Why shop at Apple if Samsung is the same?
Apple's $1 billion victory in court is not really a win, says Samsung. Their so-called victory will not only backfire but also curb innovation and consumer choices...
August 26, 2012 11:03 by Muhammad Aldalou
“Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer,” Samsung said in a statement released after the verdict against them was announced. “It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation and potentially higher prices.”
Over a year ago, even before the string of “generic” patent lawsuits were fired, Apple and Samsung were never really on friendly terms. Even if they intended to be as corporations or heads of industry, the general public made sure that the two giants locked horns at every turn. Their products have been matched up against each other more times than Kipp would care to remember.
But finally we witness, to the relief (and detriment) of many, the conclusion of the year-old legal mess as a jury in California ruled that Samsung did in fact infringe six of Apple’s patent designs. The Korean company has been ordered to pay over $1 billion and could possibly face a ban in the United States. Although accusations were thrown from both ends, after 3 days of jury deliberation, they agreed that Samsung did infringe certain features like the double-tap zoom.
However, what may feel like a closed chapter in this patent nightmare is merely a stepping stone. Apple’s victory is a temporary one and a battle is over but the war continues. Not only will this lawsuit, as Samsung pointed out, curb innovation and growth in the industry but other software and Smartphone makers could very well shiver at the idea of dealing with Android software again. It has also set a precedent for other legal challengers to file lawsuits based on extremely generic design matches.
Nevertheless, to Samsung’s advantage, Kipp did find a particular report on Mashable.com rather intriguing. It discusses a blog written by Enrique Gutierrez, Chief Technology Officer at Digithrive. He writes about how he, while sitting in a local Starbucks, had overheard many repetitive conversations between indignant Apple customers bent over an open newspaper. Angry to read the headlines that “Samsung is in fact like Apple” they all had unanimous feelings that their wallets were violated.
Here is a short excerpt from one of the conversations:
Husband: “… Samsung’s tablet is the same as Apple’s iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a rip-off.”
Wife: “Oh wow,” looking at the screen, “… that’s a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?”
The conclusion is that while Apple was busy trying to vigorously convince the courts that Samsung is like them, they may have made the fatal mistake of convincing the general public of the same; hence unveiling a possibly self-destructive truth. If Samsung is like Apple then what is stopping consumers from rushing to the equally good, and cheaper option?