'Apple vs Samsung Patent Battle a Threat to Innovation\r'

'APPLE VS SAMSUNG PATENT employment A terror TO INNOVATION Rather than pi wizarder and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung dah for its Smartphone product and computer tablets, Samsung choose to facsimile Apples technology user interface and novelty style in these infringing products. Apple had accused Samsung of copy its intellect shoes, including its very broad design conspicuouss for rectangular â€Å"electronic devices. And Apple wants to use those patents to stop its competitor from interchange items ilk the unsanded (rectangular) Galaxy tablet and (rectangular) Android-based Smartphones.On Aug. 24, a San Jose jury awarded Apple Inc. a whopping $1. 05 jillion in damages. Apple-Samsung jury: Verdict •The nine-person jury in the trial between the two tech-giants faces a wildly complex get to determine the winner. •SAN JOSE, Calif. — There is minor doubt that the trial between Apple and Samsung pickings place here is complex, and perha ps nowhere is that clearer than in the form that jurors will have to fill turn up(p) on their way to reaching a verdict later this week. The document, which both sides have yet to correspond on, is still in its draft stage. In Samsungs case, its 33 questions long, and stretched across 17 pages. For Apple, its 23 questions spread oer nine pages. •Both forms ask jurors to check complete which products infringe on specific patent claims, an process that includes going through charts that manytimes span some(prenominal) pages. On Apples form there are some 225 checkboxes regarding patent infringement. The new(prenominal) parts of the verdict form ask slightly more nebulous questions, like whether claims within the patents from both sides are valid, and the all-important dollar bill amount that one side or the other is owed as a result of any infringements. •On the bright side, certain patent stimulates are greyed out since non all products carry the identical feat ure set. That could be a welcome sight for the nine-person jury, who essential 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 expenditure of Samsung electronics dropped nearly 7. 5 %in trading THREAT TO INNOVATION •Industry has used copyright as a means of preventing innovation. Copyright was a consider weapon to stop innovation, and thus maintain the berth quo. The patent system is being used withal •Whether the patent system prevents people like them from get in the market with their inventions is unknown. They are more than likely to persist go awaying because they are optimists chasing a dream of comprehend their invention realised; of being rich, or honorable creating something that serves a purpose. •The barriers to them achieving their goals for themselves and how they are shared to all essential be removed. That means renovating the current system to kick upstairs the opportunities for innovation. •It will require legislators with the will to change the rules and protocols in the face of opposition from vested interests. It is possible, but the motive whitethorn not originate from a wish to help oneself the corporation †like patents which were conceived to underwrite investments in innovation †but to serve the wider interests of society •”It will melt good deal to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices,” Samsung express in a written statement. • â€Å"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 mean solar day by Samsung and other companies. •Apple, meanwhile, praised the court for â€Å"sending a loud and clear message that stealing isnt right. ” This highlig hts a central issue in todays innovation-based economy. •Intellectual property law is based on the notion that write is bad for creativity. It is normally cheaper to copy something than create something totally 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 great amount of innovation.Rules against copying are sometimes necessary. only if in many cases, they serve to slow down innovation. Copying, in short, is often central to creativity. •How can copying be beneficial? Because it can enable as well as inhibit innovation. When we think of innovation, we usually picture a lonely genius grind away until he or she finally has an â€Å"aha! ” moment. •In fact, innovation is often an incremental, collective and competitive process. And the talent to build on existing creative work †to tweak and refine it †is cr itical to the creation of new and better things. Copying can also claim the process of invention, as competitors strive to stay ahead. AFFECTS ON CONSUMER •Consumers are the real loser in this verdict. •Consumers do not get Samsung accused products in U. S market. •Consumer confusion between products and functions. •Now consumer may not get better existing products for lower prices. crease LESSONS FROM APPLE VS SAMSUNG •INSPIRATION NOT IMITATION. •DELIGHT LEADS TO excogitation AND NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND. •DONT MIMIC business sector DNA. •WE ALL DO WRONG STUFF only IF YOU GET NOTICED AND WARNED BE SMART.\r\n'