What Apple really won from the landmark patent trial

Anyone, arguably even someone who is partially blind can see that Samsung's mobile and tablet products bear a striking resemblance to Apple's. So Friday's verdict of the landmark, billion dollar patent trial should have come as no surprise; Apple walked away with $1.05 billion. While this billion is great, it is chump chain to Apple who is worth over $650 billion. So if the money isn't such a huge gain for Apple, what is?

What Apple really won is the global branding and product war. With the verdict, Samsung's success can now legally be attributed to their illegal infringement on Apple's products. Apple's highly anticipated iPhone 5 is expected to arrive in September, and there is a high level of certainty that it will very similar to Samsung's flagship phone, the Galaxy SIII. Holding the most current phone models side by side, the most distinct difference is the size of the devices: the iPhone 4S has a screen of 3.5 inches, while Samsung's Galaxy SIII boasts a 4.8 inch screen. Although the iPhone 5's design is shrouded with secrecy, the one physical feature that is as sure of a bet as the sunrise in the morning is that it will have a larger screen making these phones resemble each other more than they already do now. Instead of being labeled as copying the Samsung Galaxy SIII, Apple's iPhone 5 will be viewed as a natural progression of its product line and keep Apple's track record of innovation intact.

Samsung should have listened to their friends at Google who warned them that their products looked too much like Apple's. “Google is demanding distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3 (the original 10-inch Galaxy Tab),” an email written by Samsung on Feb. 22, 2010 said, following a meeting with Google. “Since it is too similar to Apple, make it noticeably different, starting with the front side. Please give it a lot of thought, particularly to landscape orientation,” another email from Samsung designer Cho told his team, following the Google meeting.


Source : examiner[dot]com

0 comments:

Post a Comment