Sunday, September 2, 2012

Samsung vs. Apple: Controversy Behind the Verdict


            I, for one, had no idea that there was any court case between the world’s biggest tech companies Apple and Samsung. When I first heard about it, my initial response was “Oh, there must be an issue with one of Samsung’s phones. They’re obviously developing a phone that mirrors the iPhone. They’re gonna lose.” I guessed absolutely correctly, but what I was unaware of were the ramifications this could infringe on the world of technology.
            I can’t help but think that maybe this was a bad idea for Apple. I mean, it’s a definite loss for Samsung and Apple makes over one million dollars. How is this a bad idea, you ask? Think of it this way: Apple is a superior technological machine, right? And it has been rapidly advancing in this field as a “super-power”, right? If that’s the case, how are the rest of these tech companies supposed to sell their products if everything they accomplish is considered, essentially, “plagiarism”?
            I skimmed over the CNet article concerning this case, and I found something that caught my eye that has made me a bit skeptical about Apple. According to the article, Apple has banned 8 out of 28 Samsung products that “infringe” some specific patents that Apple holds. A few among them include Galaxy @ II 4G, Galaxy S II, Droid Charge, and Galaxy S II Epic 4G (to name a few, as noted). Now, to quote the article, Apple claims that this list “only address[es] a portion of the immediate, ongoing irreparable harm that Apple is suffering." What “irreparable harm” are they talking about!? I know, for a fact, that Apple has not been suffering from Samsung’s latest batch of devices. Market Watch has Apple ahead of Samsung in sales for the last 6 months! How is that “suffering”?
            Lastly, I would like to add that I read the EnGadget editorials about the verdict. I found the one written by Darren Murph most interesting. He starts off by making it clear that there was no way imaginable that Apple was going to lose this case. It’s clearly obvious, as I noted earlier. It’s visually clear that they are not the exact same, but there are similarities that would confuse to consumer to believe that they were. Murph emphasizes that, even though they are similar, the consumer is “supposedly” smart enough to understand that they are not the same phone (or tablet). He claims how “the notion that consumers could have been willfully deceived that an Android-based Samsung phone was an iPhone is pathetic”, and he’s right! We’re becoming a society that wants to pride itself based on the technology we use. Parents are letting their children get iPhones at an earlier age every year; Baby Boomers are taking classes to educate them more about computers; people will go to stores like Best Buy or Staples, and learn every little detail about a specific product just to understand what makes it tick. Basically what I’m trying to say is this: People know their shit.
            What struck me as the most interesting of Murph’s editorial was the last paragraph. He says: “In the end, consumers will lose. Companies high and low are scrapping potentially amazing product ideas right now for fear of legal retaliation.” Does this mean that if HTC develops a smartphone that has pinch-zoom, they have to scrap it? Yes it does, because that “action” belongs to Apple; it’s patented. And it’s not just Apple, but any company that holds a patent on “[insert obscure shape here]”. It’s sad because we (the consumers) are paying the price for these companies lack of creativity. I say that for the sake of technological advancement, let these companies steal the little things from these more superior companies. If they don’t act fast, I predict Apple holding a monopoly on cellphones and (if not already) tablets.

No comments:

Post a Comment