I wanted mainly to comment an article I found during this trial on the Harvard Business Review website. Indeed, I really liked the point it was making.
We can all agree that Apple has inspired most of smartphones manufacturers since the launch of the first Iphone. When most of smartphone was operated with keyboards, now about 90 % of them have tactile screen, have a system including applications to download.
Now, does this imply the competitors have copied Apple? In some way, of course, the original idea comes from Apple, but having invented a cool tactile phone should not prevent anyone to be able to improve this idea. Most of the time, great innovations are built on existing one. The problem with the outcome of this trial, is that intellectual property patents have gone too far: for a good competition, and in order to emulate innovation thanks to competition, Samsung should not be considered as a copycat. Actually, because they have brought both innovation and competition, they have contributed as much as Apple to the growth of the cell phone market.
Let's also think about it, if Samsung needs to stop its tactile screen phone activities, who would be left in the market? Apple would probably be dominating the market and then they could be considered in a monopolistic position.
Because Samsung is in the market Apple needs to keep on innovating, and it is because of competition, even though companies dislike that, that innovation comes through.
I remember once one of my teacher in Dauphine telling me that companies dislike competitions. Of course they don't because it is costly to fight with others. But if there is no competition, one company has actually no much reasons to satisfy customers or to seek for innovation.
That is the reason why, I am not quite happy about the trial outcomes.
What do you think about it.