Skip to main content

The Hidden Apple v. Samsung Outcome

When I buy a product I do not just look at its price and function, I take into account the culture of the company that made the product. How does the company treat its employees and customers? Are they like AT&T where they only care about quarterly profits? What is their CEO like? Does he jump the line for liver transplants just because he has a personal jet, like Steve Jobs? These are all important factors when I purchase a product.

The Apple v. Samsung lawsuits should be illuminating to all of us regarding Apple's character. Recently, Samsung was found guilty of infringing on several of Apple's utility and design patents. Samsung was ordered to pay Apple US $1 billion. Now Apple wants to ban the Samsung Galaxy SIII. Will Apple ever be satisfied, they are already the most valuable company to exist? Apple is acting like an entitled monopoly. Moreover, the US patent system is failing us, and helping to create Apple's monopoly. There is no doubt that for innovation to continue the Sherman Antitrust Law, which prohibits monopolies, must trump the broken patent law system.

Everybody understands that there are patent laws and that Samsung was found guilty of infringing on Apple's patents. However, the patent laws are flawed, especially for design patents. How can you patent curved corners on a rectangle? If the clothing industry, which would need design patents the most, thrives without them, then so can gadgets. Clothes are much easier to copy, yet people consistently pay more for the original because they value a certain brand. Has anybody seen a decrease in innovation in the clothing industry? To the contrary, the health of the word "fashion" is proof of success of the clothing industry's brand system. The word fashion is inherently about clothing and innovation. Apple already has strong brand recognition and loyalty. Nobody can take away their beloved once-bitten apple logo. Design patents should not exist. The data proves that a brand system is sufficient.

The second type of patent is a utility patent. These are given for a certain function (e.g., pinch to to zoom). Utility patents should expire in a timely fashion relative to the time it takes to research the technology. In a fast-changing technology sector like mobile phones and tablets, no utility patent should last longer than one year.

While there was a lot of hard work done in Cupertino, CA, Apple built the iPhone off the backs of other ideas. Apple did not have the first cell phone. Apple was not the first to use 2G and 3G bands. Apple was not the first to have an all-touch phone. Apple was not the first to have a rectangular phone. Apple was not the first to have icons. Apple was not the first to have multitouch, etc... Apple was hardly the first to anything. What Apple did was put everything together into the prettiest and most functional package on the market. Apple played by the rules, it copied what it was allowed to, like the notification bar from Android. Apple also bought out technology and got licenses for other pieces. But if history can teach us anything, goodness goes beyond playing by the rules, for the rules can be flawed. If the ultimate goal is consumer satisfaction, the rules are horribly flawed. If you think the laws should exist to protect shareholders profits, you are wrong, but even then the current patent laws only help to protect a monopoly's profit.

Apple has gone too far in limiting consumer choices for the sake of protecting their hundreds of billions of US dollars. The hidden outcome of the Apple v. Samsung ruling is that people that were already dubious about Apple as a company, but bought Apple products anyways, will now look elsewhere.


Unknown said…
Good entry but I don't the the comparison to the fashion industry is valid. The amount spent on R&D for a technology product must be astronomical compared to R&D for a clothing design. French cuffs vs. Pinch to zoom. You do the math. Thus why it makes sense for the fashion industry to not have patents.
Unknown said…
Type: Good entry but I don't think the comparison*...

Popular posts from this blog

Outdated! Charter Cable Box UI

When I was living with my old roommates, we used Direct TV and Time Warner Cable to satisfy our TV cravings. While I hated, hate, and will always hate Direct TV for their barbaric two year contracts, I give them credit for having a neat looking user interface (UI). But because of their two year contract and lies, we cancelled. We paid about $400 dollars to get Direct TV's grubby paws out of our living room. At that point, it wasn't about the money, it was about principles. And so a happier relationship was started with Time Warner Cable. Though a lot of things were better with Time Warner Cable, I couldn't help but notice their cable boxes' UI was "fugly". Little did I know... Recently, I've moved away from the parents  old roommates. The new area I'm in is serviced by Charter Cable. I was shocked by the UI of the Charter cable boxes.  See picture below: The UI of the Charter cable box made Time Warner Cable's UI look like it was from the year

The Death of the Paper Receipt

Yesterday, I was surprised by the use of an "old" technology, the e-mail, used in a new way. This started when I accompanied my wife to Macy's so that she could get some Origins lotion. Why women have to shop is beyond me, why women have to buy expensive lotion is also beyond me. Men, just know that is how they are, you can only hope to contain their appetite to shop, good luck! It is funny how they always "need" something. Makes you wonder if women understand the meaning of the word "need"... Either way, I love my wife. Anyways, back to the expensive lotion. After doing some asking at the Origins section of Macy's, my wife has the lotion she wants, Ginger Souffle. We take the lotion to the counter to pay. After I hand the young lady helping us at the counter my credit card, she asks me if I want a paper receipt or an electronic receipt. I am confused. I have never been given this option before. I ponder, "Well a paper receipt is nice,

The Revival of the Bluetooth Earpiece?

Let us get two things clear, I am not working on Wall Street and I am not a "douchebag", but I have a Bluetooth earpiece. Do Wall Street people even wear a Bluetooth earpiece? Anyways, while not as popular as in years past, I do believe there is value in these earpieces. I recently got a Plantronics Bluetooth earpiece for $30 at Costco. And by "I got it" that means that I accompanied my dad to Costco and threw the Bluetooth earpiece in the cart. And since I do not have a Costco membership, pops had to pay to for it. Thanks dad. After using the earpiece for 7 days, I firmly believe more people should be using Bluetooth earpieces. The main reason I got the earpiece was to drive and talk on the phone with a peace of mind. With a Bluetooth earpiece you are able to easily answer a call while driving. Making a call is a little tougher because it depends on how good your phone picks up your voice, but it is still better than using the speaker function on your phone o