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.

Comments

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.
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 2020.…

Next Big Thing: Galaxy Note II

So while the suits in Motorola are chewing bubble gum, checking for updates on their Facebook page, and holding meetings, Samsung is preparing to host a big event on October 24, 2012. The Samsung event will be about their upcoming Galaxy Note II phone. Samsung is going to do what Motorola cannot do, they are going to give their formally announced product a release date.

The Samsung Galaxy Note II will be another monstrous phone much like the original Galaxy Note. The original Galaxy Note has a 5.5 inch display, the Galaxy Note II has a 5.55 inch display. For reference, all iPhones (except the iPhone 5) have a 3.5 inch display and most Android phones have between 4 to 4.8 inch display. Bottom line, the Galaxy Note line of phones is gigantic. The tech blogs refer to these phones as "phablets". The offspring of a phone and a tablet.

Yesterday, while at Costco on an errand to pick up some garlic french bread, my wife wandered over to the jewelry section. At the speed of light…

3-D Printing is Here

Several months ago, my sole daily reader, co-worker, and friend- Matthew- showed me a small green plastic airplane. The green plastic airplane was no bigger than three inches from nose to rudder. He told me that the airplane was created from a 3-D printer. At first, I did not believe him. But then I used some logic, if humans have fission energy, made it to the moon, and created iPhones, then why not 3-D printers? Never doubt the ingenuity of humans. If we can imagine something, it will be a possibility one day.
After my internal monologue, which happened in less than three seconds, I must have responded to Matthew with a calm, "Cool". And indeed the 3-D airplane was cool. Some weeks passed by, then Matthew brings me a 3-D printed barrel, pictured above. I begin to ask more questions about this printer. Apparently, the printer is custom made. The limitations of this printer are a length and width of a few inches, the height being more flexible. This particular printer only …