Samsung v. Apple

-->

Engadget started their editorial with “It's done. It's all over. There's nothing left now but the tears, the big checks -- and the appeals.” As dramatic as this sounds, financially, creatively, and logically, this ruling is far from dramatic.

“The majority indicating that Samsung's implementation of various features like pinch-zooming and bounce-scrolling did indeed infringe on Apple's” (Engadget). Apple was awarded $1.05billion by the jury (Lowensohn).  Although $1.05 billion seems like an unreasonable debt, Samsung is raking in a “record $5.2 billion quarterly profit” (Waugh). This being said, in 3 months Samsung can pay their fee with just a little over 4 billion in change.

Creatively, this forces Samsung to step into uncharted territory. In fact, this could be quite the blessing in disguise.  Samsung will have to think of new ways for people to navigate their phones, and other devices.  Their forced turn might not only bring what Samsung needs, but might inspire a new breed of phones. As Tim Stevens worded the situation, “There's nothing like a limited set of tools to inspire creativity.”

From a logical standpoint, the media is going to ask us how this decision will affect the future. They will purpose rhetorical questions to birth drama: “Does this mean that every creative idea ever reused will lead to court?”…  “Does this mean that anything beside Apple will be sued for using Apps? The fact of the matter is that technology has surpassed the rights our forefathers had anticipated within the First Amendment.  However, our judicial system is at work. *See blog “Dear Technology…”* This case might lead to new copyright laws, and it might lead to a time were legality, and creativity are never separated, but to fear the change will not make it any more comfortable.  

Aside from the proceeding arguments, this case might be far from the end, anyway; “Late in the process…at the Apple v. Samsung Trial, when the parties and the judge were reviewing the jury verdict form, Samsung noticed that there were, indeed, inconsistencies in the jury's verdict form” (Jones-Groklaw).

Although, Engadget sees this as a dramatic end, I see this as a mere pothole in a 10,000+ year-long road.

 http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/25/editorial-engadget-on-the-apple-vs-samsung-ruling/

 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57501103-37/apple-targets-8-samsung-phones-for-sales-ban/

http://gizmodo.com/5938219/why-the-apple-v-samsung-ruling-may-not-hold-up

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2136166/Samsung-roars-record-5-2BN-profit-sells-20-000-Galaxy-handsets-hour--analyst-warns-Apple-fail-just-like-Sony.html