The way I see it this verdict was effectively a make-up call. There was no clear way for Apple to take legal action against Samsung for copying their device, so they found a legal loophole to enable them to do so. While most of us would agree the patents Apple were granted are common sense patents, most of us would also agree that Samsung blatantly copied Apple's design and UX. I think this was an important win because it brings to light two major issues with our patent system: 1. What kinds of things should be granted software/UX patents? 2. How can we create rules that protect companies like Apple who invest in innovation?
> 2. How can we create rules that protect companies like Apple who invest in innovation?
Why exactly does the biggest company in the industry need to be "protected"?
Making fashionable-looking hardware and putting together some obvious and old ideas (eg., pinch to zoom) is not the same as "investing in innovation".
Apple is the perfect example of how what matters is execution, they are successful because they execute better than their competition, and executing better than your competition is already its own reward.
"Why exactly does the biggest company in the industry need to be "protected"? Making fashionable-looking hardware and putting together some obvious and old ideas (eg., pinch to zoom) is not the same as 'investing in innovation'"
I read comments like this, and all my brain sees is: "WAAAH!"
Companies don't give up their rights to legal protection once they get to a size that the internet thinks is "too big". And that's a great thing -- it's how small companies become large companies without being killed by nasty parasites who do nothing but copy good products to eat away at profit margins.
As for the argument that Apple didn't do anything innovative: take a walk, please. Unless you're too young to remember the world of cellphones in 2007, you can't make a reasonable claim that there was no innovation in what they did with the iPhone. Lots of people want to post hoc rationalize the fact that the market has been flooded with iPhone-esque devices by calling it "innovation" (as if lower prices were somehow innovative). But I was there, and I remember the phone I had before I had an iPhone: It flipped open. It had a keyboard. It barely fit in my pocket, and had a tiny, low-resolution screen. I had to buy an expensive, custom headphone to listen to music.
Rationalize whatever you like, but Apple revolutionized the cellphone market, and they deserve the spoils of their risk-taking. If this is how they do that within the confines of the current legal system, so be it. They deserve to win.
1. Big companies should be less well protected, or there may be a monopoly. Intel is innovative, but it has to tolerate AMD using its instruction set. Big companies is much more dangerous than small ones, you don't want them to dominate your life.
2. Apple may be innovative, but it should try and be more innovative. The patent system is to encourage people to innovate more, by protecting their innovation. The protection is the means, not the ends. If Apple cannot innovate any more, why protect it? It's not like Apple will die tomorrow if not protected.
I'm really tired of people calling Apple an innovative company. Apple is a company that polishes existing ideas to a point beyond most other companies, and they are damn good at this. Apple is also routinely rewarded for their skills by being the first to introduce a product in category X that is truly enjoyable to use. Is that not good enough?
As I understand it, the patent system was designed to protect individual inventors and researchers from companies like Apple, who excel at mass-production and marketing. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.
You are wrong. What Apple does is rare and difficult and it takes courage, skill and taste. What Apple does lift the society and makes the world better, and the intellectual property system should protect this kind of enterprise. The patent system is grossly outdated and sometimes very wrong I'll admit, at the same time a company like Apple has to use something to legally protect themselves from being blatantly imitated, unfortunately now Apple can only go to war wielding patents. But as a Chinese seeing the cesspool that is Chinese tech industry, I strongly oppose letting mafia companies such as Samsung (or a Chinese example, Huawei) reign freely. That would be a lost for us all.
