Unless you’ve been living under a stone, someone will have shoved an opinion about the Apple vs Samsung case in your face and, depending on what they have in their pocket, it will be one of two things. Apple are evil. Their stuff is obvious stuff. They’re a bully and I will never allow another … Continue reading “Samsung vs Apple is good for the consumer.”
Unless you’ve been living under a stone, someone will have shoved an opinion about the Apple vs Samsung case in your face and, depending on what they have in their pocket, it will be one of two things.
Apple are evil. Their stuff is obvious stuff. They’re a bully and I will never allow another Apple product into my house even if they are a better and cheaper product. Samsung were justified in defending theemselves and it’s only a matter of time before some of Apple’s redundant patents are rendered non-valid by the USPTO. A billion dollars isn’t a lot to Samsung who have made ten times that in mobile devices.
Apple were justified in suing. They invested in making stuff that was so “obvious” once it was invented that everyone just nods when they see it. They get it immediately. Samsung didn’t just copy Apple, they knew they were copying, they were trying to copy. And because they did it deliberately, they probably haven’t paid enough. A billion dollars isn’t a lot to Samsung who have made ten times that in mobile devices.
Samsung came out with this statement:
Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.
My comment on this?
Stopping companies from copying others actually should lead to more choice in the industry, more innovation in the industry and, yes, because someone will need to engender that innovation, higher prices. Essentially they’re admitting they copied the iPhone and they’re proud of it. I can’t help if this is a culture clash compounded by extreme capitalism.
Consumers do have the right to choose – they’re not entitled to choices. And if they want an iPhone or an “almost-iPhone” then they should be able to make a choice. Too often, however, choices are foisted on consumers as a result of sales commission drivers or just plain dishonesty. The latter is responsible for the success of Samsungs copies in my opinion.
The Galaxy S3 proves that Samsung didn’t need to copy. It proves they can make great hardware. It proves that there is more than one way to make a smartphone. We should be glad, as consumers, that Samsung is ending their regime of slavishly copying the work of others. And I imagine that if the Lumia 800 had been the smartphone of choice, Samsung would have copied that too.
This court case is not the end. This is just the beginning. We will see a series of appeals and counters where Samsung will try to defeat more of the patents and Apple will seek punitive damages. We will likely see other companies stepping into the fray and we will see Apple go after other companies who are slavishly copying them, bolstered by the win they have received. No, this is not the end of a case, this is the beginning of a tsunami of disruption that will ultimately benefit all of us as consumers.
We want choices. We don’t want clones of the same thing again and again. We want truly great products at competitive prices. That’s the heart of this court case. This is absolutely about choices.