Samsung’s patent trial loss to Apple has a silver lining for the industry

A court in the US awarded almost a blanket victory to Apple against Samsung in what has been hailed as the patent battle of the century. The verdict, which could still be overruled (but unlikely), awards Apple slightly over $1 billion and more importantly a precedent with which it could gun for other vendors. The iPhone maker is already embroiled in patent-related litigation with Motorola and HTC. While the verdict is US-specific and does not hamper sales of Samsung products found infringing Apple patents in other countries, it will severely impact the smartphone industry.
Let’s take a look at some of the patents Samsung is found infringing in some of its products. Patent D ’381 defines the rubber-band effect when the screen jumps if the user reaches the end of a list. Patent D ’951 defines how a device differentiates between a single-touch scroll operation and a multi-touch pinch-to-zoom gesture. Then there is the D ’163 patent that defines the multi-tap to zoom operation in web pages, documents and photographs. Apple also has patent D ’305 that patents a grid rounded square icons on a black background. The functions in question are today used across all smartphones and this verdict will be a record that Apple has invented them and it is not an industry standard, yet.
These are all software-related items that can still be tweaked for devices that will retail in the US and won’t affect those being sold elsewhere in the short-term. However, in the long-run, Google will have to overhaul its Android operating system and look for alternative solutions. Android device vendors cannot live under the constant threat of being sued by Apple, which would have a precedence if the judge does not overrule the verdict. On top of the threat of being sued, Microsoft already charges royalties from almost every major Android device vendor. These vendors could be tempted to opt for Windows Phone 8 platform, which has steered clear of most of the patents in question.
Then come the hardware-related patents D ’667 and D ’087, which patent the face and the ornamental design of the iPhone. Most of Samsung smartphones in question have been found infringing these patents. Unlike software that can be tweaked after the product has been manufactured or even after it has been sold, the same cannot be done for hardware. Samsung was sued first because it was Apple’s closest competitor and the dominant Android smartphone maker. Apple will now gun for the likes of HTC and LG, which have similar looking products. Handset vendors will now have to ensure their products look visibly different from the iPhone. They will have to invest more resources in their hardware business, a cost that will invariably be passed to consumers.
Yes, smartphones might become expensive to buy. Yes, companies would crib about America’s “flawed” patent system that allows Apple to “patent a rectangle with round corners.” But this would also ensure that handset vendors will go back to their drawing boards and innovate rather than do generational hardware updates and offer what’s conceived to be popular design and user interface. Yes, they will have to take risks that might or might not be successful but that is what they are supposed to do in the first place in a competitive market.
And for all we know, the elusive Apple killer might eventually rise from the ashes of this historic verdict.