Government // Mobile & Wireless
Commentary
7/30/2012
02:26 PM
Patrick Houston
Patrick Houston
Commentary
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy

Both companies deserve our wrath as their patent trial gets under way. Why? They're propagating an intellectual property war with immense collateral damage.

Even though their federal courtroom battle is likely to continue for the next four weeks, the patent dispute between Samsung and Apple already has a loser. Three of them, in fact--you, your company, and our economy.

While they're both world-class companies, in this situation I'm booing both. Reason for my wrath: By asserting broad and specious claims over things like the look and feel of smartphones and tablets or the ability to take and send a photo--two of the central claims in the case--these two tech titans are taking advantage of the same egregious weaknesses in patent law that have resulted in an escalating intellectual property (IP) war.

It's one that's causing an immense amount of collateral damage: Its direct costs are sapping promising young companies and R&D budgets. It's frustrating the forces of innovation that are vital to economic renewal. And if that's not enough, it's also consolidating more power in the hands of a few companies already uncomfortably close to market domination in mobile--namely Apple and Google, with Microsoft and Amazon not far behind.

For a decade now, smart people have been clambering about the dangers of a patent system run amok, especially as a growing phalanx of "patent trolls" snaps up patents just to assert them for the sake of settlements and damages. One of the most clear-headed is James Bessen, an economist and Boston University law school lecturer who teamed up with colleague Michael Meurer to identify, analyze, and quantify the impacts of the IP wars.

[ Learn more. Read Apple Vs. Samsung Trial: What's At Stake. ]

In a paper they published in June, they reported these astonishing findings:

-- A total of 2,150 companies had to defend themselves 5,842 times against patent suits in 2011 alone--an amount of litigation that represents "a wholly unprecedented scale and scope."

-- Those claims accounted for $29 billion in direct costs--outside legal fees, damages, and settlement amount. And, oh yeah, it doesn't include indirect costs, like the time and resources it takes a company to defend itself and the price of product delays and market share losses.

-- The amount represents a nearly 10% hunk of the $250 billion devoted by all U.S. business to R&D. Much of the burden has fallen disproportionally on small businesses: The defendants in that universe had median revenue of just $10.8 million.

Are you getting as legitimately angry as I am yet?

Bessen discussed the causes of this outrage with me. When I asked him what created this mess, he put it succinctly enough: "In two words," he said, "the answer is fuzzy boundaries."

Global CIO
Global CIOs: A Site Just For You
Visit InformationWeek's Global CIO -- our online community and information resource for CIOs operating in the global economy.
It's easy to claim ownership for real property. Not so much when it involves an abstract idea or invention. It's especially tricky when it comes to software. For one thing, the U.S. Patent Office has shown a penchant for approving patents with vague and sweeping claims--doozies like "information manufacturing machinery" and "commodities on a network."

And things get even fuzzier when a patent is for a product used by millions, not just by one person reinforcing an ownership claim by living in a house built on a suburban plot.

And it doesn't help that more than 200,000 software patents alone have been filed since the 1990s. If you want to do the right thing by creating an e-commerce product that doesn't infringe on someone else's claim, you may have to slog through as many as 5,000 possibly related patents. Want to advertise, charge, or ship your product? Prepare to sift through more than double that many.

No wonder so many companies have become innocent violators.

While the number of business victims is bad enough, it gets worse. The patent wars are starting to have a chilling effect on investment markets.

Consider this dispatch from Paul Deninger, a foot soldier in the IP war. His company, Evercore Partners, is an investment banking firm that advised AOL on its way to selling a $1.5 billion hunk of its patent portfolio to Microsoft and Facebook. At the recent AlwaysOn Silicon Valley Innovation Summit, he offered this anecdote: One of his clients is being required by a buyer to prove its patents are squeaky clean. They want ironclad assurances the seller not only owns its patents but that they don't infringe on anyone else's either--a herculean, and perhaps even impossible, test to meet.

The point: The growing risk of litigation is making it that much harder for companies to cash in on their blood, sweat, and tears by attracting investments from suitors, as in this case, but also from other sources of growth capital such as venture capitalists and public shareholders, too.

What's more, the IP war has spawned an ever more active market for patents themselves. Spurred by the riches yielded by the AOL deal and others, there are, according to Deninger, 150 such packages in play right now. Because they're worth so much, only a few big players are rich enough to buy them. And those few are snapping them up for a single purpose: They want to defend and extend their competitive advantage in mobile.

Thanks in part to the IP wars, we all face an even more likely prospect that the mobile market will become more and more "closed," forcing us to pay more for fewer options, as market analyst Mike Feibus suggested in his InformationWeek column.

Can you say anti-competitive?

So enough is enough. The patent wars are imposing what is, in effect, a whopping tax on investment and innovation--a tax, by the way, shared by all of us. Here's to hoping that Samsung and Apple deliver knockout blows to each other. That would be a small victory for the rest of us who are innocent bystanders in a self-defeating system badly in need of reform.

Patrick Houston is a former SVP for a new media startup, a GM at Yahoo, and editor-in-chief at CNET.com. He is co-founder of MediaArchitechs, which offers strategic product, content and business development consulting to technology-driven media companies. He can be reached at patrick.houston@mediaarchitechs.com.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
JuanDK
50%
50%
JuanDK,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/31/2012 | 1:17:11 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Hi Patrick,

Great article! I hope placing accountable values to a topic is generally touched under the ridiculousness of patenting common sense and linear engineering solutions is very helpful.

I also believe this trail could be an era-changing event, hopefully for the sake of innovation and development, rather than monopolistic legal persecutions.
I do believe protecting intellectual properties both both tangible and intangible products, but there must be global appraisal when something is innovation and something is just common sense for a solution. One should not be able patent common sense, or a company should be able to request to void a patent over items that hold back development and fair competitions over industries.

I think the first time I saw an iPhone was on StartTrek - TV series. Can they claim a design patent?

Or can someone sue the Patents and Trademark office for granting patents over too broad or common sense solutions?

Juan
Yakatan
50%
50%
Yakatan,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/2/2012 | 8:03:16 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Apple is going after Ford, Toyota, GM and Nissan next over their infringement on Apple's patent on the Wheel.
Samsung and Sony are getting a second round of patent infringement lawsuits, for their unauthorized use of Apple's patent on the concept of Television and Radio.
transvaluation
50%
50%
transvaluation,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/31/2012 | 1:42:13 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
First, Patrick Good article.

Second, you are correct the 'bottom feeders' who buy patents not to build products but to just make money have to be stopped.

Third, we need to distinguish between a bottom feeder (big companies can be this as well) and companies/people that make legitimate strides in research and development that need to protect their investments.

If someone comes up with a method of doing something different they need to be protected <period> Otherwise why would any company spend any money on R&D just to have it knocked off with no protection to the millions they just spent? Or the small guy who invented something and someone just takes his idea and runs, he's left in the wind.

The best solution is a variable protection time frame that has a variable renewal period based on the type of patent. i.e. give the inventor 2-3 years of patent protection for software with a 1-2 year renewal allowed 1 time. Hardware would be 3-5 years, etc.

Tech moves much faster than the original patent system could have ever imagined, it needs to be modernized to match Moore's Law.</period>
Rhonindk
50%
50%
Rhonindk,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/2/2012 | 1:52:38 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Nice thought but this still does not address the issue of patent definitions and patent office expertise (see my other post).

Take your proposal, assume that all of Apple's patents are legit and apply said reasoning. What would be the state of the smartphone market today?

It's 2012 and we would be back in 2007 era if we were really really lucky.
Yakatan
50%
50%
Yakatan,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/2/2012 | 8:08:43 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
2007? Try 1986...that is the year Apple will set things back to, given the chance. That company is owned and run by AIPAC 1 percenters, with a few moles, spies and peons sprinkled in to go around stealing ideas and designs from Google, Nokia, Motorola, Sony etc. It produces and designs absolutely nothing aside from the cute plastic box housing the iCrap...its only virtues are its access to the controlled media and a nasty pack of lying fraud artist shysters
ANON1252187963717
50%
50%
ANON1252187963717,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/31/2012 | 1:43:45 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
This article so off the mark, it's ridiculous. Total hogwash. Finally an American company is willing to stand up and do whatever it takes to stop Asian intellectual piracy, and knuckle-dragging American media take it as some sort of sport. Samsung uses mass Asian labor--aka sweat shops--to churn out poor quality copycat electronics like spewing out effuse. No one is able to stop this ripoff insanity, and so Samsung can continue with impunity. With Apple they've met their match, and Apple is willing to do anything to stop this economy based on brutal labor practices and brazen theft. Even seeing the name Samsung makes me sick, they're a despicable company worthy of global scorn.
lgarey@techweb.com
50%
50%
lgarey@techweb.com,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2012 | 2:46:07 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Apple produces its products in Asia as well; whether the term "sweatshop" applies to Foxconn is open to debate, but if you're damning Samsung based on manufacturing outside the U.S., you have to extend that to most electronics manufacturers. That's separate from the IP debate.
OracleOfReason
50%
50%
OracleOfReason,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/19/2013 | 5:29:57 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Yes it is open to debate and those of us who speak Chinese and have been there are the ones qualified to debate. And ANON is correct. There are miles of difference between these companies.

Samsung is holding back this market. If they were constrained from copying Apple, they might make an innovative product but they never will while they are simply copying or think increasing the megapixels of the camera is an "innovation."
akim917
50%
50%
akim917,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2012 | 10:44:42 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
There is no Iphone without Samsung's 3G. Apple has became no more than a marketing company for other company's technology.
OracleOfReason
50%
50%
OracleOfReason,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/19/2013 | 5:31:09 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
And there is no Galaxy without Apple's patents. But these lawsuits are not about standards essential patents.

"Apple has became no more than a marketing company for other company's technology." Might as well say the earth is flat. It makes as much sense.
rjohn81
50%
50%
rjohn81,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/31/2012 | 2:00:21 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
"It's easy to claim ownership for real property. Not so much when it involves an abstract idea or invention. It's especially tricky when it comes to software. For one thing, the U.S. Patent Office has shown a penchant for approving patents with vague and sweeping claims--doozies like "information manufacturing machinery" and "commodities on a network."

You can't blame entirely the patent office for this. Instead, you'll have to heap plenty of blame on lawmakers who wrote the laws and the courts who interpreted them. The patent office can only work with the tools its given.

For instance, the PTO used to reject most software claims under 35 USC 101. However, a controversial federal circuit ruling, State Street v. Signature Financial Group opened the door to many questionable patents including business method patents. The supreme court further had a chance to reign in software or abstract method patents with cases such as Bilski v. Kappos and Mayo v. Prometheus, but only expanded the power of 35 USC 101 slightly. Lawmakers had a chance to rein it in with the American Invents Act (patent reform act) of 2011, but didn't. If the courts tell the office that they cannot reject these patents based on current law, there's nothing the office can do but allow them.

"Vague" patents are another example of this. The patent office is given one tool: 35 U.S.C. 112, to reject claims based on definitiveness. However, the courts have also reigned in the power of 112, so now the office usually doesn't make a rejection under 112, second paragraph, unless the claim meets the threshold of being indefinite. The language you provided as an example might not meet that threshold.

Design patents are a whole different beast altogether, and aren't subjected to the same requirements as utility patents.

So while the patent office may shoulder some of the blame for a few bad patents that slip through the cracks, I would say most of the blame is rested with congress and the courts.
OracleOfReason
50%
50%
OracleOfReason,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/31/2012 | 3:55:57 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
I could not disagree more. The author of this article is unaware of the purpose of patent law. Patent law is meant to protect the public by rewarding innovation and insuring that the innovator continues.

In a court in Germany, Apple's lawyer held up a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and an iPad and the lawyers for Samsung we unable to distinguish the two. Best Buy has many reports of people returning the Galaxy Tab because they thought they were buying an iPad.

This article has many of the hallmarks of propaganda, Like this statement. "Are you getting as legitimately angry as I am yet?"

If your anger was "legitimate" you would not have to declare such legitimacy. Your anger is due to the fact that you don't understand patents and because you are equating Apple to a patent troll. Simply nonsense.

The answer to this is for the courts to start charging the costs to the losers, similar to how the Germans do. As well, the judges of the Eastern District of Texas need to be censured.

More than this, look at the statements in the comments. "The first time I saw an iPhone was on Star Trek." Like saying "The first time I saw a rocket ship was on "The day the Earth Stood Still." Nasa was copying makers of the film. Nonsense.

Tech articles should be based on knowledge and reason, not emotion and hyperbole.
aks12
50%
50%
aks12,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2012 | 8:18:56 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
it's absurd and ridiculous that while buying, people don't understand the difference in between IPAD and Galaxy.
Patent law's main motive should be to promote the innovation, competition, to save the interest of the company and nation. If the look n feel(until n unless it's difficult to tell the difference) are becoming the criteria for patent infringement then it's really sad.
Ideas & Solutions should not be subject to patent but the implementation can be.
Patent should be time bound.
OracleOfReason
50%
50%
OracleOfReason,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/19/2013 | 5:26:32 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
"it's absurd and ridiculous that while buying, people don't understand the difference in between IPAD and Galaxy"

Perhaps one should understand patents before they comment about them? Patents are "time bound" and they certainly do promote competitiveness by forcing people to come up with original ideas rather than be copy machines like Samsung or Goole with Android.
hlubinv8l
50%
50%
hlubinv8l,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/31/2012 | 4:39:10 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Yes, companies should give away their intellectual property. They should own nothing that they created themselves.

And you, comrade Patrick Houston, should also give away everything you own. ;-)
budanski
50%
50%
budanski,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/31/2012 | 5:49:22 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
I wonder if this article is copyrighted cause i'd like to post it everywhere but not take credit cause its nonsense...
Ampman
50%
50%
Ampman,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2012 | 7:44:52 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Any magazine article is by default copyrighted by the magazine. But you can post it anywhere as a quotation or excerpt with proper credit.
sonicmetalman
50%
50%
sonicmetalman,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/31/2012 | 5:52:56 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Patrick, I applaud your commentary so please ignore the ignorance of the obvious Apple fanboys or lawyers. The system HAS to change or consumers will feel the pinch. In the all-important "time to market" push the meaningless litigation just adds delays and kills bottom line for all parties.

Lawyers are getting rich though!
Ampman
50%
50%
Ampman,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2012 | 7:48:39 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
The US patent system is rigged to favor big corporations, as usual. SCOTUS even decided for People United. 'nuf said.
rogerthat
50%
50%
rogerthat,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/31/2012 | 7:45:33 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Samsung should be able to make phones that look just like Apple's. That way I can have a phone that looks just like an iPhone without paying iPhone prices. Of course, consumers would be damaged by Apple's failure to defend its intellectual property. I mean, who else would ever bother to come up with anything like an iPhone? Given that the device would immediately be copied. And cheaper knockoffs would soon dominate the market.
thisworld
50%
50%
thisworld,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2012 | 9:08:21 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
It is a bit strange that Apple is busy pursuing these frivolous lawsuits against Samsung as they are losing market shares all over the world to Samsung. Apple should really best get on with what they are supposed to do(ie: innovation and development) and let the world market decide on the merits of products by the two companies. After all, the world is big enough for more than one or even two big players in this regard.
thisworld
50%
50%
thisworld,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2012 | 9:13:25 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
When someone other than Americans(a 16 year old Chinese girl) breaks records, then she must be on drugs. When some other companies(an Asian one this time) aggressively market their products at the expense of American companies, then it must be because they(the Asian one) must be copying the American technology. I must tell you, this logic may work well still within the US, but outside of it, the world can see plainly how comical the whole thing is. Really. I am an European(no British) by the way.
ANON1243964961984
50%
50%
ANON1243964961984,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2012 | 3:54:17 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Patrick,

You're righ on the money! The disingenuous and specious arguments being made on both sides are nothing but anti-competitive and anti-progress. They disenchant me as a former customer of both companies. There is room enough for all to be sure. Phones need to connect to networks and take photos etc. and touch tablets need touch interfaces and reasonable form factors and all competitors will always strive to build more in less of a package. There are common physical/ergonomic/manufacturing limitations that all players must agree to abide by. In a sufficently complex technological society rooted in the same tech evolution, it is highly probable that the identical idea can originate within an overlapping time frame of a few months and in completely different places by completely different and independent people. As for the Tab 10.1 being indistinguishable from an iPad... what a joke! What about all the other 10" tabs like the ASUS, ACER, TOSHIBA etc. Those are all so close now as to be truly indistinguishable from the Samsung from more that a few feet of viewing distance... far more so than in comparison to an iPad.
Steve Jobs must be burning in hell now because he sure was intolerant and arrogant in life and his legacy lives on in these lawsuits. He could have been a great technological philanthopist but instead he chose to vent his wrath. As for Samsungs "fill the earth with redundant and disposable cell phones" approach, they won't even support their international products with a warranty. Try and get Samsung warranty service and support for something you purchased out ot country or online such as an unlocked international phone... forget it! Now if Apple and Samsung got together and truly cooperated... and truly listened to their customers... and supported them... then you'd see some amazing engineering and truly spectacular products!
ANON1252430315558
50%
50%
ANON1252430315558,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2012 | 9:26:48 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Sure forget the law, forget company's intellectual property rights. Let's just think what is best for you, me, and the rest of us that do not contribute anything to innovation.
PatrickH
50%
50%
PatrickH,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2012 | 10:20:02 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Oh for heaven's sake people, or those of you who didn't read the column analytically enough to at least make a comment that enhances the discussion: I never, ever said that companies should give up their intellectual property rights. C'mon. I mean, really? Just read the piece.

Of course legitimate inventions need the protection of law for the same reason that not anyone can come in, squat on your front yard and claim it for themselves.

The point is that that the patent protection system is seriously flawed, especially in an era when so much of what we invent is abstract and is software. And the system allows the fuzziest of abstractions to stand as legitimate.

Someone put it so well here. What if Tim Berners-Lee had claimed a patent on a hyperlink as a way to link anything to everything on a digital network?

Many infringement claims are outright specious. Apple and Samsung may indeed have some legitimate ones against each other. But it's naive to think that Apple isn't using the system's propensity to legitimize broad, fuzzy claims to keep a competitor at bay.

And there's real collateral damage in terms of real dollar costs as well as social ones.
espresso_luvr
50%
50%
espresso_luvr,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2012 | 11:04:41 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
i completely agree with TRANSVALUATION ... there HAS to be protection for the real idea creators, else we kill the economy and genuine innovation from another direction (piracy!) ... too may consumers have become addicts to the cheap products regardless of source or the method/ethics by which it was developed, but it should not come at the price of discouraging those brave and brilliant inventor types from investing the incredibly hard R&D work, time and resources to develop true breakthroughs ... companies should not be able to gain undue advantage over those that pay the price for invention by crass copy/imitation ...

i further agree with TRANSVALUATION that those protections need to be fair & balanced, such that they do not lock up the market/innovation either ... these are delicate matters and equity (balance) is difficult to achieve ... while the suggestions made seem reasonable enough, formalizing those will require far greater/deeper consideration than we can give here ... but if it can be proven that SAMSUNG engaged in copying rather than engaging in original research or paying royalties to the patent holders, then they should be taken to the cleaners ... and as far as argument goes, just because something similar was demonstrated previously in another discipline (e.g., photography) that "fact" holds no water either logically or legally if it was never patented ...
rhawkins982
50%
50%
rhawkins982,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/2/2012 | 12:02:34 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Good article. But surely the US Patent Office is atfault for alowing such broad concepts to be patentable.now that they have made the mess, surely they are responsible for a cleanup solution.
Rhonindk
50%
50%
Rhonindk,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/2/2012 | 1:48:11 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
Not entirely. They are pushed to process more patents faster than ever before (push from government and business) These patents are becoming increasingly legalistic to the point even an expert in the field will have difficulty defining them in black and white terms. Add to this the lack of expertise of the patent processors, the changing laws and law definitions as defined by trials and lawsuits.

A disaster in the making.... happening as we speak.
moarsauce123
50%
50%
moarsauce123,
User Rank: Ninja
8/3/2012 | 10:57:54 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
It is up to Congress to make the laws, not the patent office. And with the current Congress where one party says No to everything, even their own proposals, don't expect things to change.
I think that there is nothing wrong with patenting designs or software, but these patents need to run out within a few years. Design patents need to run out faster. I think a year on a design is good enough. That way it keeps companies innovating. That said, stuff like "rectangle with round edges" should not be patentable, especially since there is clearly prior art and the item to be patented is trivial.
mzahler554
50%
50%
mzahler554,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/2/2012 | 12:04:26 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
totally agree
beancube
50%
50%
beancube,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/2/2012 | 3:19:08 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
I tried to plug them together to copy but failed. They don't copy at all. How can we sue both them for not copying?
MFWills
50%
50%
MFWills,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/5/2012 | 1:56:29 AM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
I've been an Applephile from the beginning, but this is just sickening.
NiteOwl_OvO
50%
50%
NiteOwl_OvO,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/6/2012 | 3:49:48 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
The whole IP system needs to be scrapped. The IP system we have today is not what was intended. Lawmakers over the years have been plied by big business to pass IP laws that promote enduring monopolies and stifle competition. Patents should stand for only 2 years and not be renewable. Apple and Samsung both surely recovered their investments in the first 2 years. That should ease the burden and responsibility of the PTO. Allow patents for everything, but only for 2 years. Not worth fighting over in court.
DocB
50%
50%
DocB,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/3/2012 | 7:43:47 PM
re: Apple-Samsung Case Hurts You, Me, The Economy
This is the same basic argument as "too big to fail." Because Samsung figured it was easier and cheaper to skip the development cycle, and its costs, so they could push more into the marketing of their product and consequently sell a lot of product, and users found their lower prices attractive enough to buy their product, is no reason for Apple to be denied its fair profits. They made the investment, and they should be able to reap the rewards.

Just because a lot of people may be hurt along the way, is no reason for that to change. Samsung cheated, and got caught, and are getting punished. No one is saying that isn't the truth. They are giving a whole lot of ancillary potential problems as justification to let Samsung get away with their cheating. One of which is the cry that "innovation will suffer." Yet everyone knows that it has been Apple that has led innovation for decades. It has not been Samsung.

In the beginning, Apple couldn't afford to fight off the combine of Microsoft backed by IBM, and they lost heavily, and almost went out of business. It was a lesson Steve Jobs learned and one that haunted him right to the end. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, that he was determined not to let it happen again.

What's missing across the entire spectrum of business is simple ethics. If we stop rewarding innovators, instead of the copiers, innovation will surely stop. Why invest the creations of your mind, and push through all the negativity that innovators face, to develop a salable product if there is nothing at the end of the rainbow as a return for you. It's called ROI, and if somebody is stealing yours, wouldn't you fight? This time Apple could afford the fight, and I applaud their determination not to let it pass. Shame on Samsung and all of those who embrace these shoddy business practices.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Dec. 9, 2014
Apps will make or break the tablet as a work device, but don't shortchange critical factors related to hardware, security, peripherals, and integration.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
Join us for a roundup of the top stories on InformationWeek.com for the week of December 14, 2014. Be here for the show and for the incredible Friday Afternoon Conversation that runs beside the program.
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.