Samsung vs. Apple

Recently, a U.S. court declared Apple as the victor in its patent war against Samsung adding that the latter copied key features of the former’s iPhone and iPad thereby ordering Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 Billion in damages.

On the other side of this world, a South Korean court determined that the contesting companies are at fault; consequently, disallowing both firms to sell a number of their products.

Then a week after the verdict, on August 31, a Japanese court declared Samsung as the winner of the patent dispute saying Samsung did not infringe Apple’s products.

To date, after its U.S. victory, Apple was as expected to slice its major competitor as it seeks to prohibit Samsung products from the U.S. market alongside filing a new list of Samsung devices it claims infringed its patents. Well, that’s just how business goes.

And so, what do we see here?

One.  For technology firms, there would be more innovations coming our way which would be good for the really creative companies and for the consumers, of course.

Two.  Homecourt wins.  This makes the verdicts a bit questionable as proclaimed winners are from the country where the cases were processed.

Three.  There would be more court decisions to come as Apple still has some pending cases it filed on other countries.  Yet, would it still matter?  Where were the respective products “designed” anyway?

Now, what could be done?

For One, for those who wants to earn a buck but are not creative enough, just be a marketing and distribution channel for the products that interests you.  This will help you learn more about the product and could lead you to better, more innovative ideas.

For Two, if crimes against humanity has an International Criminal Court – “business matters” should also have a special house for all legal issues and battles.  This would make verdicts more trustworthy.

Finally Three, “round edges” on tablet designs are too basic a feature to quarrel about.  In fact, it should not have even been part of the case, after all, both parties even have a more than $5 Billion supply relationship. See, this is not being soft but about recognizing facts and what is just “too simple”.

With this, both parties should just take this incident as a chance to renew their partnership but, at the same time, drawing a line that if trust would again be breached – the violator would be suspended for a year from selling its products to any country.

Welcome to the Billion Dollar War.

What’s your take?