What the Apple v. Samsung Verdict Means for Innovation

This past week, almost everyone in the tech world has been paying close attention to the Apple v. Samsung case. In the proceedings, Apple contended that Samsung willingly and knowingly copied Apple's technology and design. Samsung alleged that Apple's designs are obvious and that you can't patent a rectangle. The case has been very high-profile and has alternated between the mundane and fascinating.

Now that the verdict has been handed down, with Samsung ordered to pay a little over $1 billion in damages to Apple, it's interesting to look at what this verdict means to other tech companies. Was this case about a technology giant trying to make sure that no one else gets a market share? Will it help or hurt technological innovation in the future? A recent article from Fast Company examines the repercussions of the ruling on innovation, and also provides a rundown of what happened. Here's a summary:

Apple contended that Samsung copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. Apple's reasoning was that prior to the original iPhone launch, the products that Samsung had to offer were not ground-breaking. For example, Samsung even went so far as to use a larger, 30-pin charger that looked an awful lot like Apple's traditional iPod charger. In products offered after the iPhone, Samsung adopted reminiscent sleek designs, multi-touch interfaces and other glaringly similar features in recent products, and Apple felt that many of the upgrades came from deliberate copying of Apple products.

Samsung argued that it had been working on introducing a tablet long before Apple released the iPad. A main point of Samsung's argument was that Apple's sleek design is simply a rectangle, a basic shape that can't be patented. Samsung also argued that many of the patents that Apple holds are subject to Fair Use. The contention was that Apple was abusing its smartphone and tablet patents, an act that only serves to stifle innovation and prevent other tech companies from making competitive mobile devices.

It's easy to see both sides of the argument. Samsung wants to create devices that are competitive, and to do so, Samsung believes it must tread on the same ground as Apple. Apple's innovative iPhone changed the game. Before the iPhone, the idea of a touch-screen device with a natural user interface was unheard of. We were stuck in the world of flip-phones and Palm Pilots. However, with the iPhone, Apple ushered in a new era of mobile communication. As the market leader, Apple shouldn't lose the rights to the products and technology it created, nor should it look the other way when other companies copy its designs. 

So, will the verdict stifle innovation? Personally, I don't think so and neither do the people at Fast Company. Samsung will be challenged to create new products that steer clear of Apple's design. This means that in order to stay relevant, the company will have to innovate like never before. Just because Apple is the clear market leader doesn't mean that there aren't better ways to design products. In my opinion, it would awesome to have great smartphone options that aren't iPhones or Android phones that resemble iPhones.

As for the impact this will have on Apple, it's very likely that Apple will do what it always has done and will make a point to separate its products from the other smartphones on the market. When you think about it, Apple has always been about innovation. With its revolutionary iPods, iMacs and iBooks, Apple has been great at designing products that seem like waves of the future. 

Of course, it's certain that the verdict will be appealed and both companies will have the chance to fight it out all over again. However, this landmark ruling will set the stage for an increase of innovation and design for all cell phone manufacturers, not just Samsung.

What do you think about the verdict? Do you think that the judge got it wrong? Why or why not? Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Image courtesy of twobee / freedigitalphotos.net