The Jedi Council (Google) is in a big trouble as the greedy Trade Federation (Apple) cornered a legion of Clone Army (Samsung) on a distant planet (California court). Little hope can the Jedi Council expect from another legion of Clones under their direct control (Motorola) that started a battle against the Federation force lately.
Okay, enough with Star Wars anologies. In short, Apple won; Samsung lost. As an Android fan, it is a bad news -- there is highly likely that Samsung would transfer that 1.2 Billion it needs to pay to Apple to consumers, i.e. us (yes, Samsung would appeal but if it lost the appeal case, it'd need to pay).
In my opinion, there are two main important factors that kills Samsung in this battle: (1) design patents violations are easier to sell than those of utility patents and (2) its own product strategy.
First, Apple was using design patents to claim damage from Samsung -- in technology geeks' terms, Samsung products are too similar (visually) to those of Apple, which was sadly true (as I'd explain in the second part). Samsung was using utility patents to claim damage from Apple -- in technology geeks' terms, Apple's engineers didn't do their maths, programming, invention etc but copied those of Samsung engineers, which is more or less true but sadly, hard to explain to non-geeks (the judges).
It is because to check whether two products are visually similar is as easy as judging the book by the cover. A simple look to each thing once (and a careful read of design patent document) is suffice to have a verdict. On the other hand, checking whether two products are using same technology is even harder than judging the book by reading it cover to cover. Even with the best will of the juries, they may sometimes (accidentally) overlooks some facts, perplex by the lawyers of either sides or simply confused by jargon -- lawyers are often famous to be very good at confusing the juries by technical jargon.
Sadly, Motorola is probably basing its case against Apple on other utility patents.
In short, even with the best will (which I believe the juries had), they could tell that Samsung's products are far too similar to that of Apple visually but they couldn't easily tell Apple's product is using the same technologies as documented in Samsung's patents (even if they are violating Samsung's patents). It is no one's fault but a failure of Samsung's court-room strategy.
Secondly, Samsung's products are actually too similar to that of Apple's (and violate Apple's design patents) sadly because of Samsung's product strategy. I'm no Samsung insider but my theory is that Samsung positioned itself to catch (a) those iPhone users, who are sick of iPhone's feature (or limitations) and migrate to other platforms and (b) those users, who want an iPhone-like-phone but can't afford one (including those users who like to be different from the crowd).
This makes sense as, a couple of years ago, iPhone and Android was siphoning off Windows phone's (pre Windows phone 7), Blackberry's and Nokia's market share (market share of the three losers platforms). It does not require a rocket scientist to realize that, someday, market share of those three would be depleted. Samsung simply positioned itself to steal market share from iPhone in addition to those three from the very start.
But how did it does? I realized that (after using two Samsung's phone for almost four years) Samsung tends to make iPhone users feel home on its products rather than making Android users feel home on its products by (a) cutting-off Android features and (b) making its products' look-n-feel similar to that of iPhone.
For example, its TouchWiz (I'd prefer the term TouchNWait) UI is scrolling horizontally in the App Drawer rather than Android's default vertically. TouchWiz (even on ICS) can't sort the apps by name (or by anything); the apps appear in the sequence users install them. Scrollable widgets is not available on Galaxy S2 (Gingerbread). That's UI design that makes its phones welcoming those jumping ship from Apple's iCraps.
Moreover, on the physical-design-wise, Google advised to have four touch sensitive buttons (Home, Search, Menu and Back) for pre-ICS phones and no buttons whatsoever on ICS onwards yet Samsung's phones (except the first two Galaxy models) always don a physical Home button located at the center below the screen and two touch sensitive buttons all to make iPhone users at home.
Wait, what's so important about that Home button? Well, for iPhone, that Home button is the SOS button -- if you don't know how to exit from an app, simply press that button and you are out. Android home button also does the same and hence Samsung placed in the center (not following other Android OEMs' trends).
In short, Samsung has made sure that its Galaxy phones can be used like one would use an iPhone. In other words, one can ignore all Android goodness and use Galaxy phones like using an iCraps.
In my opinion, Apple's victory may not be directly applicable to sue/threaten other Android manufactures as no other Android phones is designed to siphon off iPhone market share.
Logged on Doughnut I/O. U.E. 1345880348.
Okay, enough with Star Wars anologies. In short, Apple won; Samsung lost. As an Android fan, it is a bad news -- there is highly likely that Samsung would transfer that 1.2 Billion it needs to pay to Apple to consumers, i.e. us (yes, Samsung would appeal but if it lost the appeal case, it'd need to pay).
In my opinion, there are two main important factors that kills Samsung in this battle: (1) design patents violations are easier to sell than those of utility patents and (2) its own product strategy.
First, Apple was using design patents to claim damage from Samsung -- in technology geeks' terms, Samsung products are too similar (visually) to those of Apple, which was sadly true (as I'd explain in the second part). Samsung was using utility patents to claim damage from Apple -- in technology geeks' terms, Apple's engineers didn't do their maths, programming, invention etc but copied those of Samsung engineers, which is more or less true but sadly, hard to explain to non-geeks (the judges).
It is because to check whether two products are visually similar is as easy as judging the book by the cover. A simple look to each thing once (and a careful read of design patent document) is suffice to have a verdict. On the other hand, checking whether two products are using same technology is even harder than judging the book by reading it cover to cover. Even with the best will of the juries, they may sometimes (accidentally) overlooks some facts, perplex by the lawyers of either sides or simply confused by jargon -- lawyers are often famous to be very good at confusing the juries by technical jargon.
Sadly, Motorola is probably basing its case against Apple on other utility patents.
In short, even with the best will (which I believe the juries had), they could tell that Samsung's products are far too similar to that of Apple visually but they couldn't easily tell Apple's product is using the same technologies as documented in Samsung's patents (even if they are violating Samsung's patents). It is no one's fault but a failure of Samsung's court-room strategy.
Secondly, Samsung's products are actually too similar to that of Apple's (and violate Apple's design patents) sadly because of Samsung's product strategy. I'm no Samsung insider but my theory is that Samsung positioned itself to catch (a) those iPhone users, who are sick of iPhone's feature (or limitations) and migrate to other platforms and (b) those users, who want an iPhone-like-phone but can't afford one (including those users who like to be different from the crowd).
This makes sense as, a couple of years ago, iPhone and Android was siphoning off Windows phone's (pre Windows phone 7), Blackberry's and Nokia's market share (market share of the three losers platforms). It does not require a rocket scientist to realize that, someday, market share of those three would be depleted. Samsung simply positioned itself to steal market share from iPhone in addition to those three from the very start.
But how did it does? I realized that (after using two Samsung's phone for almost four years) Samsung tends to make iPhone users feel home on its products rather than making Android users feel home on its products by (a) cutting-off Android features and (b) making its products' look-n-feel similar to that of iPhone.
For example, its TouchWiz (I'd prefer the term TouchNWait) UI is scrolling horizontally in the App Drawer rather than Android's default vertically. TouchWiz (even on ICS) can't sort the apps by name (or by anything); the apps appear in the sequence users install them. Scrollable widgets is not available on Galaxy S2 (Gingerbread). That's UI design that makes its phones welcoming those jumping ship from Apple's iCraps.
Moreover, on the physical-design-wise, Google advised to have four touch sensitive buttons (Home, Search, Menu and Back) for pre-ICS phones and no buttons whatsoever on ICS onwards yet Samsung's phones (except the first two Galaxy models) always don a physical Home button located at the center below the screen and two touch sensitive buttons all to make iPhone users at home.
Wait, what's so important about that Home button? Well, for iPhone, that Home button is the SOS button -- if you don't know how to exit from an app, simply press that button and you are out. Android home button also does the same and hence Samsung placed in the center (not following other Android OEMs' trends).
In short, Samsung has made sure that its Galaxy phones can be used like one would use an iPhone. In other words, one can ignore all Android goodness and use Galaxy phones like using an iCraps.
In my opinion, Apple's victory may not be directly applicable to sue/threaten other Android manufactures as no other Android phones is designed to siphon off iPhone market share.
Logged on Doughnut I/O. U.E. 1345880348.
Comments
Post a Comment