In early 2008, shortly before the iPhone SDK launch, I met a gentleman with a very big mouth. He boasted obnoxiously for some time until someone mentioned buying an iPod touch. This guy subsequently warned the entire room not to buy, because new models were coming soon. He knew this, he said, because his job involved managing the flash memory supply for iPods and iPhones, and recent capacity orders suggested the model line was about to change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He worked at Samsung.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s clear to me that over the last five years or so, Samsung has built not only a multibillion-dollar business, but a corporate culture around having Apple\u2019s number. The partnership has had irreversible conscious and subconscious effects on the way Samsung\u2019s product divisions think and do business. The proof is on the store shelves. It\u2019s sickening.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But is it illegal?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That\u2019s the question we must ask ourselves as Apple v. Samsung heads to the jury. The trial\u2019s drama has distracted from what I see as its real long-term implications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I must say I believe Samsung\u2019s defense has been terribly flawed. Apple has argued that Samsung illegitimately profited off of Apple inventions. Rather than \u201cWe took inspiration<\/em>, but here\u2019s why that isn\u2019t infringement<\/em>,\u201d Samsung\u2019s rebuttal seems to have been \u201cThese are our own inventions.\u201d I don\u2019t see any reasonable jury believing that for a second, but depending on Judge Lucy Koh\u2019s instructions, they may not hold it against Samsung either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the topic of damages,\u00a0Charles Ar<\/a>t<\/a>hur writes for the Guardian<\/a>\u00a0that when rebutting Apple\u2019s $2+ billion figure:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Samsung argued that Apple, which was struggling to keep up with demand for the iPhone 4 from July to October of 2010, did not have the capacity to have delivered on those additional sales. \u201cApple couldn\u2019t service its own customers with the iPhone 4, but it could service customers it didn\u2019t have?\u201d Samsung attorney Bill Price asked\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This took my breath away. Here\u2019s an opportunity to say \u201cThese people chose to buy Samsung instead of Apple. We are clearly bringing something to the table,\u201d but instead, Price concedes \u201cThese people settled for Samsung because they couldn\u2019t have found an iPhone anyway.\u201d (Samsung may well know this for a fact because it\u2019s supplying many of the components Apple needs to satisfy customer demand; see \u201chaving Apple\u2019s number\u201d above.) It was extremely shortsighted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The stakes in this trial are enormous. If Samsung is vindicated, it will embolden competitors everywhere to aggressively mimic the iOS experience. That would be immeasurably bad (and familiar<\/a>) news for Apple. \u00a0If Apple wins, the damages check will be the least of Samsung\u2019s problems, and Apple will itself be emboldened to further press its rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most importantly, this case brings the ever-brewing controversy of software patents further into the spotlight.\u00a0Apple\u2019s case is far from patent trolling, but I do worry about the precedent it could set. If a verdict is reached,\u00a0lawyers and judges across the country will surely look back to this case repeatedly during their own. In closing arguments,\u00a0Apple attorney\u00a0Harold McElhinny\u00a0told the jury<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you find for Apple in this case, you will have re-affirmed the American patent system.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n