Originally Posted by jragosta
Originally Posted by simpleankit
Great Victory for Apple , not because of damage award surely. 1 billion dollar is 15 days of Samsung's profit (or 22 days of Samsung Mobile division profit) or 8 days of Apple's. However large it may seem (unless it gets tripled, in which case it would one and half month of Samsung;s profit), it is still a slap on the wrist, probably a tighter one.
Samsung played their game, took calculated risks, and are now the most profitable handset manufacturer after Apple, their mobile division seems set to earn more than 15 billion dollar alone current year. In larger context it appears best investment they made. Spending a billion dollar and securing tens of billions of dollars of profit each year. And now they can safely move away from Apple designs ( like S3) and still be profitable. They have earned mind share and stature enough to reap in gold aleast for few years even without any breakthrough designs and products.
And that's exactly the injustice of the entire process.
Samsung came from no where to the #1 smart phone manufacturer in the world and are making billions in profits with their blatant copying being a large part of the reason for their success. As you mentioned, they have now built a position where they can stop making knock-offs (and as I've pointed out for weeks, the S3 shows that they're capable of making something that's not a slavish copy). Not only do they get to keep 95% of the ill-gotten profits, but they've now created a market position that will allow them to make many billions more in the future without being sued.
The judgment should have been at least 10 times as large.
You may be right... but the judicial system can't rule on anticipated or future issues... only actual past issues.
You, also, may be right that the S3 shows that Sammy can make something that is different enough from the current phones as not to be a slavish copy.
You are right that Sammy has gained market position, profits (and economies of scale).
So, Sammy is in an excellent position going forward -- some might say "sitting in the catbird seat".
Even more remarkable, Sammy has gained this position by copying Apple (and others) and creating or inventing little, or nothing, itself -- saving precious time and dollars in the process.
But, now the rules have changed... Sammy can't copy without fear of rapid injunctive relief on any new "copy". Sammy must, at least, spend the time and dollars to come up with a "non-slavish" copy of any incremental improvements by the competition.
But, what will happen when the next disruptive device (like the iPhone or iPad) arrives from Apple or some other competitor?
- likely, it will not come from Sammy -- as creative [disruptive] invention is not in their DNA
- Sammy will not be able to rapidly bring to market a "non-slavish" copy
- if Sammy copies as in the past, the victim will, likely, get immediate injunctive relief
So, here Sammy sits with all this market capability and manufacturing capacity -- with nothing to use them for... they can only continue marketing and manufacturing today'a "non-slavish" copies.
For an entity that grows powerful by copying or stealing -- what happens when there is nothing left to copy or steal (or no practical way to do so)?
This may seem a little idealistic, but I believe that within the seeds of the success of companies like Sammy and Googy -- lies the seeds of their destruction, comeuppance, or at the very least the limit of their future growth.
Some of the reasons I am long on AAPL is that they are ethical, focused, creative and driven by excellence. They will not release a garbage product and are not afraid to disrupt their own successes.