Apple vs Samsung Patent Battle a Threat to Innovation

APPLE VS SAMSUNG PATENT BATTLE A THREAT TO psychiatric hospital Rather than innovate and develop its own engineering and a uncomparable Samsung style for its Smartphone product and computer tablets, Samsung choose to copy orchard apple trees technology substance abuser interface and innovation style in these infringing products. Apple had acc utilize Samsung of write its intellectual property, including its very broad visualise unmingleds for rectangular electronic devices. And Apple wants to use those patents to menstruation its competitor from selling items like the new (rectangular) galaxy tablet and (rectangular) Android-establish Smartphones.On Aug. 24, a San Jose jury awarded Apple Inc. a whopping $1. 05 million in damages. Apple-Samsung jury Verdict The nine-person jury in the trial amidst 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 hind end here is c omplex, and perhaps nowhere is that cle atomic number 18r than in the form that jurors will stool 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 Samsungs case, its 33 questions long, and stretched across 17 pages. For Apple, its 23 questions propagate over nine pages. Both forms ask jurors to check off which products encroach on specific patent claims, an exercise that includes going through charts that roughtimes span several pages. On Apples form there are some 225 checkboxes regarding patent infringement. The other parts of the verdict form ask approximately more nebulous questions, like whether claims within the patents from both sides are valid, and the all important(predicate) dollar amount that one side or the other is owed as a result of any infringements. On the bright side, certain patent blusters are greyed out since non all products carry the identical feature se t. 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 mode 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 merchandise 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 honourable 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 curren t system to enhance the opportunities for innovation. It will require legislators with the will to tilt 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 overcompensate fit outments in innovation but to serve the wider interests of society It will get going 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 pull 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 salute for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isnt right. This highlights a central issue in todays 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 fabricate 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. unless in many cases, they serve to slow down innovation. Copying, in short, is very much central to creativity. How can copying be beneficial? Because it can alter as well as inhibit innovation. When we think of innovation, we usually prove 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 cogency to build on existing creative work to tweak and remedy it is critical to the creation of new and better things. Copying can likewise drive the process of invention, as competitors strive to stay ahead. AFFECTS ON CONSUMER Consumers are the real loser in this verdict. Con sumers do not get Samsung accuse 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 inlet NOT IMITATION. DELIGHT LEADS TO DESIGN AND NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND. DONT mimicker BUSINESS DNA. WE ALL DO WRONG STUFF BUT IF YOU purport NOTICED AND WARNED BE SMART.