the answer.”
“So rather than dive too deep on whether the verdict is good or bad for the industry, I would rather make a different observation,” Bajarin writes. “It is easier to follow than lead.”
Bajarin writes, “The one thing that I think is interesting about Apple as a company is that under the vision of Steve Jobs in particular, their culture and their products have ALWAYS had a unique identity. Even if a particular concept or idea was ‘borrowed’ it was done so in a way uniquely and freshly with a specific vision in mind.”
Read more in the full article here.
Related articles:
After Apple’s thermonuclear victory over Samsung, Google may be next – August 27, 2012
Some hope Apple’s sweeping patent victory against Samsung, Android is Pyrrhic – August 27, 2012
Samsung shares drop $12 billion after Apple’s court victory – August 27, 2012
Apple v. Samsung jury: Google email iced it for Apple – August 26, 2012
Tim Cook memo to Apple employees: Court victory over Samsung ‘is about values’ – August 26, 2012
Jury finds Samsung willfully violated Apple patents – August 24, 2012
I believe this is huge, and not just for the tech industry. It sets a judicial standard for the innovators to halt the rampant profiteering from the pirates and other market bottom-feeders regardless how large the cloning corporation may be.
It will eventually help insure a better environment for the consumer, where they can better distinguish the quality from the crap.
It will be huge but not for the reason’s that you suggest. The Jury Foreman will be the cause for a re-trial or an Appeal. Meanwhile back the Ranch, Samsung will be supplying 60+% of all Apple device’s innards.
That’s because they would prefer ignorant people on a jury who don’t know what they are doing and judging. Heaven forbid! All they need do is check whether the info this guy gave the other jurors was correct and untainted and they suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them. Jurors actually use their own experiences when judging and share their knowledge. Don’t see why this is any different. Jurors don’t judge as a lone island.
Why make things up, Pat? According to iSuppli (as reported by The Economist), Samsung contributes only 26% of the component costs in the iPhone.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/apple-and-samsungs-symbiotic-relationship
Stop exaggerating, Pat.
Samsung’s ripping off of Apple was plain old SUICIDE.
Obviously not for long.
Nice hole you shot through your own head Samsung. Well done. Now STFU and stop whining about being caught and paying the penalty. Deal with your self-destructive behavior.
ERROR: Thank a long-standing bug in CopyPaste Pro and my inattentive editing.
Please read:
Meanwhile back the Ranch, Samsung will be supplying 60+% of all Apple device’s innards.
Obviously not for long… Nice hole… STFU… Deal with…
Meanwhile, back AT the ranch….
Of course it is good for the industry. Firstly it protections the millions/billions of dollars spend on R&D and it also is an incentive. Secondly, it forces everyone to innovate and not steal. Anyone that thinks that this is bad for innovation needs to check the dictionary for the words “innovate” and “steal”. Because up until now, the rest of the industry (Samsung, HTC, LG, et al) has stolen from Apple and have not spend one thin dime on innovation. The only way this hurts the consumer is by removed infringed upon, thereby, knockoffs that have stolen not innovated….
Total *DING*DING*DING* Factor.
I don’t know what Bajarin means by “good or bad for the industry.” That’s a little like saying you don’t know if the invention of the iPhone was good or bad for the industry. It certainly wasn’t good for Research in Motion or Microsoft. Maybe it wasn’t even good for Verizon. But that’s a little like gazing at your navel. What really bothers me are the reporters who want to say the jury ruling agains Samsung was bad. Our patent laws make it illegal to copy. If these savants really don’t like patent law, why weren’t they calling for legal changes anytime in the last 20 years? It’s more like they want the courts to apply the laws selectively, which the judges do way too often.
Well said!
Why was Eric the Mole really “kicked upstairs?”
In the best Yoda voice: “Begun the clone war has.”
“Apple…their culture and their products have ALWAYS had a unique identity.”
I see this as the only way to do a valuable physical product. Otherwise you are one of 6 wannabes and only the cheapskate consumers take you seriously.
In a larger sense, I can see this leading initially to a smaller number of competitors. One can say that is not good.
But then along come Jeeve Stobs and suddenly…a new minimal form factor phone, narrow screen & optional miniature earpiece and hands off answer and call appears which can appeal to people who really want the cell phone to be primarily for calls.
After all, do you really want your cell phone to do emailing or web browing and be a big and klunky phone?
The trick is still to answer consumer needs first with the best and then keep improving.
Here is a link to a Samsung company blog giving their slanted view of things- complete with comments. Feel free to share your views.
http://global.samsungtomorrow.com/?p=17705